15 APRIL 2003

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

  4. Members Present: Robert Apke, Frederick Borden, Jane Huber,

    Marjorie Pollitt, James Squires, Robert Weidlich and Chairman Okum

    Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

    Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  7. Mrs. Huber said there were several errors. On Page 6, Mr. Coleman should read Mr. Borden, and Mr. Weidlich’s name was misspelled on the first page under Attendance.

    Mr. Squires moved to approve the amended Minutes and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Minutes were approved unanimously.

    1. Zoning Bulletin – March 10, 2003
    2. Zoning Bulletin – March 25, 2003

C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 11, 2003

    1. Report on Council Activities – Jim Squires

No Report

B. Report on Planning Commission – David Okum

Mr. Okum reported that Planning had their regular meeting last Tuesday evening and a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. this evening. Planning reviewed the Final PUD Development Plan for CVS and with a number of final adjustments it was approved unanimously. There was a Zone Map Amendment for 11311 East Kemper Road to change an Office Building (OB) Zoning to General Business (GB), which was continued in progress. There was a Conditional Use Permit request for a drive through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike that was continued in progress.

There was a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor seating area at Graeter’s at 11511 Princeton Pike. Graeter’s did a major renovation and in the process of that, they put an outdoor seating area on the back of the building. They were told that they needed Planning Commission review on parking allocations before that outdoor seating area could be utilized. There are a number of parking issues with this site and that was continued in progress.



15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum stated that a 20’-4" seasonal deck enclosure at 12178 Peak Drive was approved (setback issue). It butts up against the Glenmary Missioners Property.

Conditional Use Permit was reviewed to allow an access drive for the proposed CVS Pharmacy. This drive access will be discussed this evening and it enters off Springfield Pike between the Bing’s property and Smyth Automotive property. There was quite a bit of discussion but it is as very good location for that driveway. The applicant had worked with the City Staff and administration on that location and it was approved for the Conditional Use Permit to accompany the CVS final development plan. We had a right of way plat for Oak Hills Cemetery to clean up some issues.

    1. Approval of variance to construct a patio enclosure 15 feet from the property line at 12027 Benadir Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.102(A) "..shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet." – tabled 3/18/03

Mr. Lohbeck reported that he had talked to the applicant on April 2nd and they will remove the enclosure. I sent a letter giving her until the end of April to do this. She will be in next month for the shed variance.

Mr. Squires moved that this be removed from the agenda and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and it was removed from the agenda.

    1. Approval of a variance to allow the installation of an AC Compressor to be located at the side of the house 4 feet from the side lot line at 591 Lafayette Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.488(H) "no closer than 7 feet to the side lot line…"
    2. Carol Berssenbruegge Herzog said I am here representing my mother, who is here and doesn’t wish to speak. She lives at 591 Lafayette Avenue. She is having central air conditioning installed in her home and the best placement for the compressor is on the east side of the house, which lies six feet from the property line, and seven feet is required.

      The side of the house that would be according to code is near a main entrance to the house, very close to her bedroom and closer to the bedrooms of the neighbors on that side.

      We have our neighbor on the east side of the house, Edna Meyer at 587 Lafayette, where we hope to put the compressor, and she does not have a problem with this. Mrs. Meyer wrote a note that I attached to our application. Her bedrooms are not in close proximity to the air conditioning unit. The bedrooms on the permitted side are closer than her bedroom would be.


      15 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Okum asked Mrs. Meyer if she wished to comment. Mrs. Meyer said between our houses is a driveway, and my ac unit is on that driveway and hers would be on the other side attached to the house. I have no problem with this; it is away from my bedrooms. I wanted to affirm that in the best interests of their needs and it does not infringe on my rights. I also want to make sure that you understand that it is under no duress that I make that statement. It is fine with us.

      Mr. Okum asked if anyone else would like to speak. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

      Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to place an ac unit approximately four feet from the side lot line of the property. The Zoning Code requires an ac unit to be placed in the rear yard, or if placed in the side yard it must be seven feet minimum from the side lot line and screened from the street.

      The ac unit serves the middle section of the house. Although it would not be advantageous to place it at the rear of the house (garage side), the unit could be placed on the west side of the house and comply with code. The applicant has indicated that the compressor would be located close to bedrooms and not as aesthetically pleasing.

      Mr. Okum asked if the unit couldn’t be located in the recess where the house makes an L back? Mrs. Herzog answered that would be to Code, but that is where the bedroom room windows are in my mother’s house. Also, we have installed a pretty side door which will be the main entrance to the house, and that would be in line with that. On the other side of the driveway, their bedrooms are very close to where that unit would be, and their house is also very close to the property line. They have no side yard and they have three young children and in the summer if the windows are open, and if it makes a noise, the compressor may disturb them

      Mrs. Pollitt wondered if eventually they would install a patio on the southwest side, and Mrs. Herzog answered that possibly they would.

      Mr. Squires said you are saying that if you were to place the compressor on the west side and according to Code, it would block the door that you recently have installed. Mrs. Herzog answered that it would be very close to the door, probably in that general corner where her bedroom is and also the new main entrance. It is on the southwest side, and that is a very hot side of the house. It seems like it might be easier on the unit itself if it were on the shadier side of the house which would be the east side.

      Mr. Okum said for the record, staff has provided an aerial photograph of the site, which is being distributed, to the board members.





      15 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Weidlich wondered where the compressor would be in relationship to Mrs. Meyer’s house. Would it be from the middle to the back of her house or between the back of her house and the garage?

      Mrs. Herzog answered that it would be more towards the back of her house. Mrs. Meyer answered my air conditioner is outside my dining room on the driveway side and hers would be across the drive in the grass strip. There is a double width drive apron plus seven feet of grass.

      Mrs. Herzog added unfortunately we can’t move the air conditioner further back, because it would make too long a run for the unit. We have to have the air exchanger in the attic since the house is on a slab. It will be at the far corner of the main original house.

      Mr. Okum asked about the screening of the unit, and Mrs. Herzog answered shrubs or a little fence; whatever is to Code and acceptable. Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck if the Code specifies the type of screening, and Mr. Lohbeck indicated that it did not. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said so you would put something multi-seasonal, and Mrs. Herzog confirmed this, adding evergreens or some type of picket fence, whatever is acceptable. I can talk that over with Mr. Lohbeck.

      Mr. Okum asked if the air conditioning company could place it further back where it would be screened from the next door neighbor’s property by her garage, and Mrs. Herzog answered that it would be too far back. We have a flat roof between the main house and the back part of the two-story part, and the flat roof is concrete and open to the air. It is a story high and also presents a problem for running it. Mr. Okum commented so there is a physical barrier that prevents you from having it back further.

      Mrs. Pollitt moved to grant the variance with the required screening. Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the variance was granted unanimously.

      B. Approval of a variance to allow the construction of a 34’ x 38’ (1292 s.f.) garage to be located on the property at 291 West Kemper Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(B) "The garage shall have..a maximum floor area of 700 s.f." and Section 153.073(B) "No accessory structure shall exceed 16 feet in height."

      Jim Grieshop, 299 West Kemper Road introduced Larry Roe the resident of 291 West Kemper and a tenant of ours for over three years. We are requesting an oversized garage, 34’ x 38’ or 1292 s.f. The drawing we enclosed shows what we are going to do.


      As a resident at 291 West Kemper, he has a need for a larger storage area. He has several antique vehicles that he likes to restore so he needs a little workshop area and some storage to put parts and tools. We have made a deal with Mr. and Mrs. Roe to buy the property and part of that deal is to build this garage for them.


      15 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Grieshop added we have looked at the other homes in the neighborhood, and I am sure you are aware of the larger garages on this street. There is one at 233 West Kemper that is a 32’ x 40’ detached, which is about 12 s.f. smaller than what we are requesting, but they also have an oversized outbuilding as well, and we’re not looking for an outbuilding.

      One of our variances is to go higher than 16 feet . We want to go with 18 feet and the garage next door at 255 West Kemper is 18’-2" high. There are three-car garages and larger on that street, and he needs the additional storage. Mr. Okum asked the size of the garage at 255 West Kemper, and Mr. Grieshop answered that it is a two-car garage; I was just referencing the height. The reason why we are requesting 18 feet is that we made the garage a little smaller than what we originally requested, and we thought about a future storage loft.

      We have an existing basement type one car garage attached to the house that is useless. You can’t put a vehicle in it and you can’t open the doors once you get in it; it is really small. It has a big water problem; all the water rushes down the ramp into the garage.

      The future plan is to demolish this whole section off the house and completely redo it to make a new bedroom and increase the size of the living area upstairs.

      Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

      Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.075(B) to construct a 34’ x 38’ (1292 s.f.) detached garage on property that he owns adjacent to his residence. The Zoning Code permits garages up to a maximum of 700 s.f. The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 153.073(B) to construct the garage 18-foot high. The Zoning Code permits accessory buildings up to a maximum of 16 feet. The applicant made a request for a 32’ x 60’ (1920 s.f.) garage to the Board of Zoning Appeals in September of 2002. The applicant withdrew his request at the meeting. The applicant’s tenant made a request for a 34’ x 40’ (1360 s.f.) garage to the Board of Zoning Appeals in November of 2002, which was denied by a 5 to 1 vote. The current request is for a garage that is two feet shorter in length, 68 s.f. less in area and two feet higher than the last request.

      Mr. Okum asked the size of the lot and Mr. Grieshop answered that it is right at an acre. Mr. Okum said there are a lot of three car garages on Kemper Road. You have indicated that there is one detached garage at 233 West Kemper that is 32’ x 40’.

      Have you considered an addition onto the existing structure? You have indicated some things that you want to do to the property to get rid of this water problem in the basement. Maybe you could blend the whole thing into some type of a project that would accomplish a little bit more so you would not need this detached garage?


      15 APRIL 2003

      PAGE SIX


      Mr. Grieshop answered that the nice thing about the detached garage is that it is away from the house because of the work area and the possible noise and dirt, as well as to get the vehicles away from the house. There is the existing asphalt driveway so it made good sense to put the new garage in that area, which would give you more room for future additions on that house. The house pretty much takes up the width of the property, so you can’t go anywhere else but back.

      Mr. Grieshop added that it is a money issue too. It will cost a lot to do this project, and to try to do all of that would be a little bit too much to handle at this time.

      Mr. Okum said I can understand that, but I would think getting water in my basement frequently would be somewhat of a priority. Mr. Grieshop answered that is something that will be taken care of. As soon as we get this garage built, that will be the first thing that will happen.

      Mr. Grieshop added that we already have put a sump drain in there and a grate drain across the front of the garage to help catch all the water that comes down there, and that has helped tremendously. The door on there now is starting to deteriorate so we need a new garage door and we don’t want to do that if we’re gong to be tearing it down.

      Mr. Roe added that the sump pump we put in happened to take up about two feet of the driveway where I had to go into the garage so now you can’t get into the garage without running over the sump pump.

      Mr. Okum asked Mr. Roe what he did with the antique vehicles after he restores them, and Mr. Roe answered that mostly he dries them on weekends; it is just a hobby. Mr. Okum said you wold have room for four; what if you get a fifth vehicle? Mr. Roe answered that he had three setting in the driveway. I have two that I would like to keep in the garage, a ’78 Corvette and my wife’s car so she doesn’t have to scrape ice and snow in the winter.

      Mr. Squires said you made reference to the fact that there were a number of other homes that have oversize garages. There are a number of garages that were before the Zoning Code. Variances were not allowed on all of those. I point that out for the record, because I don’t want you to think that there is precedent involved in all of those.

      Am I to assume that in order to sell this property, this garage must be built? Mr. Grieshop confirmed this. I have a contract with these people to build a garage on or before October 1 of this year, as part of the lease purchase.

      Mr. Roe added that I lived in the country until three years ago when I married and moved here. I have grown to love it and would like to stay, but I really don’t have any use for this house if I can’t have a garage to work in and store my cars.


      15 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Squires asked if sells the antique cars, and Mr. Roe answered that he did not that it was strictly a hobby. I enjoy doing it.

      Mr. Apke said looking at the drawing your workshop area is approximately 20’ x 2’. Do you need that large a workshop? Mr. Roe answered I do a lot of woodworking besides working on cars. I have $20,000 worth of tools that I need to store in the workshop area, and it would take a place at least that big to put everything in.

      Mr. Apke responded what I am getting at is if you decoupled the workshop, you are allowed a 10’ x 12’ accessory building that you could set up as a workshop. That would take away quite a bit of the square footage. You are asking for square footage that is approximately the same as your whole house, and that makes it a very difficult issue.

      Mr. Roe answered we are going to expand the house too, so it would actually take up less than what the house would be. In terms of the shed, I thought it would be an eyesore in the community. I don’t really like to see a shed setting out in the yard. I guess it is possible, but I really didn’t want to do that if I didn’t have to.

      Addressing Mr. Grieshop, Mr. Apke said in your drawing it doesn’t quite show how far the proposed garage is from the property line. Mr. Grieshop answered that it is 10 feet off one side and 44’-6" off the other.

      Mr. Okum said I would support a three car garage with an additional 120 square feet for you to have your workshop combined into the space, with the condition that you would be vacating the use of a secondary accessory structure, but I cannot support a 38’ x 34’ request. If we can work with you on it, I would be willing to work with you to that end.

      Otherwise, I would be voting in opposition to the request. There are no unique situations to your site that makes it any different than anybody else in your neighborhood.

      I also would like to remind the board that this variance is granted to the land, and it stays with it. So when the land is sold, the new owner would have the opportunity to utilize that space any way they wished to.

      Mr. Borden asked if the three doors on the garage would face Kemper Road and how much would be visible. Mr. Grieshop answered that they did, and the house itself hides half of the garage. So, standing on Kemper Road, you would see a door and one-half. As you are going by, you would see all three and if you were on the other side, you wouldn’t see any of it.

      Addressing Mr. Roe, Mr. Borden asked if the proposed addition to the home would cover more of the garage. Mr. Roe answered that it would; it probably would completely hide the garage from the front of the house. Mr. Borden asked if he would maintain that driveway, and Mr. Roe indicated that he would.



      15 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Grieshop said I have a copy of the November 17,1992 minutes when Mr. Meyer requested the 32’ x 40’ detached garage. His comments were that he lives on Ramsdale, and he has a two-car garage. He bought the property on Kemper to build a garage for his cars. His basic words were that the property was for storage. He was going to rent the house out to his daughter and store his antique cars in the garage and have a workshop and storage. That exactly what Mr. Roe is asking for. The only thing that is different is that this is 12 s.f. larger than his actual building.

      Mr. Okum responded I can’t disagree with the issue. I have heard about Mr. Meyer’s antique cars garage since 1992. What that board did and the reasons why they made their decisions I don’t know; I can’t answer for those board members. I can answer for myself as a representative on this board that I would not support that size garage on that site.

      I don’t know the size of Mr. Meyer’s property. Mr. Grieshop answered his is actually a lot smaller; he has 10 feet on one side of the garage and 10 feet on the other. The garage actually takes up the entire lot. We would construct ours so you wouldn’t see most of it. Ours is less of an eyesore than that one.

      What we are asking for is not unreasonable. I think it suits the needs of the resident and the lot more than supports it. My garage is right next to it. It is 42’ x 26’, and it is 42’ across the front, and we didn’t have a problem with it when we built it. Is there something we could do to the aesthetics of it to make it more pleasing? We are willing to do that; whatever we need to do. We could do away with the pole barn type structure, which I wasn’t considering doing anyway, and make it a vinyl siding type garage with the nicer doors. We will do anything to make it more pleasing to the surrounding properties.

      Mr. Weidlich commented that his understanding is that Mr. and Mrs. Roe are not going to purchase the property until after the garage is erected. Mr. Grieshop confirmed this. Mr. Weidlich said where I am struggling is that the Roes are not the property owners, and in July they may find someplace else they like that has the garage they need and the structure would be left there or partially under construction or whatever it may be at the time.

      Mr. Roe said my wife wouldn’t let me leave for anything; she loves it here. Mr. Grieshop added we do have a legal binding contract with them that this will happen. Mr. Roe said my wife and I are both one mile from work and we are planning on staying in this community if we can. I really like it here, and my wife has been here all of her life.

      Mr. Weidlich commented that I have a little problem with the size myself, but I also am wrestling with the fact that you are not currently the owner of the property asking for this.

      Mr. Okum said I think it would be inappropriate for this board to let that weigh in the decision on a zoning variance.


      15 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Okum said you are requesting a 1,092 s.f. garage. An oversize three-car garage could be done at about 1,000 s.f. with the condition of no storage shed. I could support 1,020 s.f. garage with the condition of no accessory building. Otherwise, I will be voting in opposition to your request.

      Mr. Grieshop responded if we stayed at 34 feet across the front, what would that total?.

      Mr. Squires said I could support a three-car garage there, but this three-car garage with that additional workspace there is another thing. We only allow 120 s.f. for a shed and this is much bigger than that, and the fact that you have five vehicles is not a sufficient reason to grant the variance.

      Mr. Grieshop responded that the City of Springdale already allowed a garage of this size. Mr. Okum responded you are correct; there is an existing garage approved in 1992. That does not justify us to allow everybody in Springdale to have a 38’ x 34’ garage. Mr. Grieshop asked if that were considered a precedent, and Mr. Okum answered one garage out of all the garages in Springdale is not. Allowing it one time does not establish a precedent.

      Mr. Apke has read our guidelines for approving a variance, and there are not a lot of things that you have given us that would justify our granting the variance.

      As a board member, I am trying to work with you. The problem is I can’t seem to get from Point A to Point B. I think the best thing for us to do is either you make a request to us to modify your application and/or we will call a vote on your request.

      Mr. Grieshop said we would like to see if it is possible to make this a 32’ x 40’ garage. Then we would be able to put the two vehicles back to back and have enough room to be able to walk around them. Mr. Okum said that is 1280 s.f. and I couldn’t support that.

      Mr. Grieshop asked if there was a problem with the 18 foot height. Mr. Apke said I wanted to address that. I have no problem with that. Are you talking about constructing a mezzanine level above the cars, and how big is the area, half the garage? Mr. Grieshop answered it would be half of that workshop area.

      Mr. Grieshop said I am considering 30 feet, and if you don’t have a problem with the 18 feet height, I think we can make it all work.

      Mr. Apke said to let you know where I stand, I think a three car garage is plenty. Earlier we had discussed a 34’ x 30’ which is 1,020 s.f. (what you have now is 1,092 s.f). . 1,020 s.f. would give you adequate space for a workshop, a mezzanine level with plenty of storage space, plus you are vacating an existing garage which would give you the potential for storage. I think that is a more than generous proposition, and I can’t see going much more than that.




      15 APRIL 2003

      PAGE TEN


      Mr. Grieshop said I would like to modify these dimensions to meet the 34’ x 30’ size that was suggested. I think we can make that work fine, especially since we don’t have a problem with the 18 foot height.

      Mr. Okum commented I want to make sure that you wouldn’t have a box there. I would recommend to the board that the roof have a pitch of not less than 4-12, similar to residential. Mr. Grieshop answered there would be no problem with that.

      Mr. Okum stated that the applicant has requested that his request for a detached garage be modified to a 34’ wide left to right across the property and a 30’ deep with the roof peak not to exceed 18 feet and the roof to have a 4-12 pitch. The only item I have that has not been mentioned is that there are no accessory structures on the site.

      Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance to allow the construction of a 34’ x 30’ garage 18 foot high with a roof pitch of no less than 4-12 and that there be no accessory structures on the site. Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

      All members voted aye, and the variance with conditions was granted unanimously.

    3. Approval of a variances to allow the construction of a single car garage addition with a rear yard setback of 11’-6" and a front yard setback of 20’ on the property at 545 Observatory Drive. Said variance is requested from Section 153.102(A) "Single household dwellings..shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet" and Section 153.100(A) "Single household dwellings…shall have a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet."
    4. Mr. Weidlich excused himself from the discussion and left the dais.

      Robert Weidlich, 545 Observatory Drive said my lot is on the corner of Madison and Observatory, and the house was built facing Madison. The property is only 60 feet wide and the total width of the house is close to 30 feet, which puts it very close to the back property line, 11’-6". It currently has a one-car garage, and we now can afford to and would like to construct a second single car garage adjacent to the current garage. This would be flush on the back side of the house (11’-6") and set back 3 feet from the front of the current garage for a total length of 25’-4". The current garage is offset about two feet from the one part of the house and this would be set back an additional three feet from the current garage.

      The roof would tie in with the current garage roof, no higher at approximately 11’-2" from the ground. It would be a hip roof to blend in with the rest of the house.

      We want to put a 9’ x 7’ door on the front which would be about one foot wider than the current door which is because the vehicles are wider today than they were in 1950 when the house was built.



      15 APRIL 2003



      Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

      Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting to build a 12’-6" x 25’-4" garage addition to the side of his existing attached garage. The proposed addition will continue along the same rear building line as currently exists. The rear yard setback for the existing building is currently non-conforming at 11’-6". The addition will be set back three feet further than the current building from the front lot line at 20 feet. The current front yard setback for the residence is 17 feet. There are no other alternatives for the applicant to construct a garage addition to his building that would not require a variance.

      Mr. Okum asked the material of the garage walls and Mr. Weidlich answered that it would be vinyl siding, as close as possible to the current color of the house. Probably not this year, but eventually we will wrap the whole house with vinyl. Presently a good half of it is sandstone with painted redwood above that.

      Mr. Okum wondered if the wall that divides the two garages would be removed? Mr. Weidlich answered no. There is a window that I will take out and use in the new structure and I will cut that down for a walkthrough. It is a block wall. Nothing on the current roof will be touched except to cut that walk through. Mr. Okum added so that will carry the load of the old roof. Will you reshingle your whole roof? Mr. Weidlich answered not at this time. The shingles are 15 or 16 years old and in good condition. Mr. Okum added my only concern is that it will be pretty hard to get the two roofs to even up. Mr. Weidlich answered the current ridge board goes front to back on the house. The new one will come in from the side of it, so you should be able to tie that in and have a near perfect match.

      Mrs. Pollitt asked the distance between the south side of the proposed garage and the lot line and Mr. Weidlich answered approximately 58 feet, Mrs. Pollitt wondered if the addition necessitated moving that telephone pole and Mr. Weidlich answered that it did. We are working on that right now.

      Mrs. Pollitt said I have no problem with the request at all, because he rally doesn’t have any other options.

      Mr. Apke said Mr. Weidlich’s lot appears to meet the test of having extraordinary circumstances and conditions. Also, in the Zoning Code, Springdale encourages having two-car garages, it definitely is not detrimental to the adjacent properties and it is not recurrent in nature, so I would be in favor of this variance.

      Mr. Squires said that due to the fact that there are no other alternatives for this applicant, I would move that this variance be granted to construct a garage addition 11 ½ feet from the rear lot line and 20 feet from the front lot line. Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. All except Mr. Weidlich who abstained, voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.



      15 APRIL 2003


    5. Approval of off premise sign (Section 153.521 "..any sign..shall pertain only to a principal business, industry or other pursuit conducted lawfully on the premises on which the sign is located…") driveway lane width of 14 feet (Section 153.502(B)(4) "..a minimum width of ten feet and a maximum width of 12 feet.") and driveway setback from the adjacent property of 6.4 feet (Section 153.502(C) "In no case..shall the parking area or access drives be located closer than 10 feet…") for the proposed CVS Pharmacy to be located at 11601 Springfield Pike (referred by Planning Commission)

Steve Kelley of Bear Creek Capital and developer for CVS Pharmacy said with me is Mike Floyd of North American Signs, and we are here for three variances: (1) off premise sign, (2) driveway width of 14 feet (10 feet allowed), and (3) drive setback to the adjacent property of 6 ½ feet (10 feet allowed).

This is as part of the development of a CVS Pharmacy which would be located at the northwest corner of State Route 4 and West Kemper Road. I have in front of you a site plan of that project. It recently has been rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and will cover the Hunley towing operation plus two residential properties along Kemper Road.

This project also has a conditional use for the drive that is our full access out to West Kemper Road.

The project consists of a good access plan, a well appointed landscape plan and I have included an elevation of the building, all of which is part of the development plans for the site. Mr. Kelley indicated on the site plan the location of the CVS building. He stated that access is on West Kemper Road, Springfield Pike and a full access drive on Springfield Pike. Parking is predominantly in the front of the building with some rear parking intended for employees.

In working with the City on the development plan, it became apparent that anything we had on Springfield Pike was too close to the intersection, and together we determined that this would be the appropriate location for the full access onto Springfield Pike. So to service CVS and by way of an access easement with the Bings property owner, it also would serve as a way to come out to the rear of the CVS building.

Our variance requests are for the width of the drive and this access being closer than 10 feet. The purpose of that is two fold. Staff wants us to show that we can maneuver a truck from this point to the back of our building and back out successfully without crossing curbs and pavements, which we have done. One of the conditions of Planning was to curb both sides of this access road and we are also landscaping as well. As part of the conditional use permit, we want to make sure that those trucks stay within the boundaries of the access route. We are trying to create a safe environment for access to the site in the rear. Knowing that this is a full access, it probably will stir the future redevelopment of Bing’s, and we wanted to be able to maneuver by those cars and truck access.



15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Kelley added that their access to the building comes right up to the property line and we are trying to bring this drive in into the parking field. Going toward the east and into this drive aisle clips this corner, so we have extended that across. We have put spandrel glass on the building and also have additional landscaping to help break up the building. By holding this point for the drive aisle and extending it allows us to get more and additional landscaping along the east side of the facility. We feel we have a good design on a tight site which affords us to put landscaping adjacent to the building. We have a very generous area of green space in the front, and we think it is a good plan that fits together quite well.

Another request is for an off premise sign in this location. We have a sign on West Kemper Road. As part of the approval, we had a sign at the corner across from White Castle, and that has been eliminated.

The recommendation of Planning was to place the signage in the appropriate locations that will allow people to identify an entrance site. We have actually removed a sign on site and are asking for a variance for that off premise sign.

All these signs will have brick bases. This is 40 s.f., so it is meant to be a monument well appointed sign that I think it will fit very well into the Route 4 Corridor.

Mike Floyd showed the color rendering of the sign. We want the public to realize before they reach the corner that the CVS property is here and try to reduce or alleviate any congestion at the corner.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting three variances as follows:

    1. Driveway lane widths at 14 foot each for drive over Ruthie B. (Bing’s property). Section 153.502(B)(4) of the Zoning Code allows for a maximum of 12 foot. The city engineer has agreed with the applicant that due to the curves in the driveway, the extra width is necessary to accommodate truck traffic.
    2. Driveway setback from the east property line at 6.4 feet. Section 153.502( C ) requires a 10 foot setback.
    3. Off premise sign – Section 153.521 allows only signs pertaining to the principal business on the property to be placed on the property.

Planning Commission recommended that this sign be permitted in exchange for a reduction in the number of on site free standing signs to one. The off premise sign is to be 40.5 s.f. per side and consideration should be made to incorporating sign area for future redevelopment of the Ruthie B. (Bing’s) property within this 40.5 s.f. area.



15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Lohbeck reported that the Board of Zoning Appeals may make this a part of their motion. If the sign is also to serve future redevelopment on the Ruthie B property, the motion should indicate that the sign shall be one of the permitted free-standing signs or the only permitted free standing sign for the Ruthie B property.

Mrs. Pollitt said item ( C ) is where they are talking about that there would be a sign permitted in exchange for the reduction of the number of on site free standing signs to one and this tenant panel would be for the future development of the Bing’s property so there would be CVS and a future tenant on the one sign. Is that correct?

Mr. Okum said you have the original submission that went to Planning Commission (M-70 monument sign). Planning Commission recommended the M-50 monument sign, which has less square footage. The applicant is requesting this 40.5 s.f. sign. The Board of Zoning Appeals could put conditions on that off premise sign and that is what staff is suggesting, in order addressing the tenant issue for future development of the Bing’s property. This driveway has cross easements for access. It is servicing not only the CVS project but also the Vitas property and the Bing’s property also would be accessible through that drive.

Mr. Osborn said I am also here to respond to any questions you have about the process that got us to this point, the dialogue between the applicant, city staff and Planning Commission for the past six months. The variances that you are considering this evening are products of that process. In most cases, the staff or Planning Commission asked the applicant to put these things in their plans.

Mrs. Pollitt commented that she liked the thought that has gone into the full use driveway and the right entrance only. That will help with the traffic flow through there. I think it will be a very nice improvement on that corner lot. Mr. Kelley responded that with staff, CDS, your planner and your staff, there has been tremendous thought in this project that we think will be great for the corner.

Mrs. Pollitt asked if it were a right turn only going out of that full use driveway onto southbound Route 4? Mr. Kelley answered that it is a full access, either right or left out. A critical point was to have it 300 feet from the intersection so as not to interfere with the cars that began to queue from the left onto West Kemper.

Mr. Osborn added that we looked at moving the driveway closer to the north side of the strip center, but we would have diminished the stacking capacity to only accommodate the mean average of the queue, and in peak hour, it would not be sufficient at all. So we caused them to move it as far north as possible. The benefits are that in addition to keeping that queue for that southbound eastbound movement at the intersection operating, it also provides us the opportunity to do a reverse turn lane in the vicinity of this entrance of this entrance point, so that someone turning left out of there could pull into a double left turning lane, a protected movement to avoid traffic coming from the south.


15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Osborn added that this location was pretty much selected for the applicant based on what we looked at in terms of the impact of the driveway onto Springfield Pike. In the same manner, we requested that driveway width.

Mr. Osborn added that when they asked for a directional sign up here, Planning negotiated that if they agreed to remove the full size sign at the corner, and if they would move the sign up to this entrance, Planning would reach an agreement with them on the issue about the location of signs. What it does for us is open up that corner and complements what we are trying to do along the Route 4 Corridor in terms of improving the aesthetics.

Mr. Borden commented I understand that the trucks are going to enter the site near the Bing’s property. Are they going to jog around the site to exit? Mr. Kelley answered that they can exit back out the same way.

Mrs. Huber said I have seen the people from the automotive property sit waiting to go south on Route 4, and if they want to go north, it is impossible. I just don’t see how that is going to work.

Mr. Okum said your comment concerns the north entrance. Mr. Shvegzda and the staff have worked with the applicant very closely, and the double left lane is a safety lane. There would be no reason for cars to be in that lane except to turn left. If they were going southbound on Route 4, there is nothing for them to turn left into. That is where the triangle island is. They would have a clearance area, a safe area to go into. For busy times, it is as far north as you can be. I think there is a real advantage to that location with the fact that it will ultimately service the Ruthie B parcel and Bing’s. If Bing’s were to be redeveloped along with the Ruthie B parcel, you would have the advantage of an access driveway for that development. That is a win for the City. There are going to be situations where people will turn left across two lanes of traffic into that double left lane, but at least it is 300 feet north of the intersection, the furthest point you could put it.

Mr. Borden asked how you would turn left onto Kemper. Mr. Okum answered that would be the furthest west drive, which is a full services access drive. Mr. Borden asked about stacking there and Mr. Kelley answered that they would put a small median in this location to help any congestion and should free up the traffic backing up on West Kemper Road

Mr. Osborn added that in their covenants, it states that they must participate in future cross easements with the properties to the west. We anticipate these properties will go to some sort of commercial use and at that point we would anticipate a traffic signal at the entrance of Thriftway. This is a temporary solution to the site, and we fully expect the property to the west to develop commercially, and the applicant has agreed to the requirements in the covenants.




15 APRIL 2003



Mrs. Huber wondered how they got by with having red on the building? Mr. Kelley answered that we are trying to complement the CVS red with the awning. It is a full brick building with drivitt material (EIFS) in this location, and we think that complements it. We think the whole building ties together. We have brick and stone, stone columns in the front (showed samples of materials). It is not a bright red, and we think it does do a good blending of everything together.

Mr. Squires wondered if engineering had determined that you have ample turning radius in that area for those big trucks. Mr. Kelley answered that they would come in and back up to that location to get back out. Mr. Squires asked if that area was sufficient and Mr. Kelley indicated that it was. Mr. Borden asked about the possibility of cars stacking in the drive through. Mr. Kelley answered that the drive through is for the dropping off and picking up of prescriptions and we meet code requirements.


Mr. Osborn added that the same question came up at Planning Commission and they are actually showing two pick up windows, and by having the two aisles that you can use to drop off your prescriptions simultaneously, that reduces the necessity for along queue at one window.

Mr. Kelley added that we are not seeing a conflict and it should work out very well. This is all enclosed in brick.

Mr. Okum asked when their deliveries were typically and Mr. Kelley answered that they are in the morning; the business typically peaks in the evening.

Mr. Apke wondered how many trucks would be using this drive on an average day? It concerns me that you have trucks and people going through these driveways.

Mr. Kelley said the number of trucks on any given day is one to two. There will be smaller service vehicles, but we will make sure that we can maneuver this truck around this area and keep it in the boundaries of the curb that we have been required to put in there. We do have an access that goes around to the back for the pickup. That is really the only customer and truck access where we might have to do a bit of jockeying.

Mr. Apke said so you are looking at perhaps a couple of trucks a day, and you aren’t talking about full semis but smaller trucks. Mr. Kelley answered that they are delivery trucks, but the main delivery is a full sized truck. Mr. Apke said and that drives can accommodate that. Mr. Kelley answered that is what we have proven to ourselves. As part of the review, CDS asked us to show the truck route and prove that a truck can travel through here safely. Our engineer and yours have determined that a 28 foot drive is needed here. Mr. Apke responded and even a 50-foot trailer truck could make that jockeying around. Mr. Kelley confirmed this.


15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum said for the record, and I think it needs to be incorporated into the Minutes as staff comments from the City Planner regarding the project. McBride Dale Clarion has been involved in this process along with staff all the way through, and we do have recommendations with comments.

There has been a lot of work involved in the process. I really question the need for that 14 foot lane, but there have been too many engineers involved in this who feel it is necessary so I will support that as well as the side yard setback along the property line. The monument sign was driven by me. I made the recommendation to Planning Commission for the removal of the sign on the corner and placement down at the other end, conditional upon Board of Zoning Appeals’ approval. If we don’t approve the off-premise sign, their sign goes back to the corner. I want to make sure that the Board is clear on that. I will be supporting the off-premise sign.

Mr. Okum outlined the conditions that Ms. McBride presented in her comments:

    1. That the sign be limited to a maximum of 40.5 s.f. per side and a height not to exceed seven feet.
    2. That the Board consider if a portion of the square footage should be reserved for a future tenant/redevelopment of the Ruthie B. property.
    3. That landscaping is added to the base of the sign consistent with the landscaping approved for the base of the CVS West Kemper Road sign.
    4. That the sign design and construction (base and panel) be as approved on the M-50 sign with the potential inclusion of both the CVS and an additional user on the sign.
    5. The Board consider if this sign is to represent any or all of the signage permitted for the Ruthie B. property. The Ruthie B. property would be entitled to two additional ground mounted signs. Staff would suggest that at a minimum if tenant representation is to be included on the sign, that it count as at least one of the two permitted signs for the property.
    6. The sign be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the Springfield Pike right-of-way and at a location so as to not cause a sight distance problem from the access drives, Bing’s, or the adjacent strip center.
    7. That the sign comply with all of the requirements of Article 42 and 52 of the Springdale Zoning Code.

Any such decision by the Board to approve these variances must be determined to be consistent with the standards of Section 153.710 (copy attached).

Mr. Kelley responded that is our understanding. I think the setback is a little more than 10 feet, and we have been looking at this being a sign that would be common with Bing’s in the future.




15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Okum answered so your understanding is that if the motion would be brought forward that way, the Board of Zoning Appeals would place a moratorium. One of the conditions is that you would provide some tenant space for the Ruthie B. property, and the Ruthie B. property is then limited to only one additional ground mounted sign.

Mr. Kelley responded as I understand it, Ruthie B. would be allowed one additional ground-mounted sign. What we are showing as being 40.5 s.f. would be the CVS square footage for that particular sign, and that Ruthie B. would incorporate a portion of that sign in the future. Mr. Okum commented you are saying that they would take up a part of your 40.5 s.f., and Mr. Floyd confirmed this. Mr. Okum repeated that CVS would give up part of their 40.5 s.f. for additional tenant space.

Mr. Borden asked if the board was considering the M-50 sign, and Mr. Okum answered that there are two M-50 signs. There is an M-50 on Kemper Road with different information, and an M-50 with the arrow. It is the M-50 with the arrow that we are discussing.

If you’ll notice with Ms. McBride’s comments, the M-70 monument sign is eight foot high, which increases the square footage. The M-50 monument sign is the one recommended by Planning Commission. The Board has the latitude to decide which sign they want for that off-premise sign.

Addressing Mr. Osborn, Mrs. Pollitt said we know that the variance goes with the property. How can we put a condition on this variance that will affect somebody else’s piece of property?

Mr. Osborn answered that at a previous meeting the applicant represented to the Planning Commission that CVS will have a lease over the Bing’s property that will include the placement of signs. It is not clear to me how we could limit his future signage for redevelopment of his property to just one sign plus a tenancy space on this sign, without the consent and knowledge of Mr. Fine, the owner of the property.

Mr. Kelley reported that their agreement with Bing’s is the following. We have to build the access drive at our cost. There is an additional cost for the easement and he has actually invited us to build the sign so it is there and it could be shared in the future. He likes that idea. That is our agreement. Part of the approval with Planning Commission was for Planning Commission to see that agreement, and we are happy to offer that up. With the redevelopment, there would be a common sign and we would have a binding access easement with the Bing’s property owner.

Mr. Okum said in essence, since it is an off-premise sign and it is on the Ruthie B. property that would be one of the two signs permitted on the property. Mr. Osborn responded it makes sense. Quite honestly, we would hope that the CVS project would stimulate the redevelopment of the properties along Springfield Pike.


15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Osborn added that we anticipate that things will evolve and there will be a tenant in here and it would make sense to limit that site to two signs. They are allowed two signs, and this would be one of them. I am just saying to you that I don’t know what authority the applicant has to do that, and I’ve not seen that lease.

Mr. Okum commented I think if our motion is clear enough that this is the second of the two signs that are permitted, that should be strong enough and a clear indicator that there are two permitted signs, and this sign is one of the two.

Mr. Osborn suggested that the Board could approve that with the condition that the applicant produces a letter from Dr. Fine confirming that he understands the limitations. Is that agreeable with the applicant? Mr. Kelley responded we were going to give you a copy of our easement, but I have a meeting tomorrow with him.

Mr. Okum added I think a letter from Dr. Fine stating that would be sufficient.

Addressing Mr. Kelley, Mr. Squires said you indicated that the sign would have future tenant redevelopment possibilities on it also, is that correct? Mr. Kelley answered that it was, adding that since there is no redevelopment, it is the CVS sign today, understanding that part of the agreement with the Planning Commission is that it would be a co use.

Mr. Apke said on the first two variances, the driveway lane and the setback, I have no issues whatsoever. On the sign, when we are talking about a possible tenant, are we talking about the area that is behind Bing’s and the proposed CVS, or are we talking about Bing’s itself?

Mr. Osborn said this is the existing strip center, and this is part of the property currently owned by Dr. Fine. Dr. Fine also owns this piece over here, and it is conceivable in the future that when this develops, this right of way might be relocated. So it’s a little hard to say how the development might change and when any development might occur is hard to say.

Mr. Apke wondered if there were any plans at this time to develop any of the property in the curve. Mr. Osborn answered other than some suggestions over the last several years about making some minor modifications to the Bing’s structure itself, including a deck on the back, we have not had any contacts.

Mr. Apke said so at this time we need to settle the issue on granting a variance to allow the off-premise sign that is wholly CVS or including a future tenant.

Mr. Osborn responded you have heard the applicant concede that they recognize that there will be a future development here, whatever form that would take. Our Corridor Plan and Comprehensive Plan calls for a residential use for the properties to the west.


15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Osborn said as you may know, Mr. Eades had previously received approval for a condominium development on his property, the property owned by Mrs. Biddle for some point in the future. Mr. Eades passed away before that came to fruition. One of the stipulations was that he would not be allowed to have any access on Springfield Pike, and he would have to access the property off Cloverdale. This is very speculative, but that is the land use that is called for with those properties.

Mr. Kelley added that the back piece of the Ruthie B. property is zoned residential, and PUD probably would be the appropriate route for that, with controls through the city processes.

Mr. Borden said considering the off-premise sign, are we talking about one potential future tenant or multiple future tenants? Mr. Okum responded that the determination is one. I think I used the word occupant rather than tenant when I made the motion because tenant typically refers to somebody renting.

Mr. Borden asked if the signs would be illuminated, and Mr. Floyd answered that they would be internally illuminated.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variances for the CVS Pharmacy to be located at 11601 Springfield Pike as follows:

    1. To allow an access drive for two-way traffic to exceed the permitted 24 feet to 28 feet;
    2. To allow the proposed access drive to be located within the 10 foot setback required to a 6 ½ foot setback;
    3. To allow an off premise sign subject to the following:
      1. The sign shall be limited to a maximum of 40.5 square feet per side with a height not to exceed 7 feet;
      2. A portion of that sign shall be reserved for a future tenant (redevelopment of the Ruthie B. property);
      3. That landscaping be added to the base of the sign, consistent with the landscaping approved for the base of the CVS West Kemper Road sign;
      4. That the sign design and construction, base and panel, shall be approved on the M-50 sign as presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the potential inclusion of both CVS and an additional user;
      5. That this sign also shall enable the Ruthie B. property to have that as one of their two allowed signs;
      6. That the sign shall haves a setback minimum of 10 feet;
      7. That the sign shall comply with all requirements of Article 42 and 52 of the Springdale Zoning Code.

Mr. Borden seconded the motion.





15 APRIL 2003



Mr. Apke asked if we wanted to include in the motion the fact that we want a copy of the agreement by Ruthie B. that they would only ask for one more sign? Mr. Squires said that would go to the administration.

Mr. Osborn added that I suggested they submit to the Building Department a letter from Dr. Fine conceding that he understands the fact that this sign that is being constructed with this variance will account for one of the two signs that will be allowed on his property.

Mr. Squires moved to amend his motion to include that and Mr. Borden seconded the amended motion.

By voice vote, all voted aye on the amendment to the motion.

All present voted aye on the amended motion, and the variances were granted unanimously.


Mr. Apke moved for adjournment and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All voted aye and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,2003 _________________________

David Okum, Chairman



____________________,2003 __________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary