BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 APRIL 1996

7:30 P.M.

 

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Barry Tiffany.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: William Mitchell, James Squires, Thomas Schecker, C

Councilwomen Kathy McNear and Marge Boice, Barbara

Ewing and Chairman Barry Tiffany.

III. MINUTES OF 19 MARCH 1996

Mr. Squires moved for adoption and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. 3/27 Letter to Debbie Sawyers, Hunterís Glen Apartments re expiration

of temporary variance

B. 3/27 Letter to Jerry Ash, Mid-Day, Inc. re expiration of temporary variance

C. Zoning Bulletin, Volume 44, No. 4 - April 1996

D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 12 March 1996

V. REPORTS

A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated due to the length of the agenda, I will not give a Council report, other than to announce that tomorrow is Student Council Night, where the students come in and take our places and conduct the meeting. It is an interesting meeting for both the students and for us.

B. Report on Planning Commission - Barry Tiffany

Mr. Tiffany said there was nothing in Planning that would concern this Board at this time.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Valentina Shuster, 672 Park Avenue requests variance to allow the installation of a satellite dish on her chimney. Said variance is requested from Section 153.053(B)(5) "It does not project into front or side yards." (3) "It does not exceed 12 feet in height.." and (7) "It shall be located not less than 20 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent residential lot."

No one was present; Mrs. McNear moved to table and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled with seven affirmative votes.

B. Pat and Joe Perin request a variance to modify an existing pylon sign @ 12000 Princeton Pike. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(F)(3) "..any face of a pole sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in area" (existing Variance 16-1982 allowed 160 square feet)

(tabled 3/19/96)

Mrs. Perin reported that they tried to better identify the center as we decided to do, and we have three sketches here tonight to show you.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Two

VI B PAT & JOE PERIN 12000 PRINCETON PIKE - PYLON SIGN - continued

Mrs. Perin added that the S is approximately five feet in width.

Mr. Tiffany commented I like the spacing on the letters on Number 2 as far as readability, but I like the impact of Number 3. Mrs. Boice agreed that Number 3 would have more of an impact. Mr. Mitchell asked if they were open to all three choices, and Mrs. Perin indicated that she doesnít like Number 1 at all. Mrs. Boice commented I would agree with you on that, and I think Number 3 spreads the spelling of the Place out a little bit and would be more identifiable. Mrs. Perin agreed adding I think it calls attention to it, but we are open to either Number 2 or Number 3.

Mr. Squires said I would like to compliment you on these. I have Number 3 in my hand, and I like the spacing of the letters in it very much. That may not be your favorite; you did say you didnít like Number 1, and I would concur on that. Mrs. Perin commented two or three would do the job, but I think Number 3 probably is the better of the two.

McNear asked the size of this sign and Mr. Perin answered it is 5í x 20í; Mr. Tiffany added they are reusing the sign that is there. Mrs. McNear asked if this would be within the variance as it stands with Staples? Mr. Perin answered that Staples has agreed to the 30 square feet, but Rhodes wants more signage; they are unhappy with the signage they have and would like more.

Mr. Squires wondered if this sign were lighted, and Mr. Perin answered it would be lighted from the interior. Mrs. Ewing commented my concern is that the wind blew out the old signage. Wasnít that part of the problem? Mrs. Perin reported that the first sign was done in small segments, but this one is not constructed that way, and we have had no problem with it whatsoever.

Mrs. Ewing moved to adopt Sign Plan #3 and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes. Mr. Tiffany added we appreciate the effort.

 

VII. NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Tiffany said we have had a request; one of the applicants has a work commitment that he needs to make, and if there is no objection, I would like to move Item I, Charles Huber to the start of New Business.

I. Charles M. Huber, 12175 Audie Court requests variance to allow parking of camper on slab 18" over sidewalk. Said variance is requested from Section 153.044(C)(2) "but not closer than 5í to the nearest lot line or any right-of-way line.", and Section 153.044(C)(2)(b) "Each such space shall not be less than 9 feet by 20 feet."

Mr. Tiffany stated that Mr. Schecker has indicated that he knows Mr. Huber, and he will be abstaining from this item. Mr. Schecker added for the record, I am an adjacent property owner, and therefore I will abstain.

Mr. Huber stated the camper is hanging 18" over the sidewalk, because the camper is not up against the house. I am working so that I can push it back up. It still would be about eight inches, but it is up high enough that you can walk through there.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

16 April 1996

Page Three

VII I CHARLES HUBER, 12175 AUDIE COURT-PARKING OF CAMPER-continued

Mr. Tiffany asked the width of the sidewalk, and Mr. McErlane said my guess is four feet. I have a slide that I took earlier before the application was made which gives an idea of what the camper looks like. Mr. Tiffany commented from that view, it would appear to me that it is more than 18 inches over the sidewalk. Was it moved back further since this picture was taken?

Mr. Huber answered no, it has not been touched. Mr. Tiffany asked if the 18 inches were measured at the base of the fifth wheel, or at the point? Mr. Huber indicated that it is measured from where it comes to the bottom, from there out. Mr. Mitchell asked the distance from the he sidewalk to that point, adding that he thought it was about four feet to four feet six inches. Mr. Huber said that was right, adding that the camper is not all the way up against the house. I am working on moving it up against the house, but the point of it still would hang out. Mrs. Boice commented I am 5í7" tall, and I would have to bend to talk underneath that, right? Mr. Huber confirmed this.

Mr. Squires commented I have seen this, and there is a box containing your electronics for your lights and that comes down much lower than that. Mrs. Boice could not walk under there without hitting her head on it. That is a concern I think.

Mr. Mitchell commented I was by there yesterday, and with the basketball hoop in the cul de sac, there is a lot of activity in the area playing. I look at this as a danger, a risk to the public. I know a lot of people walk at night, and some people donít see that well, and you could walk into a trailer. Thatís a risk and a hazard we donít need to deal with.

Mr. Huber responded I had a camper there before and it never affected anybody. I had a slab there since 1989 and this is the first time I have had a hassle about it. I have never had a problem with it whatsoever.

Mrs. Boice commented I donít know if you want to read this into the record; I think in fairness to Mr. Huber, he should be aware of this is communication that was received..

Mr. Tiffany said Mrs. Webb received a phone call from a neighbor, and Iíll read it as it states here:

"A neighbor phoned this morning about this camper, stating that she is very concerned about it because her children come close to being hit on the head by the part that overhangs the sidewalk. She also wanted the city to know that the slab the gentleman built several years ago was not for this camper but a smaller camper. She added that her neighbor down the street with children also is concerned, as is another neighbor. I asked if any of them could come to the meeting tomorrow night and express their concerns to the Board, and she indicated they couldnít, but wanted the city to know their concerns. I told her I would pass this along to the members."

Mr. Tiffany commented I understand your point that you can walk around the camper at that point, but at the low point it eliminates 18 inches of the sidewalk and at the high point where my head probably would be it probably would be closer to two feet, so we have eliminated half the sidewalk for an average sized man or woman. If anyone else came in and said they were going to put a cord of wood on the sidewalk, I would have a problem with it.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Four

VII I CHARLES HUBER 12175 AUDIE COURT -PARKING OF CAMPER-continued

Mr. Tiffany continued you say you are going to move the camper closer to the house; how much closer to the house can you get? Mr. Huber stated probably another foot or 14 inches. Mr. Tiffany said you will still impinge on the sidewalk to some degree. Mr. Huber answered somewhat. But the big part that you are talking about will be back closer to the house.

Mr. Squires asked him to point out the part that I am concerned about for your electronic gear? Mr. Huber responded I can take that off each time, and all there would be would be three or four inches lift where the holes would be. This is what you are talking about; the box is on the other side and would have to stay, but this hitch can come off. Mr. Squires wondered if they were talking about two different things. I am talking about a large box that I thought contained all the cables on your camper, and that is the part that I am concerned about. Mr. Huber said what you are talking about is a little box on this hitch on the other side, and that is for electrical breaks. Mr. Squires responded I can understand that; it just looked to me a little larger than what you were describing. I donít dispute you on the trailer. Mr. Huber said what you are talking about is the little box on the other side; it is not very big at all, no bigger than a pack of cigarettes. Mr. Squires said then maybe I was concerned about the hitch. Mr. Huber responded I can take the hitch off.

Mr. Tiffany commented as I look back on my youth, I would see this thing as a challenge on a bicycle. I donít live in the neighborhood, and I canít say whether kids zip under there with their bikes or not, but as a kid, I sure would have. Is there anyone else here this evening that wishes to speak regarding this?

Mr. Huber responded I can fix that too where they canít go under, if I have to put two by fours or plywood and make a frame underneath there. Mr. Tiffany commented and that would be on the sidewalk also, thatís the problem. Mr. Huber stated I can fix that too; I am pretty good with a saw.

Mr. Boice stated our Code reads that both trailers shall not exceed 30 feet in length; what is the total length? Mr. Huber answered it is 31 feet. Mrs. Boice asked the height, and Mr. Huber indicated that it was about 10 feet 3 inches.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were two variances requested, and Mr. McErlane reported that there were, one for setback from the property line, as well as a setback from the right of way line. Mr. Tiffany asked about the size of the trailer, and Mr. McErlane stated that there is a discrepancy in the Code. In one instance it says 35 feet and in the other it says 30 feet. I tried to get that cleared up a few years ago and it didnít work. Mr. Tiffany wondered why not, and Mr. McErlane reported that because of all the time put into the RV ordinance, people were afraid to touch it.

Mr. Squires stated you indicated you are quite handy and willing to do a lot of things to make this situation a bit better than I personally see it to be right now. As it stands, I honestly donít think I could support it. I see some danger there. I could see a challenge in trying to go under that at a fast rate of speed playing games with other friends. If you are willing to work with this Board, and I think you are, I would prefer a different situation that would also meet your goals for parking that camper.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Five

VII I CHARLES HUBER-12175 AUDIE COURT - PARKING OF CAMPER-continued

Mr. Squires continued perhaps there could be drawings showing some heights and what you intend to remove, etc. Mr. Huber responded I believe I can get by with taking part of the gutter off the house and moving the camper back. Mr. Tiffany commented thatís another variance, and I would not like to see you go to the trouble of doing that and having more trouble as a result. Once the gutters are on the house, they have to stay on the house.

Mrs. Boice said another thing that concerns me is since the American Disabilities Act passed, the City has been under very stringent regulations for freedom of the disabled to move around the community. When you are talking about doing the two by fours, that would cut the width of the sidewalk, and I donít think a wheelchair would be able to negotiate. Iím opening that up because we have had spot complaints throughout the city, and federally we are really under the gun. I know the City of Springdale, up to 1996 had spent something like $80,000 or $90,000 in lowering curbs and water fountains and redoing pressure on our doors here so disabled people can open them. That has to be taken into consideration, because the City under federal regulations is very liable for the disabled to be able to have total freedom in moving around. By the time we are through, I think the City will be well into $150,000 equipping the proper curbing. We need to take that into consideration

here, because if we do anything that would block that availability under the ADA Act, we would have a severe problem.

Mr. Tiffany commented that is a very valid concern. We consider variances from the setback to the right of way, but for this we are talking about impinging on the public right of way, and it is named so because it should be accessible to the public, all the public. All the citizens should be able to use that section of the sidewalk if they wish to. Thatís my main concern with this.

From the audience Mrs. Huber said if itís so public, how come the City doesnít clean up the sidewalk in the wintertime? Mr. Tiffany answered it is not the Cityís responsibility to. We do clean the streets. Mrs. Huber asked how come the homeowners have to pay for any damage done to a person on the sidewalk? Mr. Tiffany said that you would have to take up with the law director of the City; I canít address that.

Mr. Tiffany asked if anyone else would like to speak for or against this variance.

Mr. Steve Martin, 12176 Audie Court said I have a seven year old daughter who rides her bike around the cul de sac, and from what I can see, she has no problem with riding her bike under that. I have seen her and other kids in the neighborhood riding their bikes under that. Mr. Tiffany asked what happens one day when something distracts the child and they look up? Thatís my concern. You did verify that the kids are riding underneath this thing, as it is a challenge. Mr. Martin continued she has no problem; the other kids do it too. As far as people bumping into it, I see people walking around it, but I do not see how people cannot see that. From the audience, Mrs. Huber added itís white; how can you not miss it? Mr. Tiffany said we have a microphone on the podium, so if you would like to speak, you are more than welcome to come down. Mr. Martin continued my daughter has no problem riding underneath it, and she knows itís there, and I think most of the other kids know itís there too.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Six

VII CHARLES HUBER 12175 AUDIE COURT PARKING OF CAMPER-continued

Mr. Huber added one of the gentlemen whose name is on there, Jim Grisham, couldnít be here; he works out of town, and he called me from Huntington West Virginia.

Mr. Squires stated I will move that we grant this variance and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.

No one voted aye, and Mr. Squires, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany voted no. Mr. Schecker abstained. The variance was denied with six votes.

Mr. Tiffany said your request has been denied at this point, and you would have to get with Mr. McErlaneís office for the timetable to remove the camper from the property and find other storage for it.

A. Champion Manufacturing requests variance to allow the construction of a 14í x 15í screened patio enclosure at 969 East Crescentville Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards must be at least 35 feet deep."

Jim Marowitz of Champion Manufacturing stated I have a signed letter from the owners of the property, so that I may represent them. Mr. Marowitz reported my understanding is that the Code states that we need to have a 35 foot setback from any structure to the end of the property line. According to our measurements, we are looking at 33 feet, so we are two feet short. I am here requesting a variance so Mr. and Mrs. Jones can allow us to erect the structure.

Mrs. McNear stated I would like to make a motion to grant the variance to allow the construction of a 14í x 15í screened patio enclosure at 969 East Crescentville Road. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the 15í is to the outside of the structure, not the inside, and Mr. Marowitz confirmed that it is.

By voice vote, all voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

B. David J. Smith, 524 Cloverdale Avenue requests variance to allow the expansion of his driveway to 2í off property line in order to park boat. Said variance is requested from Section 153.044(C)(2) "..but not closer than 5í to the nearest lot line..or any right-of-way line..."

Mr. Smith stated there is no driveway there now, and I propose to put a driveway 12í x 100í alongside between my garage and the property line next door.

Mr. Squires asked if there is a fence there, and would this be within two feet of that fence? Mr. Smith confirmed this. Mr. Squires wondered if that neighbor had signed the paper, and Mr. Smith indicated that he had, adding that the lot used to belong to my lot, and Mrs. Scott bought it 15 years ago so they could put their swimming pool in there, so there will never be another house next to that property line.

Mr. Tiffany added for clarification, the signing of the notice of public hearing does not indicate that the individual is for or against the issue. It is just that they are aware of the meeting if they would like to speak about it.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Seven

VII B DAVID J. SMITH 524 CLOVERDALE AVENUE-DRIVEWAY EXPANSION-cont.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were anyone else here who would like to speak on this issue? No one came forward.

Mr. Schecker asked if he would have a 15 foot concrete connector from the sidewalk inward between your current driveway and the existing strip? Mr. Smith said yes, it will be connected to the driveway that is there now. It will be the regular size apron. Mr. Schecker wondered if he would retain the greenway there of approximately 15 feet all the way across there, and Mr. Smith indicated he was, adding that there are three trees there and there will be approximately a three foot strip of grass so that I can keep the trees alive.

Mr. Mitchell asked the length of the boat, and Mr. Smith indicated that it was 25 feet. Mr. Mitchell asked if he were putting in an apron also, and Mr. Smith indicated that he was, adding that it would be a regulation size driveway that you would have on any residence, but it will be connected to the current driveway. That is an exceptionally wide and deep lot; it is not a standard size.

Mr. Schecker commented the proposal seems to me to be quite an improvement over the idea of trying to move that. Given the fact that the boat is okay to be there in the first place, there is a need to improve that area rather than him going through a muddy sloppy mess here. Mr. Smith added even without the boat being there, the three trees shade that area so much that the grass doesnít grow there and it is a mudhole. I think the concrete will be a much needed improvement.

Mr. Squires said I would commend you for taking this effort; I certainly would prefer to see it there than in your driveway. Mr. Smith added eventually I want to put a garage in the back of the lot, and the boat will be moved further back, but thatís in the future.

Mr. Tiffany asked the driveway width per our Code, and Mr. McErlane reported that the only requirement in the Code is that you have a minimum 19 foot wide driveway currently, but these houses were built before that requirement.

Mrs. McNear asked if the boat would be placed where it is currently if you put the driveway in right next to the house? Mr. Smith answered it will be back further, 75 feet from the road, and Mrs. Scott next door has a white privacy fence, and I have plans to continue that with a gate so you will be able to see the top of the boat, and that is about it.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Mrs. McNear asked if it would be agreeable if the Board added in that the fence has to be part of this project. Mr. Smith responded that would be no problem. Mrs. McNear continued the reason I ask for that is because the boat is so large, and it is a very nice boat, but I think it is very overwhelming where it is and if we had some screening, it might be more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Smith said unless you are right in front of it, you canít see it because of the privacy fence next door. Mr. Tiffany asked how much farther back will it be and Mr. Smith responded it would be 20 feet further back. Mr. Tiffany said so it will be almost to the rear of the house. Mr. Smith added right now it is at mid point.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Eight

VII B DAVID J. SMITH 524 CLOVERDALE AVE. DRIVEWAY EXPANSION-continued

Mr. Schecker amended his motion to include the screening of the

boat by the privacy fence, and Mr. Squires seconded the amended motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Squires, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mrs. Ewing. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

C. Springdale Ice Cream & Beverage, 11801 Chesterdale Road requests variance to locate a 10í x 30í trailer on the premises for a period of four months. Said variance is requested from Section 153.106(B)(1) "Enclosures: All permitted main and accessory uses and operations except off-street parking and loading shall be performed wholly within enclosed building or buildings".

Steve Kuhn reported that the trailer is for office space to install a computerized raw material and finished product material computer system. We do not have enough office space inside the building to hold the people who will install the system.

Mr. Squires wondered why this is a variance for only four months, and Mr. Kuhn responded it is a one-half million dollar project, and it takes four months to install the system and also and do the training for our employees. I have a couple of picture of where the trailer is.

Mrs. Boice said I drove and drove and drove and could not find this location, and I understand several other members of the Board had the same problem. Pinpoint for me where this is. Mr. Kuhn stated it is on Chesterdale Road, right across the interstate from Hunterís Glen. Mr. Tiffany added it is right next to I-275; it is the same brick structure as the other Kroger building.

Mr. Kuhn added the space where the trailer is right now used to be the front office parking, but we eliminated that years ago.

Mr. Tiffany asked if it were in place now and Mr. Kuhn indicated that it was. Mrs. Boice added and you are saying four months from today, and Mr. Kuhn responded it probably will be about August 15th. Mr. Squires asked if he were willing to commit to the 15th of August, and Mr. Kuhn answered at this point of time, I am going to say yes.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant this variance for four months, until August 15, 1996, and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Squires, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance for four months was granted with seven affirmative votes.

D. Gerhard and Ruth Pfefferkorn, 1245 Wainwright Drive request variance to allow them to park their 24 foot rv on double wide driveway. Said variance is requested from Section 153.044(C)(2) "but not closer than 5 feet to the nearest lot line..or any right -of-way line" and (2)(b) "..must still leave two additional spaces. Each such space shall not be less than 9 feet by 20 feet."

Mr. Pfefferkorn stated I have taken some pictures and will pass them to the board members

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

16 April 1996

Page Nine

VII D GERHARD & RUTH PFEFFERKORN, 1245 WAINWRIGHT DR.-PARK RV-cont.

Mrs. Boice commented I have been known to be very blunt, so I am only going to cite my own personal feeling, and I certainly am open to hear the reason why you do not choose to possibly store this someplace else. If I had this situation next door to me, cutting the view it would be disturbing to me. I have to be perfectly frank about that; to be anything less would not be serving my position here. It is not your intent to ever store it at all? You wish to store it on your driveway?

Mr. Pfefferkorn answered yes; I have talked to my neighbors and they have no objections to it. Mrs. Boice responded your present neighbors, but when we grant a variance it goes with the property. So, if the neighborhood changes and you get new neighbors on either side, they would have no choice. I can understand why you want it there, but it does concern me. We are seeing more and more of the vehicles. I do probably average eight to 10 calls a year within and without my district as a councilmember from people who are concerned with that, and in all fairness I needed to cite that.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if this type vehicle is permitted in the driveway as long as there is ample space per our Code? Mr. McErlane reported it can be stored in the front yard if there is adequate room per Code. The typical problem for most people is meeting the requirement for two additional spaces at 9í x 20í. Since all of our front yard setbacks are less than 40 feet, it is a little difficult for anybody to get two spaces that are 9í x 20í. Mr. Tiffany continued according to what he has submitted, his driveway is 40 feet long house to sidewalk. Mr. Pfefferkorn added it is a little bit pie shaped; it is 17 feet wide at one side and 15 and one-half feet on the other. I can easily park two cars; you can see that in the picture. My garage is empty is empty; normally I park one of the cars in the garage. The rv is small; it is 24 feet and the driveway is 40 feet long, so there is ample space for five foot setback from the sidewalk.

Mr. McErlane reported the right of way actually is one foot behind the sidewalk. Mr. Tiffany responded then technically Mr. Pfefferkornís driveway is 39 feet long. So we have that issue plus the additional parking places have to be 9í x 20í. At best, we are looking at seven and one-half feet, and thatís if he puts the motor home on the edge of the driveway.

Mr. Tiffany wondered if the driveway as it exists impinge on the property line in terms of the setback requirements? It appears to have been improved on each side by three or four feet. Mr. McErlane responded it would be close if not right on the property line. Mr. Tiffany continued so we have a setback issue for the rv from the property line also. Mr. Pfefferkorn reported that the neighbor has signed that he is aware of this variance and has no problems with it. Mr. Schecker asked how long the driveway has been this way, and Mr. Pfefferkorn reported that it has been there since the early Ď70ís.

Mrs. McNear commented it sounds like weíre not really sure what the measurements are and what the side lot line is; could we perhaps table this and have the Building Department get us correct dimensions so we really know what we are talking about rather than guessing or estimating the driveway size? Mr. McErlane stated all we would be able to do is an estimate as well; we are not surveyors.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Ten

VII D GERHARD & RUTH PFEFFERKORN-1245 WAINWRIGHT DR.-PARK RV-cont.

Mr. Pfefferkorn said I gave you a sketch of the driveway which is accurate as far as I can see; I measured it. The only thing I cannot tell exactly is how close it is to my neighborís property line. I guessed it was about a foot.

Mr. Tiffany commented the driveway existed like that prior to the Code I would imagine. Mr. McErlane reported that the driveway itself doesnít have a setback requirement; it is the rv that is required to be five feet off the property line. Mr. Tiffany asked about cars, and Mr. McErlane responded there is no setback requirement for cars. Mr. Tiffany said so if he switched the rv with the cars..Mr. Schecker said but I believe he normally parks the rv near the house and not near the property line. Mr. Pfefferkorn stated I park it where it is right now. . We could park it on the other side. Mr. Tiffany asked if that would cause a problem with access to the garage, and Mr. Pfefferkorn indicated that he didnít think so. The rv is short enough that we could get around it., Mr. Tiffany continued that would eliminate the setback issue from the property line, if you parked it on the other side of the driveway. At that point, we are looking at a one foot variance, and possibly width. It works right now with the cars he has; if he goes to a Cadillac, he is in trouble.

Mr. Schecker commented to Marge that more and more we see people who have the capability to have these vehicles, and I think we are going to have to change our views about what we allow our residents to have as opposed to what we have done in the past, especially in Heritage Hill, where there arenít long and wide driveways. I think we will have to do some more bending than we have in the past. I feel we are unfairly causing these property owners to incur expenses for storage that it just doesnít seem right to me.

Mrs. Boice responded with all due respect your point is well taken, but I also feel that when you get into the purchase of those things, part of the choice is deciding where to store it. I understand what you are saying, but I also believe that if you have that type of vehicle, you would either store it offsite or know exactly where you are going to put it, because on these driveways, this is becoming an ongoing problem.

Mr. Schecker said some of us are able to afford some of these things, but we cannot afford the added expense of needing to take this away. Mrs. Boice said point well taken.

Mrs. McNear commented it was discussed earlier that these variances go with the land. Perhaps we should consider a temporary variance for a period of between one and three years so that if in the future you would decide to change to another vehicle or someone else moves into the property, we donít have this permanent variance. Mr. Tiffany commented thatís a very valid point.

Mr. Pfefferkorn said I do not plan to buy another rv, so if you tie this variance to this particular rv, I would have no problem with that. Mr. Tiffany said if we just put a time restraint on it, that would be sufficient. Mrs. Pfefferkorn said if we could have a variance until we decide to sell this, we are senior citizens, if we would sell, then could the variance be revoked? To me that would be fairer than to say no, because we enlarged the driveway before there was an ordinance; we bought this before there was an ordinance. Being good citizens, we are gone half the year and we let our neighbors use our driveway and our garage. We have never parked our cars on the street to facilitate our neighbors.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Eleven

VII D GERHARD & RUTH PFEFFERKORN 1245 WAINWRIGHT DR.-PARK RV-cont.

Mr. Tiffany stated what we are considering here is a time restraint, of say three years, so three years from now you would come back and see us again to make sure that everything is working out. okay. If everything is, we can grant another temporary variance. That way, it is to the benefit of everyone involved.

Mrs. Pfefferkorn said we would never want to do anything to alienate our neighbors.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant a temporary variance for a period of two years or upon completion of a sale of the rv prior to two years. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.

Mrs. Boice said I wanted to comment when we were talking about three years, you have to be very careful about the length of time you grant temporary variances, because they almost become squatterís rights situation. We got into a situation like that many years ago. Two years certainly would be agreeable, but beyond that you would be opening up another can of worms.

On the motion to grant the temporary variance, voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. The temporary variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

E. Mr. & Mrs. Rodger Anderson 910 Tivoli Lane request variance to allow the construction of a family room for their home. Said variances is requested from Section 153.025(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards must be at least 35 feet deep.

Mr. Anderson said my children have all grown and they start bringing their children home. There are three little girls, and there is no privacy in our home. After extensive research, I found that if I sold my house and bought another one, my real estate fees would be $13,000. I can take $13,000 and my own knowledge and labor and add a beautiful family room to the back of my house which will increase the value of my home and not put me in debt for another 30 years. I am a very efficient builder have been building since 1961, and have built apartment building, a two-story house on my farm in Indiana. I think this will be an addition to the property value; I donít think my neighbors are complaining and it will give me more storage space for the lawnmower and garden tools. It also will give me my own private television room that I can close off against these grandchildren. The concrete work will be done by another man experienced in this work. The brick layer will do the brickwork on the outside of the house. I just spent $9,000 on the interior of my house, new kitchen cabinets, carpet, ceramic tile. I just put vinyl siding on the house and will put new shutters up. The reason we havenít done this before is because with three children going through college, we didnít have much money left. We want to stay in Springdale, and if we get the necessary room, we are going to. We have been here almost exclusively for 34 years; we intend to make this our home as long as we can.

Mr. Tiffany commented as far as the sizes of this, what brought you to the 26í x 20í addition? Mr. Anderson responded I wanted it 30í x 15í, and my windows in the back of the living room would be in the way, so I had to move it four feet this way. Most of the work digging will be done by hand or by trencher.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Twelve

VII E. RODGER ANDERSON - 910 TIVOLI LANE - FAMILY ROOM - continued

Mr. Tiffany said the windows in the living room are not something you could give up? Mr. Anderson answered no, definitely not. Mr. Tiffany continued the reason I asked was if you went back to the 30í x 15í, it puts you a lot closer to the required setback. Mr. Anderson commented if I got rid of that window, I would have to move; my wife is an air addict.

Mrs. Boice said so it is an eight foot differential. Mr. Tiffany wondered if he figured the 27 feet to the outside dimension of the wall? Mr. Anderson confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany continued for these type issues in the future, I would ask in the motions that we refer to the setback as opposed to the construction size of the room, so we are sure we meet the setback.

Mr. Squires asked if this extension appear to be a part of the house? Mr. Anderson reported it will blend right in with the house, including matching the brick. You wonít see it, except on one side, and I talked to my neighbors and one wall will be solid and we will put a very nice expensive door on that side to help people get in and out of the area.

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance for the eight foot setback and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Anderson commented I watched the proceedings this evening, and I think you have been extremely fair with everyone. There were a couple of comments I was going to make earlier, but I didnít think it was any of my business. I was on jury duty where two young children were injured in a boating accident. We awarded the children $400,000 each for the injuries, a fault of somebody having a recreational vehicle. I am aware of the situation with the motor home; the extension over the sidewalk should not be allowed. I put a room on my friendís house two doors down from here, and I appreciate the way you handled that, because it is not a good idea. Mr. Tiffany stated we appreciate your comments.

F. Scott Taylor, 498 Grandin Avenue requests variance to allow the installation of a chain link fence on his property. Said variance is requested from Section 153.038(B) "..permitted in side yards if they are set back..not less than the required set-back of the adjacent main building of the butt lot."

Mr. Taylor stated I have two children, three years and six months, and my wife goes crazy whenever she goes out in the back yard trying to keep the children from going out into the street. I have pictures I have taken. On the first picture, the fence would be about where the yucca plant is. I did a survey of the properties along the street, and several of them also have fences that are close to the right of way. I am requesting a variance to construct this fence.

Mr. Squires wondered what the required setback would be and Mr. McErlane reported that this is R-1-D zoning which is 30 feet from the right of way. Mr. McErlane reported that the dimension shown on the drawing is from the property line, which is the right of way line. It would be nine feet from the right of way line, and there is probably another 12 feet to the curb from the right of way line. Mr. Taylor reported the length of my driveway is about 40 feet.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Thirteen

VII F. SCOTT TAYLOR - 498 GRANDIN AVENUE - CHAIN LINK FENCE-continued

Mr. Mitchell asked if he would be set on chain link or would he consider another type of fence. Mr. Taylor answered I would be open to a different kind of fencing.

Mr. McErlane stated the right of way, especially on older streets where it is not exactly in the center of the road, would be anywhere from 10 to 12 feet from the curb, and he is showing an additional nine feet to the fence. His property line is the right of way line; I would say he has 19 feet minimum from the curb. We would require the fence line to be in line with the house.

Mr. Tiffany commented the problem is this is a corner lot and it appears to come into the front yard on Rose Lane.

Mrs. Boice said he said he was open to another type of fence, and I think a split rail would be more pleasing aesthetically. I have no idea what the difference in cost would be. We have chain link fences in my area, and they are just ugly looking. It probably could be done with other materials and it would be far more acceptable aesthetically.

Mr. Schecker commented this basically is his back yard and he is looking for something in terms of security for his children, rather than a split rail fence. Mr. Taylor added without the additional 21 feet, it makes the back yard awfully small. Mr. Squires wondered if he had investigated any other type fence, shadow box or split rail? Mr. Taylor reported that they had looked at split rail, and it would cost an additional $300. Mr. Tiffany asked if he were talking with a mesh over it, and if he were open to that? Mr. Taylor responded I am open to it; my preference is for chain link because it costs less.

Mr. Tiffany asked if he would be using the neighborís existing chain link fence at all, and Mr. Taylor responded he had talked to the neighbor some time back, and he had said I could connect to his post. I was going to put the fence six inches off the property line on the north side of my property, because his is six inches to the other side of the property line. So it would be one feet apart to avoid the issue of putting the fence on someone elseís property. Mr. Tiffany wondered if he had agreed to let you do that and Mr. Taylor responded that he agreed to let me connect with his post, but he didnít agree for me to build a fence on his property. Mr. Tiffany said Iím not real thrilled about having a one foot gap between two fences. Mr. Taylor showed the drawing, adding that there would be one fence across the property line. Mr. Mitchell added he would close the gap. Mr. Tiffany said as you look out your back door to the rear of your property, where does the fence end? Does it come all the way around to the front of the house? Mr. Taylor answered on the front of the house, half way up my foundation, there is a gate that the previous owner had installed on the east side of the house that connects to a fence on my property line with my neighbor on Grandin. Mr. Tiffany said and there is a fence running down that side of the property tot he corner. Mr. Taylor confirmed this.

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance to install a split rail fence with the screened backing as noted on his plan. Mrs. Boice seconded the motion.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Fourteen

VII F. SCOTT TAYLOR - 498 GRANDIN AVENUE - CHAIN LINK FENCE - continued

Mr. Schecker said I feel we are limiting the applicant by dictating split rail fences. Are there any other options for him? Mr. Tiffany responded I donít know that we are dictating; we had discussion and suggestions that seemed to be amenable to both parties; are there other options you would like to look at? Mr. Taylor answered obviously it would have to be a fence that would keep my children from leaving the property, and the only ones I know of are chain link and split rail with mesh. Mr. Tiffany commented thatís a good point; would you like for us to table this so you can look at other options? Mr. Taylor responded actually I think split rail would be our next option.

Jerry Bradbury 11530 Rose Lane said I am the neighbor, and I agreed to have his fence against mine, but when he was discussing this with me, he was going to come off his garage straight across. I was not aware of his going out nine feet from the street. The reason I am objecting to it is because it will make my property look small, for the simple reason that my neighbor to the right of me has a fence that goes nine feet from the street. That was done prior to the Code. If he puts his there, it will make my lot look small. How much room do you need for two kids? Originally he said it was going to come off his garage.

Mr. Taylor commented I would like to point out that our conversation occurred more than one and one-half years ago. I made numerous attempts to talk to Jerry, but wasnít able to contact him.

Mr. Tiffany said the agreement you had with Mr. Bradbury was to go straight across to attach to his fence, is that correct? Mr. Taylor responded I wouldnít call it a firm agreement; it was more of a discussion. Mr. Tiffany continued apparently Mr. Bradbury was under the impression that this was going straight across and he didnít have a problem with it. My question to Mr. Bradbury would be in light of what you have seen tonight and what the applicant is asking for, would you object to him attaching to your fence with this current plan? Mr. .Bradbury indicated that he would. Mr. Tiffany said so we are back to the one foot space.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Taylor if he were amenable to moving the fence back to the corner of the house? I know it shrinks the space; I donít know how large of an area we are talking about. I am guessing your house is 50 feet wide, is that correct? Mr. Taylor said I guess that would be a fair assumption. Mr. Tiffany continued and then we have another 10 feet to the east so we are looking at a 60í by 40 to 50 feet there. Is that not big enough? Mr. Taylor answered I guess I really wouldnít have much choice, since we have to have a fence. It would mean my children would have less of a yard to play in with a swing set and all their toys.

Mrs. Boice suggested that since there has been some change in hat is happening concerning the neighbor and size, would you like to go back and regroup, redesign, get some different ideas and be on our agenda next month, rather than rush you into something here? Would you like the opportunity to look at it and come back in May?

Mr. Taylor said I would prefer to look at it in May. Mrs. Boice said I would then move to table this and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled until May 21st.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Fifteen

G. Showcase Cinemas, 2064 Springfield Pike requests variance to allow the construction of a storage building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.089(A)(3) "..25 feet from local street right-of-way lines. (North Commons Way)

No one was present to represent Showcase Cinemas; Mr. Mitchell moved to table and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the matter was tabled to the May meeting.

H. Jerry Ash of Mid-Day, Inc. requests renewal of one-year variance allowing residential use of GB property at 11107 Springfield Pike. Said variance is requested f from Section 1 53.083(A) "The main buildings and uses permitted in GB Districts."

Jerry Ash stated I own these buildings, 11101, 11107 and 11113 Springfield Pike. In April 1995, 11113 was an occupied building waiting to be rented, 11107 was an unoccupied building, and 11101 was the property being able to be vacated in June. So I was sitting there with potentially three empty properties. I came to the Board asking for a variance in order to improve the structure at 11107, which is what we are discussing right now. Since then, the 11113 has been rented to a very good tenant, Basics Photos; they have been there since June of 1995. Also, I have a very good tenant at 11101, Angelaís Hair Palace. That building had a $10,000 to $12,000 improvement done to it on the inside. Over the past year, I have concentrated on these two buildings. We have done some interior improvements on 11107, but I still have the gentleman who works for me and lives there. In April of 1995, I did request a two year variance; you were nice enough to give me a one-year variance. I am requesting that additional year in the hopes that I have this building up to par and can rent it as a business as well. I hope you will give me that 12 months, and hopefully I will not have to come back in 12 months and ask for another year. That is possible, but I am hoping that in the next 12 months we can have that building brought up to par.

Mr. Ash added that the gentleman and his wife live there; she works at Maple Knoll and he works for me. It is great having them there for security; he has called me on several occasions over the last year. I think Mrs. Boice put it best last year, that it is better to have it occupied than unoccupied.

Mrs. Boice commented I certainly am glad to see you have been working on the other properties. When you talk about another year, is that realistic? Mr. Ash answered I think it is realistic. Something came up at the other building (11113); the City of Springdale sent in an electrical inspector and there were problems, and we are spending another thousand dollars on that building. As long as there is no unforeseen major expense, I would say it is realistic. There are improvements going on, but I still do not think it is up to business use. Mrs. Boice added I do thank you for the improvements you have been making. Mr. Ash added there are a lot of other residences around that area; it is not like it is the only one.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant a one-year temporary variance for the property at 11107 Springfield Pike to be used as a residence. Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Sixteen

VII H RESIDENTIAL USE OF GB PROPERTY AT 11107 SPRINGFIELD PIKE-cont.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the property had been checked into in terms of being suitable for residential use. This was confirmed, and Mrs. Boice added the improvements have been startling. Mr. Ash stated that he continues to work to make it nicer.

Mr. Tiffany stated I would ask that the applicant to be sure to stick to the one year. I donít know that personally Iíll go for it again a year from now.

Mr. Ash responded I only ask that you bear with me. Iím not a large corporation that can put thousands and thousands of dollars out. You can see that Iíve improved these properties, and I think youíll find out when I come back in a year if I have to ask for another 12 months that there will be other improvements done down there.

Mr. Tiffany responded I donít want you to get the idea if you continue to come back that it will continue to be granted. Mr. Ash responded I didnít expect it tonight.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Squires, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. A one-year variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

J. Karen M. Kidd, 11493 Bernhart Court requests variance to allow extension of driveway into back yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.038(E) "Driveways shall be permitted in any yard that is not less than 10 feet wide."

Ms. Kidd stated I am here before the Board because the neighbor complained to the Building Department. She went to a higher authority to make sure I wasnít breaking the Code. She was satisfied now that she knows what the plans are and I am okay with the project. I brought photos from July 1993 when I purchased the house until now when I have almost finished the driveway and patio rock garden. With the hard work and the money that has been put into this project, it was to stop the water that was coming into the basement. At different times, both Mr. King and Mr. Lohbeck had come because of the complaint about the rocks, the stone patio, and both inspectors approved and agreed that it was okay to extend the driveway into the back yard. The last day he came, two weeks ago, the inspector Mr. King said he was not even aware of this new Code, that I had to come to get a variance. Because the neighbor kept calling, they were coming back to see what was going on.

Mr. Tiffany asked if she had approved plans here of what is being done. Mrs. Kidd answered I have pictures of how it started and how the water was running off the side of my yard. On the one side, next to my neighbors, I was getting a lot of water. You can see in the picture where I have the one side completed, I am not getting any water.

Mr. Tiffany continued I guess what I am asking is did you file applications for permits for the work? Mrs. Kidd said no, I have been speaking with the building inspector since last year before I even started to do the driveway, and he said it was okay. I had several calls from the building inspectors; they came by because he was getting complaints. When he stopped, he said I could not complete the driveway until I got a variance.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Seventeen

VII J KAREN KIDD 11493 BERNHART CT. - DRIVEWAY EXTENSION - continued

Mr. Tiffany asked if she had submitted any plans to the city as to what is being done? Ms. Kidd answered that she had not.

Mrs. Boice said Iím a little bit confused. Donít we require permits for pouring driveways? Mr. McErlane reported that you are required a permit for driveway aprons at the street, but not for the driveways themselves. I have only talked with the inspectors about this, but there were a lot of things going on on the property, including the rock patio and some talk about a potential garage in the back yard. That in itself would require another variance, but I donít know that it was clear what the total extent of the work was gong to be. You extended your driveway widthwise in the front as well, which was okay from a Zoning Code standpoint. It was when the driveway was going around the side of the house that it created a problem with the Zoning Code.

Mrs. Boice wondered if it wouldnít go right underneath the neighborís bedroom windows, and Mr. McErlane answered not necessarily. There still is a sideyard setback. In Ms. Kiddís side yard there is seven and one-half feet, and there should be at least that much on the neighborís property as well. Mrs. Boice wondered if there would be problems with setback, and Mr. McErlane responded that there wouldnít be, because there is no setback requirement for pavement. The problem is that if you are going to put a driveway in a yard, it has to be a minimum 10 feet wide in order to get an adequate width for the driveway. Mr. Tiffany added she is looking at a seven and one-half foot driveway. Mr. McErlane commented which is a pretty narrow driveway. Mrs. Boice said Iím trying to judge according to the space in my situation at home, and with all respect, I cannot envision a neighbor extending the driveway back into the back yard. I probably would be hanging from the highest tree if that were happening, because you re talking about traffic going six feet from the personís home into the back yard. Mr. Mitchell commented I believe the next home is set back a little bit, isnít it? Mr. McErlane reported it is the beginning of the cul de sac of the street, but there are other instances where driveways are up against property lines in the city that go along the side of the house.

Mrs. Boice continued also, when I went over to look at the property, my impression was that there were a lot of other things going on besides the driveway. The back yard seems to be pretty well in an upheaval. Are you planning other things? Ms. Kidd answered stated when I purchased the house, I had a lot of water coming in, so I got a rock patio and then a cement patio for the full extent of the house. I ended up putting drains in because the water still was coming down. Then I put rock to extend out eventually to a garage, and I have basketball hoop back there. Mrs. Boice commented that sounds like a lot of cement.

Mr. Squires said I was out by your residence, and I concur with Mrs. Boice; there seems to be a lot of things going on there. We are talking about a driveway seven and one-half feet wide. My impression was that it might be the old style type driveway with ribbons going back and grass in between them. Is that correct? Ms. Kidd responded it is grass right now, but eventually I want to put brick in between. Mr. Squires wondered how far back it went, adding that he did not have any drawings. Ms. Kidd answered the picture in the back showed from the front of the driveway to the back of the gate. My uncle was parking in the back yard where the fence was because he was hauling rocks, and after hauling the rocks and dirt, it started trampling the grass, so that is where we came up with the driveway.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Eighteen

VII J KAREN M. KIDD 11493 BERNHART CT - DRIVEWAY EXTENSION- continued

Mr. Mitchell commented so what started this driveway was that temporarily you had a truck going through the back yard and you looked and saw that it might be a good idea to have one, but when everything is said and done, will you still want a driveway? Ms. Kidd answered yes; I would still like the driveway. Mr. Mitchell said so itís not temporary.

Mr. Squires asked if construction has begun on this, and Ms. Kidd answered that the driveway is almost completed, except for the part when the building inspector said you cannot go any further than your garage. Mr. Mitchell asked the issue, that the driveway is not wide enough? Mr. McErlane reported that the issue is that the side yard does not have the 10 foot requirement to accommodate a driveway.

Mr. Tiffany asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this. Don Hacker said I live next door at 11489 Bernhart Court, and my only concern would be parking a vehicle in the back yard. What is the purpose?

Mrs. Boice commented my concern would be the noise. Arenít your bedroom windows adjacent to that? Mr. Hacker answered no, I am on the cul de sac. Mr. Mitchell added her house goes out to the street, and his house is back in the cul de sac quite a way. Mrs. Boice wondered if the driving back on the driveway wouldnít impact noise on his property to a certain extent, and Mr. Hacker answered maybe a little bit, but that is really not a concern. My other concern would be parking the vehicle along side my front yard. I donít want a vehicle in my front yard, and I canít see a reason to park a vehicle in the back yard. How many people in Springdale park cars in their back yards? Mr. Mitchell commented some people have garages in their back yards. Mr. Hacker commented if there is a garage, that is okay. What they are doing is on my property line, which is fine with me. They have replanted grass seed and tried to fix up the mess they made in my yard, which is fine, but I am concerned about a vehicle being parked in a back yard where I look out my window and see what looks like a vehicle in my yard.

Mr. Squires said Iím looking at a picture; perhaps Iím looking at your house. There is a truck in the driveway already; one strip of the driveway is unfinished, and it looks like it goes adjacent to shrubbery. Mr. Hacker said that is my shrubbery. Mr. Squires continued if their vehicle was parked there, it would be in your front yard, essentially.

Mr. Mitchell asked if her builder could put together a drawing which would give everybody here a better picture of what you are trying to do? I saw a driveway that was stopped, but now you have the issue of parking cars and possibly a garage in your back yard. I can understand your neighborís concerns, and I donít know what is going on. Maybe if you put together a drawing, it would better define what is going on.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if there were anything prohibiting parking of a car in the rear yard as long as it is on an improved surface, and Mr. McErlane answered that there was nothing prohibiting this.

Mrs. McNear asked how far his house is from the property line, wondering if it were seven and one-half feet on your side? Mr. Hacker answered it would be about six feet, but my house is back. Hers is up front, and mine is back here. Mrs. McNear said so yours is about seven and one-half feet from the property line too? Mr. Hacker answered, yes, I am guessing that.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Nineteen

VII J KAREN KIDD 11493 BERNHART CT. EXTENSION OF DRIVEWAY-continued

Mrs. Boice commented I certainly would agree with Mr. Mitchellís assessment. We have heard about basketball court and garage, but we need to have an overall idea of what the plans are here before we start talking about extending a driveway back to nowhere so to speak if nothing else is going to take place. There are concerns that must be dealt with, and we need to have factual evidence in front of us. She asked Ms. Kidd if there is a contractor who could bring forth plans and Ms. Kidd indicated that she did.

Mrs. Boice moved to table and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled. Mr. Tiffany stated this will be heard at our May meeting under old business. To Ms. Kidd, Mrs. Boice said you do understand that everything is at a halt; nothing can proceed.

VIII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Tiffany said we had three items that I would like to take a look at. First is the rv ordinance; apparently we have two distances, one 30 feet and the other 35 feet. I think it is ridiculous for this Board to have to consider these things if we donít have a clear picture of the ordinances. I think we need to ask that this be clarified.

Mr. Tiffany continued also this driveway issue came up a couple of times tonight. There is no setback requirement for a driveway from the property line, and you are allowed to park a car up to the property line on the edge of the driveway, but you are not allowed to park an rv. That is incredible to me. We canít build a house or a shed up against the property line, but we can put a driveway against the property line. I would like to see a close look taken at that.

Mr. Tiffany added I also would like to know why we donít require a permit and inspection of a driveway going in? Mr. McErlane answered it is not structural in nature, and the only reason we do it for driveway aprons is because it is in the public right of way and we have minimum thickness requirements. Mr. Tiffany commented we have minimum requirements for roofing materials and everything else to do with the house and property; why wouldnít we have minimum thickness requirements for the driveway? It is an upkeep issue. Mr. McErlane reported we cut back on permits for other things in the past, and I question at times why we issue permits for siding and reroofing, when more than half the municipalities donít. Mr. Tiffany stated I understand with roofing and siding, because it doesnít impact on the neighbors, but with an issue like this especially, it would throw a flag up to say this is going on here; we need a permit for a driveway. Mr. McErlane added we donít require permits for fences either; we dropped those at the same time we dropped the fees for single family residential permits. Mrs. Boice commented I heard we dropped the fees; the rest is news to me. Mr. McErlane stated we only required permits for fences when they were over four feet high anyway. There is not a whole lot of inspection to do on fences either.

Mr. Tiffany said it is a matter of filing the application to see that it is correct so we donít have people putting things up, we find they are not to code and then we have to tie up our people with it. and have them come in to BZA for something that already is existing.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Twenty

VIII - DISCUSSION - DRIVEWAY PERMITS - continued

Mr. McErlane added and that is not necessarily going to catch those instances anyway. We donít require permits for utility buildings under 50 square feet either. It is just a line that we draw. Fences and driveways and those types of things that arenít going to have much of an inspection per se anyway, we havenít required permits for.

Mrs. Boice commented so you are saying that tomorrow I can pour another strip on my driveway right up to my neighborís property line. Mr. McErlane responded as long as it doesnít involve parking your rv there. Mr. Tiffany added and it can be one inch thick so it would fall apart within a year or two. Mr. Squires asked if there had been discussion to change this to have permits for patios and driveways, and Mr. McErlane reported that there had not. In reality, we are trying to divest some of those items. For example, I would like to propose doing away with permits for reroofing and siding, because we do very little inspection. Mrs. Boice commented we could end up with a concrete city.

Mrs. Boice said in this last item, it is obvious that they have plans to do a lot more in that back yard than we are talking about, which is probably not in our control. Mr. Tiffany said the watershed is the reason she started this. She is shutting water off her property onto the adjoining properties. As we do with business and industry, I think we should have some type of land use percentage for housing. I know we do for structures, but not for concrete.

Mrs. Boice said the first move I would like to see is this business of the driveway that you can pour right up to your neighborís property line. I have a real problem with that. After all of these years up here, I had no idea. With this situation we have had lately on our street with turnover of property, I can envision some real problems.

Mr. Tiffany continued so the man tonight with the boat, the issue was the fact that it was a boat as far as the setback required from the property line, not the driveway. Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany commented it makes no sense. Mr. McErlane added it had nothing to do with the driveway; it was the fact that the boat was two feet from the property line.

Mrs. McNear said when we built our house the driveway was a quarter of an inch too thin, and the city made us tear it up and redo it. Mr. McErlane responded that was the driveway apron. Mrs. Boice said when I put a new driveway in, they measured the apron and sidewalk, but not the driveway. Mr. Tiffany wondered how far back the apron goes, and Mr. McErlane reported that it includes the sidewalk. In Mrs. McNearís neighborhood there are driveways up to the property line where they have side entry and rear entry garages. Glenview has a number of them. Mrs. Boice said but in these small homes, I think that is devastating; there is so little space - weíre talking eight to 10 feet between the houses.

Mr. Squires wondered if Planning had considered putting an end to chain link fences; we could, couldnít we? Mr. McErlane reported that there are items, I donít know if you could call them restrictions, but they are worded to discourage chain link fences along the Route 4 Corridor, but that is the about only place. Mr. Tiffany added some of the subdivisions have covenants that would prohibit that. Mr. McErlane added up until probably 16 or 17 years ago, there was a requirement that you had to have a certain amount of openness in privacy fences.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 April 1996

Page Twenty-One

VIII - DISCUSSION - FENCES - continued

Mr. Tiffany reported that at the PlanningCommission meeting last week, Anne McBride was in from our consultantís office, and they are going to reassess the Corridor Study for us, take a good hard look at it and try to create a motor service district to attempt to deter more motor service through the corridor. The city feels we have enough, and we are trying to create a downtown image here. I asked Ms. McBride where she considered downtown Springdale, and as everyone else does, she said Kemper Road and Princeton Pike. This building has helped a lot to create a little bit more downtown, but we still need to push more in that direction to create a downtown atmosphere through this area. They are going to take a look at that, and we also are going to entertain a bid for them to update our Zoning Code. Anne is very professional and works with a lot of different municipalities, and she indicated it is one of the toughest Zoning Codes she has to deal with. Hopefully it will simplify it for us. At this point it will be a bid; she indicated it would be $13,000 to $17,000; to get us into the Ď90ís, it may be well worth our while to do so, but that will be a Council decision with a recommendation from Planning.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,1996 ________________________

Barry Tiffany, Chairman

 

 

______________________,1996 _________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary