APRIL 20, 1999

7:00 P.M.


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


Members Present: Councilman Robert Wilson, Tom Schecker, Councilwoman Kathy McNear and David Okum.

Members Absent: James Squires, David Whitaker and Barbara Ewing (arrived at 7:20 p.m.)

Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

Mr. Okum stated Mrs. Ewing should be arriving shortly. Mr. Whitaker indicated

he would not be able to attend, as well as Mr. Squires, who is out of town.


    1. A variance once granted will be referred back to the Board of Zoning Appeals if after the expiration of six months no construction is done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the variance.
    2. If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after the denial.

      B. Chairmanís Statement

      Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board is to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this board is directed to sign in, take his place at the podium and state his name, address and the nature of the variance. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said variance is recorded. It is from this recording that our Minutes are taken.


      A. Report on Council Activities Ė no report

    3. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum reported that the final approval of the Tri-County Gold Center was granted contingent on their receiving the dumpster location variance requested this evening. There were other conditions attached to this approval. It is a combined 9 hole golf course and driving range plus a clubhouse. One of the conditions was that both the driving range and golf course would be operated simultaneously, with a grace period of nine months after the driving range is open to get the golf course operational.

There was a request for a conditional use permit for a car wash at 1333 East Kemper Road which was tabled. We understand that the applicant wishes it to be removed, but we are waiting for formal request. Mr. McErlane added that subsequently we received something from the applicant stating that they had withdrawn their request.

There was a request for a building addition for Recker & Boerger and a proposed garage for Enterprise Rent a Car. That was submitted discussed and tabled at the request of the applicant. There are outstanding issues that need to be resolved.

A proposed building expansion at 100 Merchant Street was considered. Preliminary approval was granted.


20 APRIL 1999



Request for proposed monument sign at Kemper Road and Century Boulevard was considered. That is the relocation of the sign currently at the Commons Drive entrance to Dave & Busterís, Champion, Roberds and MARS Music. Pending approval and an agreement with Target they will place an up to 26 foot high sign (the square footage of the sign is almost exactly what they have now). It is a matter of placement and how it would be erected. Planning gave them latitude so they could make the sign a little more dimensional with more architectural appeal.

Wal-Mart, 600 Kemper Commons Circle requested approval to display bicycles and swing sets against the front of their building. There was some discussion and it was unanimously denied by the Commission.

  1. OLD BUSINESS Ė none
    1. Ronald L. Walters, 11827 Fairsprings Court requests a variance to allow a shed to be 4í-6" from the fence on the north side and 3í-8" from the fence on the west side of the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.024© "Any accessory building..must not be less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot lines."

Mr. Walters said I didnít know where the property lines were, and the shed is 4í-6" from the fence on the north and 3í-8" from the fence on the back. Behind my property there is an easement, so I may be okay there. I have signatures from all the neighbors, and most of them signed it without hesitation. I had Heartland build it and told them it had to be five feet from the property line, but where it is located looked like a forest. The previous owners did nothing in the back yard, and we have really tried to clean it up. I wouldnít have placed the shed there deliberately, but this is really the only place that barn can be in that back yard.

Mr. Wilson said the plan was approved with the five foot setback. When they actually set it down, what were they using as a measurement? Mr. Walters answered I have no idea.

Mr. Wilson asked who lived behind him and who is to the west of the property. Mr. Walters answered Ron Marcus is right behind me and Judy Zell is next to me on the west. Mr. Wilson asked if Mr. Marcus and Ms. Zell can see the barn, and Mr. Walters answered that they both could, and neither has a problem with it. They signed the sheet without difficulty. Mr. Wilson commented youíll find your neighbors will sign the sheet and you or we may hear later on that they signed so as not to hurt someoneís feelings. However, neither Mr. Marcus nor Ms. Zell has voiced any concern about this.

Mr. Walters commented in the case of both those people, they are thrilled to death that I am trying to get some of that junk taken off the fence. I appreciate Springdale picking up trash because I had about a pickup load full.

Mr. Wilson said I am trying to understand why the builders chose to change the placement of the barn. They didn't indicate to you that they were not in compliance, they just built it, took your money and left.







20 APRIL 1999



Mr. Walters added I probably need to get a survey made, because I personally feel that the property line is back in the easement. Mr. Wilson said when you moved here you didnít get a plot, so you have no idea where your property line is. Mr. Walters added the inspector guessed that the fence was the property line; I wasnít there.

Mr. Okum asked if there were still vegetation behind the shed, and Mr. Walters answered that he is getting most of it cut out. Mr. Okum wondered if there were honeysuckle to give it some screening, and Mr. Walters indicated that there was some there. It sits down low enough that it wouldnít screen.

Mr. Okum commented one thing the board should be aware of is that the signature on the notice of public hearing is not an acceptance of the request; it is only a notification. Therefore, we need to continue with this public hearing. If anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this request, we ask that they come forward at this time. No one came forward.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Ms. McNear asked if the city knows exactly how far the shed is from the property line. Mr. McErlane answered we donít have any capabilities of doing a survey, but my inclination would be that it is not any less than what the applicant is asking for. The fence itself is not set back from the property line. I am saying that because in the CAGIS information we got, the fence line is almost up against the pole line. Mr. Walters said it is two or three feet. Mr. McErlane continued so the fence line is not set back outside the easement, because the easement would be at least five feet along the center line of the poles.

Mr. Schecker said if you look at this sketch, there is a tree immediately to the south of that, and to come away from the side fence line further would get you rather close to the tree and wouldnít be aesthetic, plus the future problem with roots. In this instance, I personally donít have any objection to the location of the shed.

Mr. Okum stated I would encourage some type of vegetation remain behind the unit for screening. Mr. Walters responded on the easement there are several trees.

Mr. Wilson moved to grant the variance with the condition that it be properly screened with vegetation on the north and west sides of the shed. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Mrs. Ewing arrived at 7:20

Voting aye were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Okum. Mrs. Ewing abstained, and the variances was granted with four affirmative votes.

B. Vineyard Community Church, 11340 Century Circle East requests variance to allow storage barn 30 feet from the rear property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(G) Ė 35 foot requirement

Ellen Mershon said I am the Senior Administrative Assistant of Vineyard Community Church. The storage barn stores our lawn equipment. It is located at the very end of our parking area; and both behind it and on the left hand side where our neighbors are it is heavily wooded. As a matter of fact there is a walking trail behind the storage barn.


20 APRIL 1999



Mr. McErlane stated you might have noticed from the photographs that this was put in place without a permit. The property is located in a General Industrial District, but exists on it with a conditional use permit that allows an office use as a main use in a General Industrial District. Although it is in the GI District, setback requirements have been derived from the Office Building District setbacks. In this instance, the rear yard setback is required to be 35 feet. The Zoning Code in commercial and industrial districts does not give a reduced setback for accessory buildings so the rear yard setback for the main building applies to any structure on the property. The storage building is a 16í x 24í wood structure, similar in size to a 1 Ĺ car garage.

Mr. Okum asked if the building is anywhere near the potential expansion of Tri-County Parkway extension of the roadway system? Mr. McErlane responded the setback from the north line is the same setback as the building, so when the roadway goes through it would end up being the same distance as it is from the main building. Mr. Okum commented so the roadway is on the other side and in your opinion it would not interfere with the roadway construction.

Mr. Wilson said I am going to read the letter you submitted to us when you requested the variance, and I am going to comment on it:

"The property line is heavily wooded and the storage barn is not visible from adjacent properties."

Mr. Wilson said I have a concern that the barn was built without a permit and with the construction going on and all the dealings the church has had with the city, that should have been a first consideration. My second concern is that the idea that the barn is not visible should not be an issue. I can appreciate the $3500 cost, but I do have some concerns and donít feel comfortable about this.

Ms. Mershon answered they are well founded. Actually I was not part of builidng the barn; the barn was built by volunteers. I am not as familiar as I probably should be with building codes, so it is in the process of trying to secure the permit that I am here this evening.

Mr. Wilson said I assume the labor was free if it was built by volunteers, so we would be dealing with materials only. Ms. Mershon answered it was, but I canít guarantee that those people would be there again, and then there is renting a dumpster and other variables.

Mr. Okum said you have affected two of your parking spaces; I donít think that will make a great impact, but your approval was based on the number of parking spaces submitted. With all the things you are doing there, there was no design for an out building for equipment to maintain the grounds, and I wondered about that. That needs to be thought out, because this building is not large enough to facilitate the massive number of facilities you are constructing there. Iím not encouraging an out building, but it is probably inevitable. Ms. Mershon answered absolutely, and when we do we will do it correctly.

Mr. Okum commented I would think when that occurs, this building would be removed because I donít want to see two out buildings back there. Ms. Mershon answered right; what we use that facility for now is lawn equipment, and there are more things we need to buy. We eventually will have to bite the bullet and plan something that will adequately meet our needs for the upkeep of this property.





20 APRIL 1999



Mr. Okum added the reason I am bringing that forward is if this board were to grant the variance carte blanche this building could remain, so it should be a condition of the variance that it be removed if and when another building were approved for additional storage. I think such a motion would be a good one and I would not have a problem with it.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking if anyone present wished to address the board. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wilson said I have a concern about the size of the storage shed now. In the future Iíll have a bigger concern because based on Mr. Okumís comments, I think youíll need a much larger storage area to accommodate everything, which will necessitate either tearing this down and/or building a larger building on the site, which might eliminate a few more parking spaces. Maybe you need to think in terms of future expansion of the shed and come in with another drawing of where you plan to put it. I realize you are in a dilemma, but I donít feel comfortable with the location, or that it was built without a permit and the rationale that was used in that the variance should be granted because it is not visible from the adjacent properties. I really have some concerns.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mrs. McNear said I realize this building did not have a permit to be built; does it have to be inspected? Mr. McErlane responded there are other issues that need to be dealt with as far as the building code goes like lack of foundation and some of the framing issues. Mrs. McNear added I donít feel comfortable voting on a variance if this is not structurally sound or has not been approved by the Building Department. Mr. McErlane added it canít be approved by the Building Department if it doesnít meet zoning. It has to have zoning approval before we can consider the building permit on it, If it comes down to not being able to meet the building code requirements, they will have to make those corrections. Your approval doesnít impact those things. The location needs to be set before we deal with the structural issues.

Mr. Okum said we closed the public hearing, but there is a gentleman in the audience who is affiliated with the church. You may come forward and present your issues.

Mr. Jack Helton said I am the facility director for the church, and Iíll take partial responsibility for this. I bought the building, but we hadnít picked out a location. We have a volunteer committee and one Saturday they came in and put the building up. I knew they were going to build it but not where or when. That is part of the whole situation.

You can look at our site plan. We did have a maintenance building in the back of the church around the pond, but we eliminated it for cost reasons. We will build it when we expand the church which will be in another two or three years.

Mr. Okum commented I donít recall reviewing that at Planning Commission. Mr. McErlane said I have no recollection of it either. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said the site plan we approved did not have that, and this outbuilding has not been through any planning review either, and the Board of Zoning Appeals should understand that.

Mr. Wilson moved to deny the variance, that the applicant should get the proper permit showing the construction and where it will be; to get the permission of the Building Department before coming back here. As it stands, I cannot accept it.


20 APRIL 1999



Mr. Okum said to simplify the motion, can we make it that your motion is that your request be denied? Mr. Wilson agreed.

Mr. Okuma asked for a second; there was none, and the motion fails.

Mrs. McNear suggested that Mr. Wilson redo the motion in a positive manner, because it is easier to understand which way to vote.

Mr. Wilson moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mrs. McNear said I seconded that motion, but as a last ditch effort, I wonder if the applicant wishes to take it back and look at it again, because there are so many negative issues. If we deny this tonight, you are finished for six months. It is entirely up to you; I am trying to give you another option.

Ms. Mershon answered it was my understanding that we had to move forward with the zoning or the building permit was a moot issue, that the zoning was first. With that understanding, at this time I have no other alternative than to move forward with the request ford the variance.

Mr. Schecker commented rather than a straight approval, perhaps there should be a conditional aspect. Since this is not intended to be a long term structure, my inclination would be to approve it with some condition that we would expect this building to be removed if a larger storage building were approved at a future date.

Ms. Mershon answered I donít think we would have any objection to putting even a time limit on this building, like within two years the building would be removed.

Mrs. McNear said I have a problem with conditional variances. If youíll recall the situation with the jewelry store with the mobile home in front of the property, the applicant came back time and time again. It wasnít malicious by any means, but financial things happen, there are delays in construction and we may be faced with a situation like that again with no ill intent at all.

Mr. McErlane reported my only comment is that it is difficult to consider reviewing the building code issues if there is no approval for its current location. The boardís consideration for this is basically the setback issue, the 30í versus 35í. If the building has some structural issues, it will be cleared up in the building permit process, so really the condition this board is evaluating is the setback and its impact on adjacent properties or its location from an aesthetic standpoint.

Mr. Okum said we do have to stay strictly land use and how it impacts the adjacent property lines. Certainly I think parking can be part of that because the site plan was approved with a number of spaces, and it is in violation of what was approved by Planning Commission. I definitely agree; we will leave the building issues up to you and your people.

I do have some of the same concerns expressed by our members. We have a building that was built that we didnít know about, that wasnít a part of the plan but on the other hand we have a pretty massive development going on back there that will need some type facilities eventually. I would hate to see this building constructed on the other site where the church is going, especially without Planning Commission review or approval.


20 APRIL 1999



Mr. Okum added that is the reason I would encourage the board if they are going to consider this that the motion be strong enough that if it is voted in favor of, it has the conditions that it is removed and that an outbuilding of any nature be approved by Planning Commission. We have a motion on the floor, so we would need a motion to amend the motion to approve the variance.

Mr. Wilson commented I have to agree with Mrs. McNear. In the few years I have been on this board, we have done conditional uses, etc. and it never has worked out. Unfortunately I have to stand by my original motion to deny. I donít feel that the fact that it is a temporary building changes the ordinances. We still have guidelines we have to adhere to, and I would not be in favor of amending my motion at this time.

Mrs. McNear commented I donít have a problem with the setback; I am just wondering about some of the other issues, like that building being placed there without prior approval of Planning Commission. If we are looking strictly at setback, I donít really have a problem with it. We donít know what will happen in the future, and that is the type of thing we have to look out for too.

Mr. Okum moved to amend the motion to approve with the following conditions: (1) that the building be considered a temporary outbuilding for storage of equipment; (2) that such building shall be removed upon construction of another storage facility on the Vineyard properties, including the church property adjacent to this area; and (3) that building be approved and reviewed by Planning Commission prior to construction

Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

On the motion to amend, Mr. Okum, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear and Mrs. Ewing voted aye, and Mr. Wilson voted no. The motion was amended.

Mrs. McNear wondered if there was a time limit on the temporary building. Mr. Okum responded I put in the motion that it would be until the time that they build an alternate outstorage building. Ms. Mershon commented we already are running out of room.

On the motion to grant the variance, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Okum voted aye. Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Ewing voted no, and the variance was granted with three affirmative votes.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said as close as that vote was, it is a pretty good indication of how serious this issue was. Ms. Mershon answered I do understand, and we do apologize. Mr. Okum added we understand too that you have a very active organization and there are a lot of energetic people involved.

Maple Knoll Village, 11100 Springfield Pike requests variances to allow the placement of a 54 s.f. sign 10 feet behind the right of way line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.066A) "..not exceeding 50 s.fÖset back at least..25 feet from any street right of way line."

Mr. Wilson stated I will abstain from this discussion, since I have a relative who lives there. He left the dais.

Ms. Kim Henley of Viox Services and Ms. Lena Mares, Associate Executive Director of Maple Knoll approached the board.



20 APRIL 1999



Ms. Henley said we are looking to build a sign for Maple Knoll. We have pictures (passed around). The setback requirement is 25 feet behind the right of way line, or 55 feet from the center line of Springfield Pike.

I placed some traffic cones in the yard to indicate where the sign would be placed in relation to that setback requirement. As you can see, the sign would be blocked by several old growth trees, so it would be very difficult to view from Springfield Pike going either direction.

The last two photographs indicate the sign being at 10 feet behind the right of way line, which is what is required in your commercial zoning areas, where it would be much easier to read as you go up and down Springfield Pike. Also as you see by the drawing, based on my calculations, the sign would be 54 square feet, and you require 50 square feet.

Ms. Mares added from a historical perspective, the changeable letter sign is something that was suggested by this group as a way of not having to get variances for temporary signs. This would become a permanent fixture that would allow us to announce our events and activities and stay within compliance.

Mr. McErlane reported after further review of the Corridor District requirements, which supercedes the Public Facilities District requirements, the setback requirement is 10 feet, so the setback does meet code.

Without having some actual dimensions of the overall medallion, I came up with close to 58 s.f. Ms. Henley responded if you take off the marquee type area as one area, and the medallion as the other area, and box around the words Maple Knoll and the word Village it comes up to 54 square feet. If you box around the widest part of the word Maple Knoll and the top of the medallion to the bottom of the word Village, you come up closer to 59 square feet, but you do have an awful lot of wasted space between those letters.

Mr. McErlane commented the way our sign ordinance reads you take an entire message and box the least rectangle around the entire thing. I discussed it with our city planner, and because Maple Knoll Village is on different planes of the sign, we calculated it independently. Typically we would box the medallion and the Maple Knoll to come to 58 square feet instead of the 50 required by code.

Mrs. McNear stated I think the sign looks very nice and would be a great addition to the site and would look much better than those temporary signs over the past year or two. I am definitely in favor of the sign.

Mr. Schecker added it is a very nice looking sign and will be a great improvement to the bingo sign.

Mr. Okum said since I was one of the ones advocating a permanent sign, I am very happy to see you have it together and I do not have a problem whether it is 54 or 59 square feet, as long as it stays under 59 square feet.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum asked if anyone in attendance wished to speak on this variance. No one came forward.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Ewing, and Mr. Okum. Variance was granted with four affirmative votes.


20 APRIL 1999


C. Tri-County Golf Center, 455 East Tri-County Parkway requests variance to allow the placement of their proposed dumpster & sand storage enclosure in the front yard of the site. Said variance is requested from Section 153.072(1) "It shall not project into or be located on a front or side yard." REFERRED BY PLANNING COMMISSION

Jose Castrejon of McGill, Smith & Punshon reported I am a landscape architect and I represent the Shaven Company, who is in the process of developing the back end of Oak Hills Cemetery. We will have a 30 year lease off the back end of the cemetery to develop this golf course. They felt that this would be a compatible use for this piece of property.

In developing this ground through that lease area, we took in consideration several issues, obviously the cemetery use was one. With their planners we looked at a 30 year period to make sure they have plenty of room to expand in this 30 years not including this lease area. We also took into consideration some of the features of their Master Plan, their lake locations and other building locations. WE maneuvered the golf course and driving range in certain areas to accommodate this. If we dug a lake, we made sure we dug it where they planned to have a lake in the future.

Knowing your tree ordinances, we had a concern about the number of trees in this area. When we first started this project, we submitted a concept plan to the Planning Commission to let you know our tree scenario. We tried to maneuver the golf course and parking area and all the other uses within those trees to minimize the number of trees we would have to replace. We also arranged some of the holes and buildings around the large caliper trees, and I believe awe have done a good job of doing that.

Last week when Planning Commission approved this, the storage area for the sand and the dumpster was discussed. I would like to explain how we decided on the location. We wanted to insure a proper entrance into our clubhouse with adequate accessible parking a sidewalk for safety. So, it was logical to put the dumpster away from the main entrance to limit the conflict between pedestrians and vehicular activity of equipment by our front door or back door. We want the back door of the clubhouse to open up on the ninth hole or the 18th hole.

This location seemed appropriate in that the parking area was designed in an area that was somewhat level already with a limited number of trees. Knowing that this would be an area of clearing and asphalt, we picked the site for the parking because of the natural topography. This area will be elevated about 10 feet above Tri-County Parkway. There is an existing tree area that will remain and we have planted screening along the Tri-County Parkway side knowing we wanted to block some of the car lights from Tri-County Parkway as well as the dumpster.

Planningwise we felt this was a good location, knowing that if we put it in the rear, it will be by the putting green or pitching green or clubhouse area. From this area, it drops about 14 feet further down so it would create a retaining wall scenario on this back side.

Mrs. McNear asked to be oriented on the driveway location, and Mr. McErlane stated the driveway lines up with the drive that goes between Cassinelli Square and the Springdale Mall.

Mr. Castrejon reported we worked with the cemetery landscape planner, and she indicated how much room the cemetery really needs in the next 30 years, and that is what set that line. We felt that was a good investment for The Shaven Company as well as the Oak Hill Cemetery.


20 APRIL 1999



Mr. Castrejon stated this will be a nine hole executive type golf course. We will cater to three type skills, the people trying to learn how to play, plus short tees for kids.

Mr. Okum said for the record, if the Tri-County Parkway expansion did occur according to the Thoroughfare Plan, what would the setback be from what right of way line? Mr. Castrejon answered early in this, we knew about this, and this would still maintain the same distance, which is about 90 to 100 feet. Right now the parking is probably about 10 feet above Tri-County Parkway.

. Okum asked if anyone present wished to address the board. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Okum. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.


Mr. Schecker moved to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minu5tes were adopted with

Five affirmative votes.


Mrs. McNear moved to adjourn and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



________________________,1999 _____________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



________________________,1999 _____________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary