BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

16 APRIL 2002

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 by Chairman David Okum.

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

    Councilman James Squires, Robert Weidlich

    Jane Huber and Chairman Okum

    Members Absent: Robert Apke (arrived at 7:20 p.m.)

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

     

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 19 MARCH 2002
  7. Mrs. Pollitt moved to adopt and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

  8. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12 March 2002
    2. Zoning Bulletin – March 10, 2002
    3. Zoning Bulletin – March 25, 2002
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities – no report
    2. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum reported that Globe Furniture Building Elevation changes were tabled to May 14th. The Nazarene Church landscaping was approved with conditions. Vineyard Community Church chapel addition was approved with the elimination of the auto service on the property. Planning also reviewed proposed zoning code changes. The number of domesticated animals in single family residences was reviewed, and Planning is recommending 3, and there were several other miscellaneous changes that Planning is recommending to Council.

  1. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  2. OLD BUSINESS
  3. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Bill Wade requests approval of variances to allow the construction of a new single family residence at 11485 Walnut Street 5 feet and 19 feet from Church Street. Said variance is requested from Section 153l.101(A) "..minimum side yard setback of 6 feet each side" and 153.100(A) "..shall have a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet."
    2.  

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 APRIL 2002

      PAGE TWO

      IX A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 11485 WALNUT STREET

      Bill Wade said my father in law gave my wife and I a part of the land that is next to their home as a wedding present so that we could build our home next to their home.

      Several years ago they had their house built. There were three plots in that block of land, and the surveyor or contractor moved the land back into the middle plot, a little further than where it should have been set. Therefore it came into the land that we were given which cut the room for our home. I think they have already addressed the surveyor and builder on that for their setback, but that made the room for our home to be less.

      We have gone to Cincinnati Land Surveyors and have had them draw up the home we are thinking of building. The dimensions would not change. The house to the right, on Church Street, is setting back a little further, but as you can see on the plans, there is one or two houses that might have been grandfathered in that come out with a setback almost the same as what we are requesting.

      My father in law and mother in law want us to reside next to them so in their twilight years we can be there close as a family, and that is why we are seeking a variance this evening.

      Mr. Wade’s father-in-law, Reverend Harvey stated that when they built the house, they built it 15 feet the other side and where his property would be. My wife has fibromyalgia and she can’t come out of the house. That is why we are trying to get the house built so my daughter can help take care of my wife while I am away.

      Mr. Lohbeck reported that the request is for the construction of a new single household residence 5 feet from the proposed south property line where the code requires 6 feet. and 19 feet from Church Street, where the code requires 30 feet.

      The subject lot shown does not currently exist. The lot is proposed to be split off (the existing lot is shown on the attached). The proposed lot meets or exceeds all minimum lot width and area requirements.

      Deeds and legal descriptions will need to be reviewed by the City Engineer and signed by the Planing Commission secretary before recording.

      The Zoning Code definition for front yard states, "For the purpose of these regulations, any yard abutting a street shall be considered a front yard." Therefore the side yard facing Church Street requires the same setback as a front yard at 30 feet.

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

      Mrs. Huber said I did talk to one of the city engineers today, asking if there was any proposal to do anything to Church Street with this Old Town concept. Apparently there is none for this section.

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 APRIL 2002

      PAGE THREE

      IX A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 11485 WALNUT STREET

      Mrs. Huber asked if the house shown here is the house he is planning to build. Mr. Wade answered yes. Mrs. Huber continued so this is what we could expect on that lot if you get your variances. Mr. Wade confirmed this, adding that he did not have the land totally surveyed. Cincinnati Surveyor suggested that I come before the board before I had the land split. We are waiting before we have that done, but they laid it out to show how it would set.

      Mr. Apke arrived at 7:20 p.m.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said let’s say this lot is not 64 feet but 63’; what would you do? Mr. Wade answered if the committee would approve a proposal not in the dimensions, I would seek a floor plan to meet the needs of the committee and make changes to comply with what would be best for the City of Springdale.

      Mrs. Pollitt said I am glad to see you are interested in building in that area. You are very much aware of what the city is doing in this area. We intend to give it an old town feel and we are looking at individualized shops; we want something that will draw people in that will have a hometown feel to it. It will be something that they can’t get at the mall. We have had some unhappy residents in the area, so it is refreshing to find that it doesn’t turn you off.

      Mr. Wade answered we are very pleased with Springdale. We live in the Wimbledons right now and it is very convenient and most of the people are friendly and helpful. I work in Springdale, and our parents are here in Springdale.

      Ms. Pollitt said it is a beautiful house, and we are talking about 16 feet, but it looks like it is a large house for that parcel of land. Did you look at any other floor plans that were not so massive. I know your father in law’s house is very large also.

      Mr. Wade answered it is 2300 square feet as well. My wife and I are in our 40’s and we think this will be our only home and the one we will retire from. We wanted to make sure that we were comfortable and we wanted to have enough room for friends and relatives to visit. My wife is very set at not having small bedrooms for our guests, and that is the only reason we are looking at 2300 s.f.

      Mrs. Pollitt answered it is gorgeous, but I am concerned about the size of the house on the size of the lot. Mr. Wade responded we are willing to cut down the size of the house if you approve. We are open and glad for the opportunity.

      Mrs. Pollitt asked the size of the land that would house both residences. Mr. Wade answered it is 7800 s.f. Mrs. Pollitt commented each house would be 2300 s.f., so that would leave 3200 s. f. for the yard.

       

       

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 APRIL 2002

      PAGE FOUR

      IX A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 11485 WALNUT STREET

      Mr. Squires said the administration would welcome a residence of this type there. That would anchor that area, and that area is to remain residential. Personally I don’t have any problem with the five-foot setback; I don’t think you have any choice there. Maybe we could look at the 19-foot setback and come up with something, but I like what you are doing and I would encourage you to stay with it.

      Mr. Okum asked which way the garage would face and Mr. Wade answered that it would face on Walnut. We plan to be uniform. Mr. Okum said the front of the home faces Walnut, which means that the right side, the den and living room, would be closest to Church Street.

      Mr. Wade said when we were talking to Cincinnati Land Surveyors, they recommended facing Walnut to uniform with the other homes on Walnut. We knew we had a little more area to work with if we faced Church Street. Quite a few of you have said that you are pleased with what we are trying to do and if you would prefer the house to face Church, we would work to make it happen. We are open; the key is the end result that is to be able to build.

      Mr. Okum said I think no matter what direction this house faces, three of the sides will be for everybody to see.

      Mr. Borden said I don’t have a problem with the five-foot setback. We might have to work with the 19-foot setback, but overall it is a good plan and we welcome that type of development in that area.

      Mr. Borden asked if the applicant knew that there was no off street parking there. Mr. Wade indicated that he was, adding that they have a son living with them and attending college so we have the three garages so there will be one for my son, my wife and myself. Hopefully we will have enough driveway space that if we were entertaining guests, they could park there.

      Mr. Borden said you are directly across from the church parking lot so you might have a little traffic there when services are going on. Mr. Wade answered we have no problem with that; my father in law is a pastor and I am a deacon in my church so we welcome that type of traffic on Sunday mornings.

      Mr. Okum said because it is a corner lot, if the residence faced Church Street, he would have three exposures there.

      Mr. Wade wondered which would be the best look for Springdale. When people are driving through the city, we want them to be able to see great homes and businesses. From Route 4, you can look back into the community. Would you prefer them to see the back or the front of the house?

       

       

       

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 APRIL 2002

      PAGE FIVE

      IX A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 11485 WALNUT STREET

      Mr. Okum said if you would flip your house the opposite way, it would be looking at the back end of your home and the front end of your father’s home which would be contradictory to the way that the lots were intended. Personally I think you would have to keep your front to the same front as your father’s. Mr. Wade said that is excellent, even though we were open to suggestions. In the summertime, the dumpster from the oriental restaurant blows into the back, and we wanted to make sure we were not facing that way.

      Reverend Harvey said with the tire store behind my house, the problem we had is their driving over our yard. I complained to the police several times, but this has nothing to do with that.

      Mrs. Pollitt said there is a large sewer drain at the north corner of that lot. Will that interfere with what you are doing? Mr. Wade said there are two sewers, and that would all be yard. Mrs. Pollitt commented that the property has set vacant for so long and the City has never done anything in the way of streets, other than pave what was existing. It is a sewer that is not really flat. Mr. Okum said it might be something for Public Works to look at.

      Mr. Wade said we are quite creative in terms of landscaping. If I am understanding where you are saying on the drains on those four corners, it would not affect us. We plan to do great landscaping and beautification so it could be bricked off or something that would be in compliance and help make it look good. Mrs. Pollitt commented I am concerned that the City should look at it and make sure it is the proper drain to have there. We can bring it up at Council.

      Mr. Weidlich said I like your plan. Will it be 100% brick, or will it have siding or stone or what? Mr. Wade answered we are looking at the front being 100% with siding on the side and back. There are chimneys on two sides that will stay brick and there will be additional siding. So it will be a combination, but the front will be 100% brick.

      Mr. Okum said what is presented is not necessarily a part of the variance. The variance request is for setbacks only, unless there are conditions attached to tie a particular type of residence there. This plan shows a 3-car garage, but the site could not allow for that. I believe this drawing represents a two-car garage without that wing offset. If this is the drawing that will be built, that garage cannot be a three-car.

      Mr. Wade responded now that you bring that to my attention, I think I recollect that Cincinnati Surveyors indicated that the only way to fit it in was to cut that garage back. I’m not sure. Mr. Okum said I am in the building trade, and I feel confident that what we are looking at is a two-car garage, maybe a little wider than the normal one. With the church parking lot across the street, I don’t think you will have a problem.

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 APRIL 2002

      PAGE SIX

      IX A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 11485 WALNUT STREET

      Mr. Okum said I am encouraged by this application to this property. We do have some limitations by setback. I believe it is fairly close to an adjacent home, but it would be a positive situation for the applicant and a very nice home for the site. I would encourage the board to weigh the situation of request for a variance to make a house fit on this lot to these exposures that are critical to view from Elm Alley, Church Street and Walnut Streets.

      Mr. Wade said in the rear there is probably going to be a considerable amount of room. If we had a slab in the back of the property to allow additional parking, is that permitted? Mr. Lohbeck answered that it would not be allowed; you can only have one driveway. Mrs. Pollitt added that you would have access to the city parking lot; you would be allowed to park in there at any time, which will be where the church parking lot is now. Also there probably will be a light at Route 4 and Grandin Avenue. I think you will see a lot of changes for the better. Mr. Wade said during the peak traffic hours, it has been difficult to make that left turn.

      Mr. Apke said one of the things that is difficult is trying to approve two variances, so I wanted to ask you if you could move the house over one foot so that you would have an 18 foot setback from Church Street and would not even require a variance on the side yard.

      Mr. Okum said if the board were to make a motion that would include high pitched roof (similar to what you have presented in this drawing) and masonry construction on all first floor elevations (brick or stone) would you have a problem with that?

      Mr. Wade said I don’t have a problem with that, and we appreciate the suggestion.

      Mrs. Pollitt moved to grant the variance for an 18 foot setback from Church Street, conditioned on having a high pitched roof similar to the plan that has been submitted this evening, and masonry construction (brick or stone) on the first floor elevations. Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

      Mr. Okum said there was only one variance motioned, the 18-foot setback on Church Street. The other variance is not considered with your agreement.

      All voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum stated that Planning Commission needs to sign off on the lot separation. Their next meeting is May 14th. Mr. Lohbeck reported that it has to go through the city engineer first. Mr. Okum said so you need to get your information to the city engineer so it can be on the May 14th Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Wade said he would contact the individual at Cincinnati Surveyor to handle this right away, and thanked the board.

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 APRIL 2002

      PAGE SEVEN

      IX A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 11485 WALNUT STREET

      Reverend Harvey asked what he needed to do about the problem with the car repair shop to keep them from messing up his yard. Mrs. Pollitt answered I’ll talk to the city administration and ask them to talk to the police and see if they can talk to them and let them know that it is an infringement on your property and needs to stop. Reverend Harvey added that the cars are parked up and down there. Mrs. Pollitt responded I will bring it to Mr. Osborn’s attention tomorrow night at council meeting.

    3. Rosemary Chandler, 11657 Van Cleve Avenue requests variances to allow the construction of a 10’ x 18’ accessory building to be located 3 ½ feet from the south fence line.

Ms. Chandler said I am requesting a 10’ x 18’ shed to be put in the back of my property. The shed would face north and would parallel along the back of the side of the sidewalk.

There currently is an 8’ x 8’ concrete slab there that originally held a shed years ago. The reason I am requesting a 3-½ foot distance from that fence is because that slab is 3 ½ feet from the fence line and would be part of where the shed would set. I’m not too sure once the people get there to install the shed where the best place to place the balance of the shed, and that is the reason why I asked for a variance on the distance from the fence. It may be more than 3 ½ feet.

I also am requesting a 10’ x 18’ shed. I do have an oversized lot and it would be at the far backside of the property. The shed would be identical to the shed on the photograph. I would be using it for lawn equipment and storage of patio and pool equipment. I have a potting box in the garage that I would like to put in this shed.

I have some older pictures that show the sidewalk and the distance from the house. Ms. Chandler passed them among the board members.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the request is for a variance from Section 153.492(B)(3) that allows a maximum area of 120 s.f. and from Section 153.492(D) which requires it to be at least 5 feet from the south property line.

The applicant has indicated that the utility building will partially be located on an existing 8’ x 8’ slab, which is currently 3.5 feet from the property line. The advantage to utilizing the old slab is minimal, because only 1/3rd of the proposed utility building will rest on the existing slab. There is an existing small plastic storage shed on the north side of the property. It should be ascertained if this will remain and if so a variance will be required from Section 153.492(B)(1) for two accessory buildings.

There is an existing variance on the property for an air conditioning unit on the side yard closer than 7 feet from the property line, which was granted 10/19/99.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE EIGHT

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

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

Mr. Squires said in the event that this variance is approved, are you willing to take down the existing plastic storage shed that you have on the north side? Otherwise, you would need another variance.

Ms. Chandler responded that I store the pool cover and a big garbage can that is filled with water. It slides into the utility shed and is stored away for the summertime. I guess I could, but I use a lot of the noodles (floating equipment) by the pool. I wasn’t aware of that rule. When you are in the pool and want to get noodles, you don’t want to run all the way out to the far end of the property.

Mrs. Pollitt said Ms. Chandler is a neighbor and friend of mine, so I will not be voting on this. I will tell you that I don’t have any problem with her request for the variance. The type of shed she wants to put up is the same as ours. The quality of the construction is excellent. My concern would be the distance that you wanted it from the sidewalk because of the possibility of children reaching through the fence and writing on it.

Ms. Chandler said I asked the salesman about that because I had a concern on that. He said it would be vented down and wouldn’t be a concern. If there was a problem, you could put a plastic to cover it.

Mrs. Pollitt added as far as the other shed is concerned, it’s not like a permanent shed; it is a Rubbermaid. Is that still considered a shed? Mr. Lohbeck answered yes, it is a structure. Mrs. Pollitt responded what about people who have those on their patios for their patio cushions; is that considered a shed? Half the city would be in violation then, because it is a portable movable storage unit. .

Mr. Okum said they’re like large garbage cans with doors, but I think they are called utility buildings.

Mrs. Huber wondered what she would be using such a large shed for. Ms. Chandler answered I have a lot of garden stuff, pool equipment and storage for the wintertime. In my garage I have a lot of pots and a potting table and I want to get all that out of my garage and get it back into the storage area. There is a portable fire pit that I would like to be able to put back in there for storage, plus a wheelbarrow, a lawnmower and all of the yard maintenance items. I have a birdbath that I take in during the winter also.

Mrs. Huber commented I too am concerned about the closeness to the sidewalk because of the little kids. Ms. Chandler responded I only asked for the 3 ½ feet because the concrete was 3 ½ feet. If you took a look at my property, I had two lines, a board and some logs. One was the 3 ½ foot and one was the 5 foot. The only reason I was asking for less than 5 feet was because I wasn’t too sure once they get there where they are going to put it. It could easily be more than 3 ½ feet. I will work with whatever the City says and give them the guidelines

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE NINE

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

.Mr. Weidlich said I don’t have a problem with the size of the shed and what you want to use it for, but I do have a problem with the 3 ½ feet. Kids are kids and they are going to try to reach over the fence and write on your wall. I couldn’t go for the 3 ½ foot setback.

Ms. Chandler asked how much he could go for, other than five. Mr. Weidlich answered with the nature of your property, I would say five feet. You have plenty of room there; it is tucked back in the corner almost out of sight of your home.

Ms. Chandler commented I just wanted to have the leeway that once they got in there if they put it less than five feet it would be okay. I can tell them that it has to be five feet.

Mr. Borden said I think you can place it five feet from the property line with no problem. I don’t have a problem with the size of the 10’ x 18’ storage shed, as long as the other one comes down. I don’t want to see two back there.

Ms. Chandler said so if the Rubbermaid shed comes down, I would need to trot all the way out to the other side of the property to get them? There is no way I could keep it right there?

Mr. Okum responded you could submit a separate request for a variance, and the board would have to consider that separately. The true interpretation of the code indicates that you already have one utility storage building on your property. It may be very small but it is considered a storage building. We are not considering that right now; we are just saying that your request is for a variance for the 10’ x 18j’ shed that you want to build.

Mr. Apke said in your application, it says install a 10’ x 18’ workshop shed. Are you planning on using it as a workshop? Ms. Chandler answered no, that is the name of the shed style.

I am in agreement with a lot of my colleagues. Your property is right up against the fence that cuts through to the city park. I’m a softball coach, and quite often I use that field, and I can see the potential for some problems. It is a little bit of a big building and I have a little problem.

I have a question about your garage. Do you currently park in your garage, or is it overflowing with stuff? Ms. Chandler answered right now I am not parking in it, but that is because I have my lawnmower in the middle of it. I do park there all winter long.

Mr. Okum asked the garage size and Ms. Chandler answered that it is a two-car garage.

Mr. Apke said I do have a problem with the 3 ½ feet. In the discussion it sounds like with the other accessory building, you may want to consider relocating that somewhere closer to your pool. You may be using some of that other building’s pool storage for this. Ms. Chandler responded I’ll walk the distance; I would rather have it in the back part of the property.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE TEN

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Mr. Okum commented that we just had a house on a corner lot and here is another one. Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, he asked if the shed wouldn’t be considered to be in the front yard, because of Harter Avenue?

Mr. Lohbeck answered no, because the street doesn’t run all the way in the back. Mr. Okum responded the sidewalk does, which means public right of way. Mr. Lohbeck responded we have a map from CAGIS and Harter is back in here and this is not a front yard.

Mr. Okum said I think 5 feet is definitely a must, and considering that an 8’ x 8’ slab is there that is tilted, if your shed were placed on it it would have to be raised up on the other side some anyway, so you would need to adjust it. It couldn’t set on part concrete and part dirt. What happens with the concrete doesn’t make a whole lot of difference, but it may change the height of the shed on the park side. In order to balance it out, they may need to do some leveling.

I tend to believe that we are talking about an awfully large shed. I have been known to approve a 10’ x 16’ shed on numerous occasions. I usually look at available space and size of lot and what screening is available on the lot. I believe this has two large trees that screen it from view from Harter Avenue. On the other hand, everybody going to the park would see it but it is somewhat back off the fence.

Eighteen is an odd size for a shed. They usually run 10, 12 and 16 feet. Ten x 18 is written in; it is not a standard size. I would be more inclined to an allowance for a 10’ x 16’ shed. I don’t think we will need to make a part of our motion that the other shed must be removed. Mr. Lohbeck said it should be as part of the motion.

Mr. Squires said you are talking about the size of the shed. I would like to point out to you that the shed in the pictures across the street is a 10’ x 18’ shed.

Mr. Okum said I understand, but there is quite a difference between where that shed is placed and this shed. I still have a little bit of a problem looking at this as strictly not a front yard location. I know Mr. Lohbeck is here and he is interpreting the code as he sees it, but as I see it, I see Harter Avenue and a public right of way, a sidewalk going into a public park being right along that street. I’ll read it the way I want to read it, but in my opinion I think that is very close to borderline front yard, and then we are placing a 10’ x 18’ shed in a front yard, and I wouldn’t be supporting that.

Mr. Squires said my whole point is one of fairness. We have a 10’ x 18’ shed within sight. I don’t see how we can allow the resident across the street a 10’ x 18’ shed and deny Ms. Chandler the 10’ x 18’.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE ELEVEN

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Mr. Okum responded I think you can based on its location. When you are putting one shed that is clearly not in proximity to a public right of way or in a public walkway, and you have the other one that is some distance over behind a house that is not near a front walkway. I think there is a big difference.

On the other hand, if this shed were taken off that property line and moved to the north side closer to the right side of the lot, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with a 10’ x 18’.

Everybody on this board has commented about this shed being 3 feet from the fence. Two feet is the width from this counter and that won’t make a difference in what it would look like from the sidewalk. As far as kids writing on it, it would make a little bit of difference that he couldn’t reach it. That would be the only advantage. It certainly in the public’s way and in the public’s view.

Mr. Squires responded we have a difference of opinion in what you consider a front yard and a side yard on this corner lot.

Mr. Okum answered I think most of this property by our code, except for this extension, is a corner lot with two front yards.

Mr. Borden commented if it was a front yard, it couldn’t have a fence. Mr. Okum said that would be legal non-conforming currently. It doesn’t mean that is not a front yard. Mr. Squires said we disagree.

Mrs. Pollitt commented I think we need to look at Ms. Chandler’s lot on an individual basis. Number one, she has to have the fence because she has a pool. If she didn’t have the fence, she would be violating another law.

Mr. Okum said I understand that, but the fence can be 10 feet from the pool. There is nothing in the code that says the fence has to be around your entire perimeter of your property.

Mrs. Pollitt added this fence I’m sure would be considered grandfathered in because it was there before she bought it; it was there before I moved in across the street, and that has been 31 years ago.

I don’t have a problem at all with where the shed is. I don’t have a problem with the size. I think that to move it to the north property line would probably disturb a lot of your flowers, your perennial beds that you have through there. I can understand your not wanting to do that, because you already have that part of your yard landscaped and formatted, whereas the area you are looking at is not landscaped. Ms. Chandler added that I don’t have a problem going to the five feet because I do have the logs laid where the five feet line is.

Mr. Borden asked Ms. Chandler if she had a problem removing the existing shed. Ms. Chandler answered I will if it is necessary.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE TWELVE

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Mr. Borden moved to grant a variance for a 10’ x 18’ shed with the condition that the existing utility building be removed. Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Mr. Borden, Mr. Weidlich and Mr. Squires voted aye. Mrs. Huber, Mr. Apke and Mr. Okum voted no, and Mrs. Pollitt abstained. With a tie vote, the request for the variance is denied.

Ms. Chandler asked where she went from here. Mr. Okum answered you have the option of the Court of Common Pleas, or you could resubmit to the Building Department a separate request, altered from what you have presented this evening. You could relocate the shed, give it a different size, give it a different location and resubmit to the Building Department.

Ms. Chandler asked if she could say that she would construct a 10’ x 16’ shed. Mr. Okum said I understand what you want to do . If one of the dissenting votes requested that it be reconsidered, we could bring it back on the floor this evening.

Mr. Okum moved to bring it back to the floor and Mr. Apke seconded the motion.

Application was brought back to the floor for reconsideration.

Mr. Apke said there were two parts of the application that I didn’t like. Even though you were considering moving the shed to five feet, I still don’t like the location. It is very close to that sidewalk, and I think it would be more appropriate in a different part of your yard. The other part is that I didn’t feel that you justified a need for that large a shed, and that was part of the reason that I voted against the variance. So I am looking for a smaller building that would be relocated.

Ms. Chandler stated I am trying to use some of the storage from the attic. Getting older and for safety reasons, I don’t want to anything in the attic. I want to bring all the Christmas items down and put them in the garage. I have a lot of yard maintenance and pool items that are in that plastic shed to go in there too since I would be removing that shed per your request. I have the lawnmowers, the chairs, all of the pool equipment and ladders and I need to store them where you wouldn’t be banging into them. I have a big potting table for the flowers to free up the garage to be less of a fire hazard. That is why I wanted to have al the fertilizer out in the shed and away from the house. That is why I wanted the oversized shed.

Mr. Apke asked if she would consider a smaller shed. Ms. Chandler answered that she would consider a smaller shed, a 10’ x 16’. Mr. Apke asked about relocating it from the corner. Ms. Chandler asked where he wanted it and Mr. Apke answered that he would like it along the back property line if that is possible, away from being so close to Harter. Maybe it could be more centered in the middle of your back yard.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE THIRTEEN

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Ms. Chandler commented if you put it in the middle of the back yard, that would cut up the entire property. Mr. Apke responded I meant centered on the house, five feet from the back property line. Five feet in from the fence where the park is, but instead of being so close to Harter Avenue, centered behind the house. Mr. Okum showed the applicant where Mr. Apke was suggesting on the CAGIS map.

Mr. Apke added that the reason why I am suggesting this placement is that even a 10’ x 16’ shed is a very large building, and I really wouldn’t want that to encroach on your neighbor on the side. It would be kind of out of the way there.

Ms. Chandler said that area is where the baseballs come into my yard. By putting it over on the left-hand side of the property, I was trying to keep it away from the baseballs. Also, when I look out my back, I watch the fireworks, the sunsets; that would block that entire view.

Mr. Apke said I’m not saying it has to be centered. You would be within your rights to move it. I just want it off that corner, being so close to Harter Avenue.

Mr. Okum said actually she could put it anywhere across that entire back fence line, as long as she holds to five feet. The only variance needed would be the shed size.

Ms. Chandler commented I did have it blocked off into logs for the doors and windows to face my property, facing eastward. I thought as the people walked up Harter, they would be able to see in the windows and doors, and I felt if I had it sideways, it would be more secure in terms of people not seeing what was in there. I felt it would be safer that way. If you want more than five feet off the sidewalk, I would do that, if that is what you are concerned about.

Ms. Pollitt asked the applicant to describe her plans for taking down the sunroom and adding on. She has beautiful plans for a sunroom back there. The existing sunroom was there 35 to 40 years ago when the house was built. If they put the shed at the back, which you are suggesting, that would be right in line with her plans for the sunroom.

Ms. Chandler added I was anticipating being able to have a better sunroom because it is leaky. I love the sunrises and sunsets and being able to sit there and watch the games and watch what is going on in the park. That’s what I like about the fact that it is all open back there.

Mr. Okum said the only thing I can say to that is if you put that 10’ x 18’ shed there, by the angle that I see, you will not see very much going on on the ball diamond. You would be obstructing that view. I can understand your point about the sunsets and where it rises and falls. I certainly don’t want to take any of that away. You have a very large lot; it is 108 feet across that back fence line. You have a lot of space that you can do a lot with.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE FOURTEEN

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Mr. Okum said you could put it more to the right corner, not on the neighbor, but basically if this unit were 10’ x 18’ or 10’ x 16’, and it was put five feet from that fence line on Harter, (and I know you say it is not Harter but it is the walkway going into the park), it would be walking beside a 16’ or 18’ wall. I too go to the park that way, and I think there are other locations. I think I could deal with 10’ x 16’; it is just that particular location. I don’t think you will be able to utilize the slab at all because of the slope that it is on and getting the shed level. It would be more of a hindrance than a help.

Ms. Chandler asked if taking the shed six feet away from the fence be okay? One of the reasons why I had made it along Harter rather than the walking path angled was the fact that the sun comes over and would reflect down and the whole area would be almost all shade. By putting the shed sideways, I would get more sun into that because I have flowers planted in front of the trees. If that is where you all want it to accept the size, I will be glad to move it there.

Mr. Weidlich asked if the property is all level in the back or does it slope up to the fence line? Ms. Chandler answered that where the tree line is is where it raises. Anything behind the tree line is higher, but it is flat back there. Mr. Weidlich looked at the photo showing the area.

Mr. Okum said it is my understanding that the applicant has said she would move the shed in six feet from the fence and it would be a 10’ x 16’ shed.

Ms. Chandler said I will do whatever the committee wants. Mr. Okum responded I can’t tell you what the committee wants. Right now I have three members who have voted for five-foot setback and 10'’x 18'’shed; I have three members who voted against that and one abstention.

Addressing Mr. Okum, Ms. Chandler asked if she moved the shed to six feet from the property line, could she have the 10’ x 18j’ shed? Mr. Okum said I would not prefer a 10’ x 18’ shed if it is in that location, no.

Ms. Chandler asked Mrs. Huber and Mr. Apke and both said no. Ms. Chandler asked about the 10’ x 16’ size. Mr. Apke responded probably I still would not. Mrs. Huber said I think it is too big, and I don’t like the proposed location. She has much more space than most people do in the Old Terrace with a two car garage Other people have their lawnmowers and ladders and lawn chairs in their garages.

Ms. Chandler said I barely can get my car in the garage. Would you be willing to vote for a 10’ x 16’ shed in that location if I went 6 feet from the property line? Or would you rather have me put it parallel to the back?

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE FIFTEEN

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Mr. Squires said your sunroom faces west. Addressing the other board members, he asked if we are talking about the ideal location as being the northwest corner of the lot?

Mrs. Pollitt said I would like to see some resolution brought to this also. This neighbor has come up here in good faith to make her living conditions better, to make her life easier by having places to store things. She has an oversized lot. If you want to get down to whether this is a walkway or a street or a nuisance, we can talk about that too.

Mrs. Pollitt said I have lived there for 30 years and have picked up more garbage than the city maintenance people have, so I don’t consider it a street. I consider it an aggravation. I have talked with the city department that they have never come to that end of the street to upgrade it or do anything with it. I have asked to get that on the agenda to make it a more pleasing entranceway into the park, so I do see that in the near future that probably something will be changed there. But I personally do not think that we should be making this applicant jump through the hoops that we are making her jump through. She is willing to work with us; she is asking us what we want, and we need to tell her what we want. I think we need to say exactly what location we want it at. She is willing to come in from the setback; she is willing to downsize.

I know what her garage looks like. I know what she has for storage. She has the oversize lot. I don’t have a problem with the 10’ x 18’ shed. When you have a pool, you have a lot of equipment. I do think we are not giving her very clear direction here. She is asking us to give her some direction, and I think as a board that is what we should be doing here.

Mr. Okum said I don’t disagree. I think I have been fairly clear, and I will be even more clear. In my view this is a very very borderline front yard situation. As such, I think the shed should be placed to the north of the left corner of the home. Personally, I don’t care where it goes to the north of the left corner of the home. I could go anywhere along the fence line that this applicant wants, five feet from the rear fence.

Mrs. Pollitt said so you are just stating to run it along the park area horizontally. And then could she have a 10’ x 18’ shed with that oversized yard? Mr. Okum responded when it has been placed away from the corner of Harter, we have approved a previous application for a 10’ x 18’ shed. I would not have difficulty if it were to the north away from the left corner of the home, anywhere in that area. As long as it is setting that close to Harter Avenue, I am going to consider it as close in appearance to a front yard issue. With the other applicant that was in, on the south side of Harter, I had that same thought process, and when the placement of that shed was brought before this board, I took that into consideration, because it was pushed to the southwest corner of that site, and that in my opinion kept it away from Harter Avenue.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE SIXTEEN

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Mr. Okum said I agree with you Mrs. Pollitt that it is not a very pleasing park entrance for that area. There is no reason that it shouldn’t be a more pleasing park entrance, but I think we have similar park entrances in other parts of the city. Accessibility is important, but putting it there is not wise.

Ms. Chandler asked how far in from the south fence it should be. Mr. Okum answered wherever the left corner of your home falls, in a perpendicular line, which would be 33 feet or more, however you want to move it. If you look at the hand drawing provided to us, there is 33 feet from the fence on Harter Avenue and that would be the left corner of the home.

Ms. Pollitt, I agree that this is an exceptionally large lot, and I made that statement about the other applicant that was in here with an exceptionally large lot and an unique situation where it could be placed behind the house and not in view of the world. I don’t have a major problem with that. The pool gives some credence to the amount of materials that need to be stored. Ms. Chandler said and also the big pool cover, and the big ladders,

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if she understood his position. Ms. Chandler answered I hear your position, yes. Mr. Okum asked if she would be agreeable to that. Ms. Chandler answered to get my shed, yes. Mr. Okum added it gives you anywhere from 33 feet to 108 feet from Harter Avenue. Ms. Chandler commented it sure cuts up that back area. Mr. Okum said you have some trees there that sort of would be in the proximity of that view. Ms. Chandler responded I will do anything, whatever the board pleases.

Mr. Borden wondered if the suggestion was 33 feet in from the fence line and a 10’ x 18’ shed? Mr. Okum said yes, considering the applicant’s willingness to move it in from the southeast corner. Ms. Chandler said I will do that; it is not the ideal, but I will do it to be able to have my shed.

Mr. Squires said so what you are saying is that she will be allowed to moves the 10’ x 18’ shed as proposed a minimum of 33 feet from the fence line adjoining Harter Avenue with a five foot setback from the property line.

Addressing Ms. Chandler, Mr. Apke said to let you know, I would be fine with Mr. Okum’s proposal in its entirety. I could go with the 10’ x 18’ shed as a consideration for moving that shed off that property line.

Ms. Chandler responded and so the baseballs will hit the shed. Mr. Okum answered it is a possibility; I believe foul balls could hit your neighbor’s shed also.

Mr. Okum asked Ms. Chandler if she understood the discussion. Ms. Chandler answered that it would be no less than 5 feet from the west fence and no less than 33 feet from the south fence, with a 10’ x 18’ building.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 2002

PAGE SEVENTEEN

IX B 11657 VAN CLEVE – 10’ X 18’ ACCESSORY BLDG. 3 ½’ FROM LINE

Mr. Borden asked which way the shed would face, and Ms. Chandler answered that I am hearing Mr. Okum say that the building door and windows should face east. Mr. Borden said east or north perhaps. Ms. Chandler added putting it over there would definitely make that flower bed an entire shade bed. Mr. Okum said you could move it further north. Mr. Squires said what he is saying is that you can center it anywhere you want as long as you are 33 feet from Harter Avenue and five feet from the property lines.

Mrs. Pollitt said you could put it to the north five feet from the neighbor’s property line anywhere along through there that you wanted either with the back facing the walkway or the back facing your neighbor. Mr. Okum added then she would have a variance for a 10’ x 18’ shed.

Addressing Mr. Okum, Ms. Chandler said if I had a smaller shed, would you be willing to go closer to that south fence at all? Mr. Okum answered I don’t believe so. There isn’t a lot of difference between10’ x 16’ and 10’ x 18’. I would be more inclined to give you the space that you need because that seems to be the hardship and that is something you wanted. It will take some adaptation, but I think you can make some use of that 30’ x 108’ area. The reason I personally feel that the area on that left corner is good, although not ideal, is because there are trees there that would create a break. Those trees also break some of that sunlight that you were mentioning. If you were to put it more to the north side, then it would not be where there are currently trees and you would be getting direct sunlight. Mrs. Pollitt mentioned the sunroom that you want to put on your home. When I place that on the little drawing you gave us, it gave me a better view of that placement and how it would impact on that corner. If it were mine I would put it toward the northwest corner, but that is your decision.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance for a 10’ x 18’ storage shed to be a minimum of 33 feet from the south property line (bordering Harter), that the five foot property line setbacks be maintained, and the existing plastic storage shed shall be removed.

Mr. Apke seconded the motion.

All members voted aye, except Mrs. Pollitt who abstained, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Apke said at last month’s meeting, we talked about the Cloverdale-Smiley area and the different ways to deal with the development. Has Planning Commission taken this up at all? Mr. Okum answered that there was a little discussion regarding the zoning on those sites and the way the Zoning Code is written. It has been that same zoning forever. There are more than 50 lots available in that area, and I wouldn’t have a major problem when you find applicants who are willing to build the types of homes that we want on a 50 foot lot. We want to make these lots work, and I would rather have variances with conditions than go with 2,000 s.f. boxes.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    16 APRIL 2002

    PAGE EIGHTEEN

    Mr. Squires responded I was under the impression from talking to Mr. Galster that Planning went to the 2,000 s.f. requirement hoping that nobody would build on those small lots, but we have seen that is not the case. I think the administration is receptive to an overlay district.

    Mr. Okum said the difficulty with an overlay district is that their purpose is for blending uses. I’m not sure you can do it in a strictly residential neighborhood. I think our planning department needs to take a look at it but I don’t know about any regulations more than incentive zoning where people can do that type of thing by the need.

    Mr. Squires said I have never heard anything about what is planned for Walnut Street and Elm Alley. Mrs. Pollitt answered I don’t think that has been opened up yet. I think they are trying to figure out what kind of land they will have for redevelopment and go from there. I do know from being involved in the first meeting that the proposed parking area would have ornamental fences around it that would block traffic access from that parking lot into the subdivision. There would be access for walkways, but not necessarily for traffic access back in there. They really wanted to protect those neighbors back there, so I would assume that once they get the footprint, they would start looking at ways to update those streets. I’m sure that is part of the overall plan.

  3. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Apke moved to adjourn and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,2002 _________________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,2002 _________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary