BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 MAY 1996

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by Chairman Barry Tiffany.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: James Squires, Councilwomen Marge Boice and

Kathy McNear, and Chairman Barry Tiffany

Members Absent: William Mitchell (arrived at 7:45 P.M.)

Barbara Ewing (arrived at 7:38 P.M.)

Thomas Schecker (on vacation)

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. 5/2 Letter to Valentine Shuster, 672 Park Avenue re satellite dish variance

B. 5/8 Letter to CB Commercial, 144 Merchant St. re expiration of

Variance T-6-1995 (to allow three trailers on east side of Executive

Plaza II

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

D. Zoning Bulletin Volume 44 No. 5 - May 1996

E. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 9 April 1996

V. REPORTS

A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated that because of the length of our agenda, I do not want

to go into any detail. If you have been watching the ICRC, you will see that they did not cover our last meeting, and they are replaying our May 1st meeting. I canít say that anything totally startling occurred. The Minutes are always available to any citizen.

Mrs. Ewing arrived at 7:38 P.M.

B. Report on Planning Commission - Barry Tiffany

Mr. Tiffany stated that Planning Commission meeting was last week, and there were a couple of items that will pertain to this board. Weíll talk about them more under Discussion later on. We have one item for a Conditional Use Permit on Chesterdale Road that will be here this evening, and we will discuss that at that time.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. 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" - tabled 4/16/96

Mr. Tiffany commented last time you were in, we had some concern with the neighbor and I trust everything has been worked out to your satisfaction.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Two

VI A. SCOTT TAYLOR 4989 GRANDIN AVENUE - CHAIN LINK FENCE - continued

Mr. Taylor responded I have made a new proposal. My wife prefers a picket fence instead of a split level, and we thought that would enhance the property nicely. We opted to install a post six inches from our neighborís post, since he does not want us to hook up. I did measure the distance from the yucca plant to the street, and it is 21 feet, so we are going half the distance.

Mr. Tiffany stated we donít have new drawings. When you say you are going to install a post six inches from your neighborís post, are you proposing a fence parallel to his six inches away, or just that post at that corner? Mr. Taylor answered just at that corner. Mr. Tiffany continued so you are going to leave a six inch opening between your fence and his fence, correct? Mr. Taylor confirmed this.

Mr. Squires asked the type of fence that Mr. Bradbury (the neighbor) has, and Mr. Taylor answered that it is a chain link fence. Mr. Squires continued and this picket fence will not be abutting it, but will be six inches from it. Have you discussed this with him; is he in agreement?

Mr. Taylor stated actually he is opposed to my building any sort of fence that extends beyond my butt line.

On the six inch separation, Mrs. Boice wondered about grass growing there right now. If there are two fences, who is getting to take care of that? Mr. Taylor answered my fence would parallel his fence but stop at the corner post, so there is no overlap at all with the fences and there isnít any grass that canít be cut. Mrs. Boice said you are saying that you can get to any grass between the two.

Mr. Tiffany wondered about the materials to be used, and Mr. Taylor indicated that there would be 4 x 4ís and it would be a four foot fence.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were anyone in chambers that wished to speak for or against this project.

Jerry Bradbury, 11530 Rose Lane said I am the next door neighbor, and I have no problem with him butting his fence up against mine. My concern is I donít want it going over his garage. If he puts a fence that way, it will take away the value of my property. On the right side of my property there is a fence that goes all the way out close to the road. If you put two fences together and my house in the center, itís going to look small. I have discussed this with him, and I could go along with the fence if he would pull it up when I go to sell my house, and he said no. My kids are grown, and I suggested that he use my back yard; I have a big one and I would have no problem with that. Thatís my only concern, that it would make my place look small.

Mr. Tiffany said because we donít have a new drawing tonight, I would like to know where you are proposing this fence. Mr. Taylor reported that it is identical to what we submitted last time. Mr. Tiffany said so we are not back at the edge of the garage going straight to his property; we are still out towards the street, making the 90 back to his fence and leaving a six inch gap? Mr. Taylor indicated that was correct.

Mr. Squires commented this is that corner lot syndrome. Mr. Taylor added without some additional space, my property is very small. In fact, I cannot justify the cost of building a fence if I cannot have 21 feet. We actually only wanted to keep our children safe

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Three

VI A SCOTT TAYLOR 498 GRANDIN AVENUE - CHAIN LINK FENCE - continued

Mr. Taylor added if we canít have a variance, we probably will want to put up some sort of a temporary fence that we can tear down in about four years. Weíve thought about putting up a welded fence, because for less than $100 I can build a fence that will keep my kids safe and I can tear it down very easily when they no longer need a fence. I really donít want a fence cutting my property up this way because it makes too much of my yard not usable.

Mr. Mitchell arrived at 7:45 p.m.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Taylor to show her on this picture where the fence would be in relation to your neighborís property, and Mr.Taylor showed her.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Bradbury if he knew the distance from the front of his house to the street. Mr. Bradbury indicated that he did not know, but all the houses are the same. Even his house is the same all the way down to Kemper Road. Mr. Tiffany asked if the side of his garage were the same as the frontage of your house. Mr. Bradbury indicated that this was true, adding originally he wanted 21 feet and he agreed to come back 10 feet, but it still would be out. Mr. Taylor showed another picture of the property and a picture of the side yard.

Mrs. Boice asked if they have a sitter for the children and you want to be sure that they are fenced in? Mr. Taylor responded usually when my children are out in the yard, my wife is out there with them. She has not felt comfortable letting them have freedom. Her big problem is when she is watching Noah, Colin can run off, and she would like to have a barrier to keep them from running into the street. Mrs. Boice commented a personal observation - I raised three without any fencing.

Mr. Squires wondered if there any way that you and Mr. Bradbury could come to some sort of compromise that would please both of you? I am in sympathy with both of you, and I want to compliment you a great deal, Mr. .Taylor on the fact that you have gone to a picket fence versus a chain link fence. I am very pleased to see that, but I also have empathy for Mr. Bradbury. I am looking at two highly intelligent people here, and it seems to me that something can be done to facilitate the needs of both and your childrenís safety as well.

Mr. Taylor commented one thing I really canít understand is we are already coming only half the distance to the street. Actually, considering the vehicles parked in the driveway, you canít even see where our fence will be built. I just donít understand what the problem is; I guess everyone has their own opinion. I would tend to think that our building a nice fence and keeping our property look nice would actually add to the value of his property.

Mr. Squires responded I have no problem with that at all; I have empathy with Mr. Bradbury, but I have no problem with your fence.

Mr. Tiffany said personally as I look down the street at the pictures, if Mr. Bradbury were to come in and ask for a similar type fence in his front yard, I would be inclined to say no.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Four

VI A SCOTT TAYLOR 498 GRANDIN AVENUE CHAIN LINK FENCE - continued

Mr. Bradbury said if you could get the neighbor on the right side to take her fence down, that would get me open, and I would consider that. It hems me in. Mr. Tiffany responded that was before the Code, and we canít consider her in this issue. Mr. Taylor commented I talked to her and asked her about that, and she said no way, she would not consider taking down her split rail fence. In fact, she said that she had taken down part of her fence so Mr. Bradbury could build a chain link fence to keep his kids protected. Mr. Bradbury responded I have a problem about that. Their fence was over on my line and in order to make my fence straight, they had to take their fence back about six inches.

Mr. Tiffany commented I donít think we can consider the other neighbor, because it is not something we can ask her to do. Personally, I have a problem building fencing into someoneís front yard, and I think that is what this is doing. Unfortunately with a corner lot, it hurts.

Mrs. Boice wondered if there were any way he could do a smaller fenced in area that would eliminate this problem. Mr. Taylor responded we looked at the prices. It would cost us about $400 to have a chain link fence installed; a picket fence would run just over $900, more than double the cost to gain 21 feet. We would have to pull back at least four or five feet because we donít want the fence right up against the trees, and looking at the cost analysis, we just canít justify pulling back any more than 21 feet. I can justify the cost if I can gain 21 feet. Mr. Tiffany asked if there wouldnít be a reduction in cost by coming back 21 feet on the picket fence? Mr. Taylor said I guess there would be, but then I wouldnít need a variance to build a fence of my choosing, and I really donít want a fence on my butt line as a permanent part of my property, because it takes away too much of the property. I would rather build something I can tear down in maybe five years and have a minimal loss of investment. Actually that is an attractive option for me because it only costs less than $100. Mr. Tiffany asked if stock fencing were permissible, and Mr. McErlane indicated that there are no minimum requirements as to type of fences as long as they do not exceed six feet.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance as requested, adding that she will be voting no, but is bringing it up in a positive manner. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.

No one voted aye, and Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany voted no. Variance was denied with seven negative votes.

B. Showcase Cinema 12064 Springfield Pike requests a 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) - tabled 4/16/96

Mr. Steve Osborne of Showcase Cinemas reported we would like to have a garage addition onto the existing trash compactor enclosure. The purpose is to make the property more presentable. They have put North Commerce Way in and knocked down woods and you can see this shed from the interstate. It doesnít give a clean presentation to the property and the business. We feel the manner in which this is designed will enhance the look of the trash compactor also.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Five

VI B SHOWCASE CINEMAS 12064 SPRINGFIELD PIKE STORAGE BUILDING-cont.

Mr.Tiffany commented this winter you had a considerable amount of salt stored out on site for the parking lot. Will that be placed in the shed next year?

Mr. Osborne answered no, the shed is for the letters and signs and also some small amount of sidewalk chemical to make ice melt. However, that has been brought up. My company contracts that service to them, and there was no problem beforehand because it was hidden by the woods. We have had some discussions about putting it in the rear lot toward Crescentville Road.

Mr. Tiffany asked the cityís position on outside storage in this district. Mr. McErlane reported there is a restriction on storage outside of enclosed buildings. I was not aware that there was storage out there. Mr. Osborne added it was not meant as a storage thing; it was as needed but we got four pallets in and the weather turned. Mr. Tiffany stated there was considerable amounts setting there for a good period of time. The reason I am bringing this up is that you folks need to know that it is not permissible so you can address this. I want to make you aware in the future that we would like to not see pallets of salt stacked in the parking lot. Mr. Osborne stated we can check into that; I think that is another issue.

Mr. Squires asked what type of setback are we talking about from North Commerce Way? Mr. McErlane reported that the required setback is 25 feet, and he has 19 feet.

Mrs. Boice stated if it were moved 25 feet from the lot line, it would interfere and obstruct traffic patterns for the emergency and fire access and that does concern me. Having gone over there and eyeballed it, I really have no problem with this, and I would move to grant this variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. 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." - tabled 4/16/96

Mr. Tiffany asked Mrs. Kidd to bring us up to date on changes since we last met. Mrs. Kidd reported that the building supervisor told me to bring in the two car garage that I want to put in the back. Mrs. Boice asked if she had an attached garage, and Mrs. Kidd indicated that she did, adding that she wants to turn that into living space.

Mr. Tiffany commented this drawing that we got in our packet shows the new garage on the back side of the house. Mr. Squires said that is a separate variance altogether; I thought we were talking about the driveway.

Mrs. Kidd reported that when she met with Bill and Gordon, they told me to go ahead and show what I am doing.

Mr. Tiffany commented that there is no variance needed for a garage and Mr. McErlane confirmed that there was not, if it does not exceed 600 square feet, and if the other garage is converted.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Six

VI C KAREN KIDD 11493 BERNHART COURT DRIVEWAY EXTENSION-continued

Mrs. Boice said what we are dealing with here tonight is the driveway, but in all honesty, I have been over there and looked at the property a number of times. What I am seeing, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that by the time you get done doing all that you are doing, you are adding a shed also - it seems to be a cement city so to speak. I am concerned about runoff. Mrs. Kiddís uncle, Mr. Henderson who is doing the project stated that there are drains in all the cement.

Mrs. Boice continued I did receive a letter from a neighbor. I think Mrs. McNear did also, and I think this needs to be read into the record. It is dated May 9th.

"I am writing to you in regards to the property next door to me on Bernhart Court. The ownerís name is Karen Kidd, which was brought before the zoning board last month. If you can recall, they are requesting to have their driveway extended into their back yard, but the problem is that there is only a little over seven feet to the property line from the side of their house when in fact there is a requirement of 10 feet.

I would like to start by saying that these neighbors are very nice people and we have a friendly relationship at this point and we would like to keep it that way. Ms. Kiddís uncle who is residing there and doing these improvements is attempting to repair any damage done to the grass on our properly due to the ribbon driveway that has already been completed, and we very much appreciate his efforts.

However, there are three concerns that we have if he is allowed to continue pouring the cement. Our house is on the circle of the cul de sac, and therefore sits back further than the Kidd house. When we walk out of our front door, we are looking into their back yard. One of our concerns is that if he is allowed to have a seven foot wide driveway along the side of his house, when they park their vehicles here, it will look like they are parked in our front yard. Walter has told me that they donít intend to park there, but obviously he canít speak for future owners of this property. Therefore, I would like to know if this is permitted according to city code if they would happen to start parking there anyway.

Another concern of mine is my forsythia bushes along the property line. I am not sure if there is enough room to fit their vehicles between their house and my bushes. Walter asked me if he could cut them down, but I told him I had no intentions of cutting them down. I did however trim them back as far as I intend to because they block the view of his back yard for us and the rest of the neighbors on the circle, which if you have been out here to look at their property, Iím sure you can understand why we want to keep the view blocked.

Our third concern is in regards to the driveway Walter intends to run along the property line down the back yard. Walter has poured several truckloads of gravel throughout the back yard, which, if his driveway in front is approved, he intends to also cover with cement. I have noticed with all the rain we have gotten lately that the water in his back yard now runs off the gravel and into our yard, rather than seeping into the ground on his property.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Seven

VI C KAREN KIDD 11493 BERNHART COURT - DRIVEWAY EXTENSION-continued

Letter from Resident on Bernhart Court - continued

"My main concern is along the side of our house where it only sits about five to six feet away from the property line. We had our basement waterproofed last year and havenít had any water problems since. Therefore, we donít need his rainwater running into our yard stifling our efforts to dry out our property.

Therefore, I would like to request that if they are allowed to cement the majority of their back yard as they intend to do, that the ribbon driveway they are planning to do along the property line be angled toward the center of their yard, so that any rainwater would run back onto their property and not ours.

I have to say that I do appreciate their efforts in trying to update this property, but I donít want it to be done at the expense of my property. Walter seems to be a very hard working man, but sometimes his idea of beautifying things is very different from ours.

We have another obligation the same night as the next zoning board meeting but will try our best to be there. I have also sent this same letter to Kathy McNear, and please feel free to share it with other members of the board. If you have any questions, please donít hesitate to give us a call."

Mrs. Boice said I wanted this entered into the record because I think the water runoff is definitely a big problem. I want to say up front, Ms. Kidd that we all own property and we all feel itís our right to do with it what we want, but at the same time, I think we have to consider what is around us. As I said, I have made several trips and have looked at that property from the front yard, from the side yard, from Grandin Avenue and it just seems.. Mr. Henderson asked if she had come in the yard and looked and Mrs. Boice responded that she wouldnít do that because you were not home. Mr. Henderson reported that the water flows on to our property. Mrs. Boice responded I was not looking at the water. What I am concerned about is the amount of cement you are putting down. Mr. Henderson stated we still have 35 feet of grass with all this construction, but the water is the reason for the cement. We were getting as much water as she did before I cemented. The ground is so low the water seeps in there, and now we donít get the water because we have drains in the patio.

Mrs. Boice commented aside from that, my concern is the amount of cement that you are putting down. Before we get into further discussion the 10 foot wide driveway, it does concern me; I just think it is an overabundance of cement. I think it is going to hurt the surrounding property values for that amount of cement to be poured in the back yard.

Mr. Mitchell commented the issue here is the driveway. The amount of cement in the back yard is not really our concern is it? Mr. Tiffany answered not at this point, no. Our issue tonight is whether or not we are going to permit a seven and one-half foot driveway right on the property line with the 10 foot requirement. Mrs. Boice added but I think we have to be concerned with the neighborís letter. Mr. Tiffany responded I agree, and the intent of the driveway to get traffic to the rear, but I think you need to leave it at that, and with any other plans that they bring in the back; we need to put that aside at this point.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Eight

VI C KAREN KIDD - 11493 BERNHART COURT - DRIVEWAY EXTENSION-cont.

Mr. Tiffany stated I have a concern with putting in a seven and one-half foot driveway when it is required at 10 feet. It is very difficult to get just about any vehicle through seven and one-half feet. Mr. Henderson commented I can bring a truck through there easily. Mr. Tiffany responded I believe you could; youíre skilled at driving a truck. The future owners may not be as skilled. Mr. Henderson added she (Mrs. Kidd) can put a car through there easily. Mr. Tiffany answered I believe she can, but there is a reason that there is a 10 foot requirement. It is to accommodate all vehicles with safe passage and other things, and that is our issue. Mr. Henderson said does council know that we were permitted to build this sidewalk plus the garage and everything else in back? We had permission to do this from the city building code. We had a verbal approval. If we had known this first, I would have just come through the garage and simplified, but the inspector told me I could go over to the end of the property. He said I could pour as much cement in the back as we needed.

Mr. Tiffany stated you are permitted to pour right up to your property line; thatís absolutely correct, as long as it meets the Code. The Code requirement is 10 feet, and you donít meet the 10 feet. Mr. Henderson said it was our understanding from the building inspector that it was okay to pour the drive on the far side of the house, the south side of the house. Other than that, we would never have started pouring. We would never have even mentioned it. We are $8,000 to $10,000 in with rock.

Mr. Mitchell commented I can see the point; if he is being permitted to put a garage in the rear of his house, what use is that if you canít get access to it?

Mr. McErlane reported that there was never any permit issued for a garage. There were a lot of discussions on what was going to happen in the future. Mr. Henderson added but there was a verbal that it was okay to do that from the building inspector. Mr. McErlane responded I think he had mentioned that there may have been a problem with the garage from the standpoint of the size you wanted to build and those type issues as well. Mrs. Kidd added but he said the driveway was okay. He didnít say anything about the Zoning Code until the day before we were getting ready to pour. Mr. Henderson commented we got five tons of cement, and someone called and he came down and shut it down. I said I canít shut this down, and he said well pour up to the house.

Mr. Squires said I am referring to the Minutes of the last meeting, and it says "she asked Ms. Kidd if there was a contractor who could bring forth plans and Ms. Kidd indicated that she did." Are these the plans that you brought forth? Mrs. Kidd answered that they were. Mr. Squires said you have a dimension of 25 feet, and it is an oblique dimension, it goes from the corner of your neighborís house to the driveway. Mr. Henderson stated that is how far their house is behind ours. Mr. Squires said I canít tell from this drawing how close the side of your neighborís house is to this proposed driveway. It looks like some space there, but there is no scale on here. Mr. Henderson stated that from their house to the fence and the driveway it is about eight feet. It is in the back yard.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Nine

VI C KAREN KIDD 11493 BERNHART COURT - DRIVEWAY EXTENSION-cont.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if he had discussions with Mr. King regarding this and the history? Mr. McErlane reported Mr. King and Mr. Lohbeck both responded or at least looked at what was going on at the property. There were a number of different things going on, and I donít know if anybody had a full scope of what in total was going on. Obviously the stone in the back yard was a patio, it wasnít a driveway , and I think Mr. King did talk to them about their total overall plans which included a garage in the future. He told me he had indicated there may be a problem with trying to build a garage, and I donít know if it was just because of the size, or if it was the location. It wasnít until later that Mr. King was made aware that in one section of our Code it talks about the 10 foot driveway. If youíll notice in the section of the Code where it talks about the 10 foot wide yard, it is grouped in with fences, not with the rest of the requirements for driveways. Iím not sure that Mr. King was aware of that section until it was pointed out to him. Again, I donít think the scope of everything that was going on was clear to anybody.

Mr. Tiffany asked if anything was submitted to the City prior to this, and Mr.McErlane said no, adding that there were no requirements for permits, other than the future garage when that came about, or if they were to build part of the driveway that is within the right of way line.

Mr.Squires commented it seemed to me there was a picture available from Mr. Hatcher your neighbor, and he was talking about the forsythia bush. It looked to me like it was very very close but you can get a vehicle back there without brushing this bush? Mr. Henderson answered that he can, as long as the bush doesnít come over into the fence, I can get a 3/4 ton truck back there.

Mrs. McNear said I think we have somewhat of a problem the same way we had with the fence. I think you have the same situation here because of the placement of your home to your neighbor. These ordinances are put in place for everyoneís protection and I think this would be impinging on the other personís enjoyment of their property, and we should go with the standard and say you need a 10 foot driveway and be done with it.

Mr. Henderson said if I cannot get a driveway around the back, all this money and time we have put in is shot. We verbally had permission to put the driveway there by someone who is not here.

Mr. Tiffany asked if he would like the board to table this to the next meeting and have him here? Iíll be happy to do that. Mr. Henderson indicated that he would, adding I think I should bring a lawyer; I need some legal advice here because nothing is turning out right. The City says I can and the next minute you can come in and shoot me down, and we have stuck $8,000 in with rock, cement, time and sewer drains.

Mr. Squires commented I would agree with you; I think itís gone beyond the scope of us a little bit. I would welcome legal opinions here as well, and I would like to hear from this individual who gave you this verbal permission. Mr. Henderson responded I would too, but heís not here. He wasnít here last time and heís not here tonight. Mr. Tiffany stated heís not required to be here. Mr. Henderson commented he needs to be required here. Mr. Tiffany said Iíll be happy to have him here at the next meeting and we can discuss this again. I hate to put you off for another month, but I think it is in your best interests to do that, because you do have a lot of time and expense invested, and I want to be absolutely fair to you.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Ten

VI C KAREN KIDD 11493 BERNHART COURT DRIVEWAY EXPANSION-continued

Mr. Henderson commented the verbal word in the past is no good. Mr. Tiffany said I know itís very difficult for you to try to see it sitting on this side, but we have other individuals we have to protect also. Mr. Henderson commented nobody protected us. Mr. Tiffany continued thatís why I am asking that this is be tabled so he can be here and we can protect your interests also, to be fair to you. I would ask for a motion to table this.

Mr. Squires moved to table this. Addressing the applicant, he said please understand that this is for the benefit of all in doing this. This is not even a dilemma; itís an enigma. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and this was tabled with six affirmative votes.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Tire Discounters, 12190 Springfield Pike requests variance to allow installation of three new building signs to replace three existing signs. Total square footage allowed 211 s.f.; total square footage requested 213 s.f. Said variance is requested from Section 1 53.092(D) "..Maximum gross area of signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 square feet".

Chip Wood of Tire Discounts reported we are improving our site, and in the process we have taken down three double signs we have there now and would like to put up new signs. I have two problems. One is that over the years many of these trees have grown up and are blocking my line of sight and the other one is we changed our logo to use upper and lower case letters instead of just upper case. The result is that the logo eats up more square feet and we need more square feet than we are allowed.

Mr. Squires commented we are only talking a very small difference in square footage. It is two square feet or less than 1%. It is very minute considering what you are asking for. Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell and Mr.Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. William Swingle, 893 Yorkhaven Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 4í x 8í storage building against the house. Variance is requested from Section 153.025(C) "..shall be located not less than 5 feet from the main building.."

No one was present, and the matter was tabled to the next meeting,

May 21st.

C. Jason Fisher, 1059 Terrytown Court requests variance to allow the installation of an air conditioning unit in the east side yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.052 "..may be located in a side yard..if it is no closer than 7 feet to the side lot line.."

Mr. Fisher stated I want to put an air conditioner on the side lot. My air conditioning man said I needed signatures from the neighbors and I have that. He is not here tonight. Mr. Tiffany said the signatures are to notify your neighbors that there will be meeting regarding your property and what you are wanting to do. This is to let them know so if they want to speak for or against it, they are afforded that opportunity.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Eleven

VI C JASON FISHER 1059 TERRYTOWN COURT AIR CONDITIONING UNIT-cont.

Mrs. McNear commented when I went by, there was a unit inside the fence. Will that be a replacement? Mr. Fisher answered yes, that is the old unit. Mr. Mitchell asked if it were going in the same location and Mr. Fisher indicated that it was. Mr. Squires wondered how close to the line it would be, adding that it looked like seven feet might not be available; you share a common fence with your neighbor. Mr. .Fisher indicated that it is right on seven foot. Mr. Mitchell commented I look at this as a replacement, moving the existing unit and replace it. I would have no problem with it.

Mr. McErlane reported I did not look at the site, and his contractor must have checked what the requirements were. We donít even require for replacement. Apparently your contractor was trying to be diligent in what he was doing. Mr. Tiffany said we appreciate your time; you donít need a variance as long as it goes back in the same spot.

Mrs. McNear moved to drop the item from the agenda and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and this was dropped.

D. David Heider, 11793 Van Cleve Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a family room addition. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards must be at least 35 feet deep."

Mr. Heider stated what I need is a variance because we want the addition to be 18 feet from the back of the house and we only would have 28 feet from the property line. Actually, we butt up against the community center, and the fence from the community center will be 36 feet from the addition. Our yard would seem bigger because the community center fence is 36 feet from the addition. I am fine on the sides, it is just the rear yard setback that I need a variance for.

Mr. Tiffany asked if anyone wished to speak for or against this project. No one responded.

Mrs. McNear commented I do not have any problem with this. There are quite a few room additions along that street that butt up against the recreation center both on Van Cleve and Nelson, so I would like to make a motion that we grant the variance as requested. Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Mrs. Boice commented I live on Harter Avenue, and the neighbor directly behind me has done an addition which put them off their setback to my property, and it is a wonderful addition. There never has been any problems with it. This one is facing out into a field.

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

E. Calvary Pentecostal Church, 353 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 25í steeple on the church. on the church. Said variance is requested from Section 153.071(A)(5) "..domes, steeples, crosses, religious symbols..may extend to a height not to exceed 45 feet above the average finished grade."

Norman Paslay II, Minister of the church stated we are requesting that you allow us the construction of a steeple on our main building at the corner of West Kemper and Walnut Street. The distance we are over is five feet (we measured it today).

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Twelve

VI E CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, 353 WEST KEMPER ROAD - STEEPLE

Reverend Paslay continued we are confident that the steeple will not block anyoneís view. We believe it will add to the beauty of our church and to the aesthetic quality of the corner. It is our intent to augment the appearance of the building and make it more pleasing to the community.

Reverend Paslay stated that page 2 is a drawing that outlines its total height and sections with a four foot base. On anchoring methods, we will be using Figure #2. Page three using trick photography we tried to give you an idea of what it will look like. The building itself from the concrete in the front to the top pitch is 25í-10". The steeple, though measuring 25í, after we nitch it to mount it will drop to 24í-2" and that will give us a total height from sidewalk to the top of the cross on the spire of 50 feet, which is why we are requesting a five foot variance.

Mr. Tiffany said I would personally like to commend you on the improvements you have made to date. It is looking very nice.

Mr. Squires stated I have no problem with the five foot overage; itís already constructed there and it looks well constructed.

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance for the addition of the steeple and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

F. Ethan Allen requests variance to allow the construction of a 22í wide aisle on the front one-side loaded parking bay at 12185 Princeton Pike. Said variance is requested from Section1 53.123(A) which requires a 24í width.

Ron Hull, of B. L. Payne & Associates the civil engineers and surveyors for the site plan. Originally when we came in, we had this as a future user and later when Ethan Allen came in, the footprint we used for future user was quite a bit smaller than what Ethan Allen needed. We had a bigger footprint and when we first came in, we were asking for a 20 foot front aisle on a single loaded parking and on the rear. We were told that 24 foot was standard and we changed our plans. Unfortunately when our survey crews staked it out they grabbed the wrong set of plans, and they staked it out using the 20 foot aisle width in the front. Therefore, the foundation was poured four feet too close to the front. Thatís when I talked with Mr. McErlane and Don Shvegzda from CDS and we came up with the plan that you see in front of you. We are asking for a variance to have a 20 foot aisle and on the northern part just before it goes into Tumbleweed, we are spreading out to a 24 foot aisle again. In order to accomplish that, since we had to get an extra two feet for the aisle, we pushed the curb on the part in front of Ethan Allen out two feet closer to the road. Iím told by Mr. McErlane that this is not in violation of any of your setback rules. At this point, we are asking for a variance to allow us to use the 22 foot aisle width and do what we are showing here. The grading plan is such that we would not have to do any further grading in the front that already exists. However, if we had to move another two feet to get to the 24 feet, especially in that southeast corner of the parking, we would be going over the hill and would have to do some more grading. There were some mature trees that were part of the package to begin with; the City clearly wanted to keep those trees, and if we did start to do more grading, the concern would be that we might lose a tree or two there.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Thirteen

VI G. ETHAN ALLEN 12185 PRINCETON PIKE - 22í WIDE AISLE - continued

Mr. .Mitchell asked Mr. McErlane if this were the best solution? Mr. McErlane reported that one of the concerns about additional filling on the site was potential damage to the existing trees. Although there are no setback problems, what Planning Commission attempted to do by causing the buildings to be set back so far, is to try to save those mature trees out front. So, even though there is no specific setback problem here, the concern was to try to save those trees. What this solution does is avoid damaging those trees. It does provide an additional two feet over what the wrong plan showed for an aisle. One of the things I had told Mr. Hull was if the city engineer had no concerns about the maneuverability with the 22-foot aisle, there was a better chance of a variance being granted for that than the 20 foot aisle.

Mr. Tiffany said had we followed the correct set of plans approved by PlanningCommission, would we have had the problem with the filling on the trees?

Mr. McErlane responded in order for it to be built with a 24 foot aisle now, because of the fact that the building is further forward than what was originally approved, that creates the problem. Had it gone the way it had been approved, it wouldnít have been a problem.

Mr. Tiffany added I am bugged when stuff like this happens, because in Planning we took a lot of time to create an entire project here with all three of these properties to keep the setbacks the same on all the buildings and keep it contiguous. Now we have a nice little sway here with a building that sets out farther that gives them more exposure and all sorts of wonderful things.

Mr. Hull commented if the building would have been built at the four foot back, it still would have stuck out from Tumbleweed. That was part of the original plan. Mr. McErlane added the parking in front of Tumbleweed is double loaded off the aisles it sets back further.

Mr. Tiffany continued the concern for me is a matter of we approve one thing and another gets done, and now here we are. Thatís my problem. How far are you on this project? Mr. Hull answered the foundation has been poured and the walls are going up. You are right in what you said that if the mistake had not been made, then we would not be here. The 24 foot aisle would be there and the building would be back four feet.

Mr. Tiffany commented as distasteful for me as it is, it puts us in a bad position because now we have a case of hardship because we have all this time and expense and the foundation poured. It ties our hands unfortunately.

Mrs. McNear said when we start cutting down aisleways and driveways, we have done this and granted some variances in the past which I think have caused long term problems for us, for example the Provident Bank and Walgreen driveways, and I would like to add my comments about my distaste and lack of appreciation for this type of hardship. We are stuck on it, but it will cause long term problems for us.

Mr. Squires commented I wonder how there were two sets of prints to begin with.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Fourteen

VI F. ETHAN ALLEN 12185 PRINCETON PIKE 22í WIDE AISLE-continued

Mr. Hull responded we work in Cad Cam, and what happened is the original design was designed and submitted, and there is a time lapse before we get the approval. The person in charge of the field crews decided he would get a jump on getting the field data and it was taken from the plan that had the 20 foot aisles, not realizing there was a change.

Mr. Squires commented I can understand that, but how do you avoid this in the future? Is there a way to do it? Mr. McErlane responded not in reality; not unless we hire some surveyors to double check the layout Mr. Squires commented that might save us some grief here if we did that.

Mrs. McNear added perhaps we should bring this up in Planning Commission, because in the last two years this has happened at least four or five times where the building has been put in the wrong place that we know about. Every time I go into some of these driveways that we have cut down, I curse myself because I voted for it, and it was a mistake.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice and Mrs. Ewing. Mr. Tiffany voted no, and the variance was granted with five affirmative and one negative vote.

G. Maple Knoll Village, 11100 Springfield Pike requests variance to allow the installation of a new sign. Said variance is requested from Section 153.193(D)(6)(d) "All signage shall be no closer to public right of way than 10í and shall not exceed 7í in height..."

Lena Mares of Maple Knoll Village reported we are slowly but surely finishing our new campus, and we want to put up a new entry sign, similar to the brick sign across the street identifying Maple Knoll Center. This gives us a little more prominence in that it has some architectural features that match our new buildings. The reason for the variance is that the sign would be located 10 feet from the newly poured sidewalk. In order to get that sidewalk there, there had to be an additional right of way granted, so it takes it right up to the right of way within a foot or two from the new proposed right of way. The height of the sign is approximately four feet. The lower cap of the small turret here is approximately six feet, and the very top is about seven feet, so we require a variance for the sign height and the placement of the sign

Mr. Tiffany commented of the two signs you enclose, which are you going with? Ms. Mares responded we are going with the alternate signage. Originally when the plans were drawn, we were going to identify Maple Knoll Village only. Since that time we have modified it to identify the Manor House as well as our radio station. Mr. Tiffany asked the distance from the street to the sign, and Mr. McErlane stated you are talking about 30 feet from the street. Mr. Tiffany commented thatís a good distance back from the street. So we are looking at two variances, for the height and the setback. The setback requirement is 10 feet, and they actually are right on the new right of way. Ms. Mares added that the new right of way was granted for the bus pad as well as the new sidewalk.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Fifteen

VI G MAPLE KNOLL VILLAGE 11100 SPRINGFIELD PIKE NEW ENTRY SIGN-cont.

Mr. Mitchell commented one reason I would be inclined to approve this, being as close as it is to the right of way is even when you are traveling north on State Route 4, is the bus stop enclosure. If they moved it back any further, it would block off the view. So, they really do need to have it that close to the right of way in order for the sign to be effective. I would move to grant the variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

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

H. Keith Chavies, 11760 Lawnview Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a 10í x 16í storage shed. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 "...shall not exceed 120 s.f."

Mr. Chavies said I am in desperate need of storage in my residence. The prior owners had already turned the garage into a living space. As a motorcycle hobbyist, I have a dirt bike that I keep stored in a friendís house, and I would like to keep it in the shed along with other equipment. The 120 square foot shed did not give me a whole lot of room to change oil, etc. and that is why I opted for the 10í x 16í shed.

Mr. Mitchell commented I went by the house, and he does have the foundation for the shed constructed. It is pretty difficult to see. The only way you can see it is by standing directly along his driveway and looking alongside his house. I really donít see a problem with this.

Mr. Chavies stated I have one of the larger lots; in square footage, I have pretty good space.

Mr. Squires commented I would like to commend you in what you are doing in the front yard. Mr. Chavies said I plan to continue it on around. I also have a permit to put a new roof on the house.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mrs.Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr.Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

I. Tom & Lisa Padgett, 533 Dimmick Avenue request variance to allow the installation of an inground pool in their side yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.047(B)(1)(a) "..shall not be located in a front or side yard..."

Mr. & Mrs. Padgett approached the board. Mr. Padgett indicated that the way their yard is laid out, with trees and all, they are forced to put the pool in at one spot, and that is in our side yard. I have some pictures to show you, and you have a drawing. It is on the left side as you are facing the house. Mr. Squires commented I did notice the trees in the back yard.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Mitchell asked if an inground pool required a special type fencing around it. Mr. McErlane reported that there is a minimum of four foot high fence required with a lockable gate, either around the pool or around the yard. Mr. Padgett stated there is a little chicken wire fence; we are going to put a really good fence around it.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Sixteen

VI I TOM & LISA PADGETT 533 DIMMICK INGROUND POOL IN SIDE YARD-cont.

Mrs. McNear asked if it would be a privacy fence, and Mr. Padgett answered that it would not, adding that we are up in the air about this, either chain link or picket fence. We are leaning toward a picket because they look nicer. Mrs. McNear commented I was thinking about blocking it from the street, trying to avoid some of the temptation for the kids in the neighborhood. Mr. Padgett responded you saw the evergreens there. I am going to move some of the smaller ones in my yard to try to block that corner off. Mrs. McNear commented I agree that we should look at some screening.

Mr. Tiffany wondered if the pool couldnít be moved any more towards the rear of the yard, and Mr. Padgett indicated that if we went back any further, we would be getting into the roots of that tree. The pool guy suggested not to go back any further or the tree might be killed. There is no other place in our yard to put it. If we went right in the back of our house, the pool would end up within eight feet of our door, and we have a patio there and everything else.

Mr. Mitchell asked if this were 30 feet to the street, and Mr. Padgett said that is an estimation; one picture shows it, and I would say it is at least 30 feet.

Mr. Tiffany commented personally I donít have a problem with this, but I would like to see a six foot fence on that street side to screen it a little better from the street and deter passers by. Mrs. Boice added I think you would benefit from that. Mr. Padgett responded I would like to go with a five foot, because we have a two year old now and she can climb amazingly. The least it would be would be five feet, and if you want a six foot in front, we do not have a problem with that. Mr. Tiffany added it would be six foot privacy, not chain link, to block the view. We want to screen in this from traffic and everything else. This is just on the front side; what you do down the sides and back doesnít concern us. Mrs. Padgett said that is fine.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variance for an inground pool in the side yard with a six foot privacy fence to screen from the street area. I believe Mr. and Mrs. Padgett have indicated that the other part of the fence will be five feet at least, and Iím going to include that in the motion also. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

J. BHE Properties, Ltd. requests variance for property at 11733 Chesterdale Road (formerly Waltek). Variance is requested from Section 153.103(C)(2) - 200í lot width required, 30.05í shown; Section 153.102(A)(3)(f)(1) - 45í rear yard setback required, 38.47í shown; and Section 153.133(A) "The advertisement or message contained on any sign shall pertain only to a principal busines conducted lawfully on the premises on which the sign is located.."

Mr. Tiffany stated this is the Waltek property, which is being subdivided into two different parcels. The front property is what BHE is looking at; the back property has a contract on it with another gentleman. The back property has to have the panhandle come out to the street for frontage. The one variance is for the lot width; 30 foot is shown and that is at the narrowest point. The actual lot width by the building is sufficient; it is the 35 foot neck that we are concerned with.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Seventeen

VI J BHE PROPERTIES 11733 CHESTERDALE ROAD - continued

Mr. Tiffany continued there will be a cross easement for traffic on that driveway going between the two businesses. The rear yard setback is an issue because we are splitting it right between the two buildings and creating parking in there also. It works out well for both properties, and doesnít seem to be a big problem.

Mr. Tiffany stated the third one is the parking issue. Because we have split the two lots and created the panhandle, the spaces marked in red are necessary for the front building to create the numbers that they need, but only from the standpoint of code, and we get within one space. There would be a cross easement for those spaces also to be used for the front building. They actually donít need the number of parking spaces that we are prescribing; it is a case of trying to meet the code.

Ms. Elizabeth Horwitz added we would like to have a variance to keep the landscaping in the yellow area. If the City determines we really need those spaces to get us up to code, we could do it, but we would rather not because we do not think we need those spaces.

Mr. McErlane added the conditional use guidelines allow you to show future parking if necessary. If it became a necessity we could still require those two additional spaces, but I do not know that they need to be considered as part of the variance.

Mr. Tiffany added the rear user will be a mix of things, and the parking that they will need is sufficient with what they have on site. The red spaces wonít be necessary, so the cross easement with the red spaces doesnít present a problem for them.

Mr. Tiffany said for your information, the rear building is not a concern to us for this issue, but we had to consider it at Planning because of the overall project and the impact with the cross easements for traffic and parking. The rear user (one of the partners is here this evening) has indicated to us that they have made a commitment to clean that back there for the residents, to work with the residents. The residents were at the meeting, and he invited them if they had problems to inform him. Mrs. McNear commented we have had a problem there for several years, and I do not want another one.

Ms.Horwitz stated we also need a variance for the sign. BHE is the principal user of this building, which is an office use. We will convert the existing sign that says Waltek for our use, but we have agreed with Mr. Wood, one of the owners of BW Properties to allow them to have the sign where they donít have frontage. This is where Planning Commission asked us to put it. We have not identified the exact location on the map, other than to show the area in which it would be located, and it would be a sign four feet high and five feet wide. The purpose is to identify the address and name of the users. It is expected that there will be more than one user. Mr. Woodís business is a custom cabinetry business and the other users are not identified as yet.

Mr. Tiffany commented this is necessary because even on the panhandle they canít put a sign because there is an easement from the State of Ohio for the highway.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Eighteen

VI J BHE PROPERTIES LTD. 11733 CHESTERDALE ROAD - continued

Mr. McErlane reported to clarify, the lot width requirement actually benefits the rear lot, and the rear yard setback is to benefit the front lot. The parking elevation of one is to benefit the front lot. The sign is on the front lotís property, but benefits the rear property.

Mr. Tiffany commented it appears to be a good project; definitely an improvement. They are clear that there will be no outside storage, none whatsoever, and they will repair the retaining wall and clean it up. Mr. Mitchell wondered if both parties agreed to this, and Mr. Tiffany confirmed that they did. Mrs. McNear checked to see if Planning agreed with all this, and Mr. Tiffany reported that they did.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

VIII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Tiffany one item I have is the new signage regulations that are coming through. One is for election signs, which shouldnít come to this board, but the other is addressing temporary signage, window signs and things like that. You will be getting a copy of this once it is passed into the Code, but I wanted to let you know that Planning did gave final approval last week and recommended it to Council. It will clean up a lot of what I call garbage signs in the windows. Any of the painted signs would be considered permanent signage and that would have to be taken into consideration of their total sign package. The neon open signs would now be permanent signs also.

Mr. Tiffany continued at Planning Commission last week we discussed something that concerns us this evening, and will concern us at the next meeting, and that is the ability of anyone to concrete their whole yard. There is nothing in our code that prohibits that. If this goes the way I think itís going to, weíll lose on this issue. Thatís why I pushed for it to be tabled tonight. If he had a commitment from a building official that it was okay, I donít know what we can do at this point, and Iím going to ask that we get with Mr. Schneider. Iíll contact him tomorrow, and have discussion with Mr. McErlane, Mr. King and Mr. Lohbeck between now and the next meeting to see if we canít figure out where we need to go with this. I donít want to stick the cityís neck out on this issue.

Mrs. McNear suggested that at the beginning of the meeting we mention to all parties that everyone will have their say, and they can say whatever they like for as long as they like, but they do not interrupt anyone else and they do not become argumentative or attack any other person that is present, because I donít think we should have to tolerate that type of thing.

Mrs. Boice added I also would like legal counsel at the next meeting. Mr. Tiffany responded I want to get with him ahead of time. I can see this becoming a very big problem. We discussed it at Planning, and I think we will move forward with something to prohibit this stuff. If we do away with the seven and one-half foot driveway, the rear becomes a non-issue.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Nineteen

VIII - DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Tiffany continued however, he mentioned something that concerned me. He said if I had known, I would have gone through the garage, which tells me he will tear out part of the garage to create the aisle width that he needs. He is changing that over to living space anyhow, and then he is going to put the garage in the back and pave the rear yard.

Mr. Mitchell commented one of the things I was seeing and hearing tonight and looking at his plan, was that even without the garage back there, it looks like he was going to do a lot of paving anyway with patios and waterfalls and sheds and some other things. Nothing prohibits them from doing it.

Mr. Tiffany reported with lot usage, you have a limit as to the size of the building, the percentage, and we talked about making it the same for impervious surfaces.

Mrs. Boice asked where we stand on who supposedly verbally told him he could do this driveway? Mr. McErlane reported there was so much going on at any one point of time and so many discussions on what he might do in the future, I donít know that anybody had a good handle on what he was doing. What has been constructed in the rear yard so far is just a patio. Most of it is gravel beyond that point. Mr. Tiffany commented it is still pervious at this point; it allow water to go through, but the neighbor said that she has had discussions with Walter, and he indicated to her that he is going to pour concrete on top of that also. Mr. McErlane added he mentioned something about talking to me about a shed, which I canít recall, other than the time that we met between the last meeting and this one. When we met, he talked about the shed that is shown back there, but he showed me what he was going to use, which is logs and some other items he had laying around. I donít ever remember discussing logs and other materials to build the shed from. I know Gordon had mentioned to him that he may have a problem with the garage and where he wanted to put it as well as the size, but I donít know that Gordon was aware of the 10 foot requirement because of where it was in the code.

Mr. Squires commented right now the city doesnít have any permits for driveways do we? Mr. McErlane responded only in the area of the right of way. Mr. Squires wondered if the city could consider requiring permits for driveways. Would that have gotten us out of this is if they had been required to get a permit? Mr. McErlane indicated that it would have, adding that he did not know if we would have caught on to what was going on in the rear.

Mr. Tiffany stated what you need to know is if he had 10 feet on that side yard, he could do anything he wanted. Mr. McErlane added except that since last week I did get some kind of a memo from the law directorís office, and it is his opinion that a slab is considered a structure. If you read our definition of structures in the code, it just about covers anything. Mr. Tiffany said so you are saying that these structure would be included in the 35% land coverage. So, we may have an out there regardless. Mr. McErlane responded I donít know how to scale this drawing is. I donít know if you saw the one he brought in tonight, but that one definitely isnít to scale. If this were to scale, 35% would be everything minus this driveway going back to the shed, so he could in essence pave all that.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Twenty

VIII DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Squires commented that is nothing more than a blowup of the surveyorís plot. Mr. McErlane reported I gave him the plot itself and he drew the rest of it. I was trying to give him a starting point.

Mrs. Boice added and he showed tonight that the driveway is going to fork to the shed and then to the garage, and then he is going to have a rock garden. Mr. McErlane reported that the rock garden already is there, but a rock garden is not covered in the Code at all. The Code does specifically exempt landscaping features and walks in terms of yard requirements.

Mrs. Boice I had another letter which Iím sure she wouldnít object to my sharing with this board She said that "If this driveway is approved, I would like it to be clear that there be no parking of vehicles along the side of their house. I live on the cul de sac, and the Kiddsí back and side yard are my front yard. Should, however their property be sold and another family move in, this parking regulation could be ignored or never known by the new family. My personal concern for the Hackers is the driveway going into the back right under the bedroom window. When the Uncle Walter starts up his truck, it can be heard all around, and with the possibility of it being parked in the back, I donít see how he could help from waking half the family. There just isnít enough room back there. I sincerely hope that the board will look at this situation very very carefully. I feel that the drive with going to back the Kidd property is an impossible situation. It would change our neighborhood aesthetically as well as financially in property values. Through the 31 years I have lived on this street, I and my neighbors have worked very hard to keep our properties in good order and donít want to see them going down in any other way. To you Mrs. Boice and the other board members, please give this situation every consideration for all of us." Mrs. Boice added the neighbors up there are just panicked.

Mr. Squires commented there are more than just aesthetics involved. You have some engineering problems too, like water runoffs. Mrs. Boice added and he has told one of the neighbors that it is his intention to build concrete parking pads in the front yard. Mr. Squires wondered if there were anything to prevent him from parking commercial vehicles back there. Mr. McErlane reported there are limitations on commercial vehicles, but if they fit in the garage, there wouldnít be a limitation.

Mr. Mitchell commented the thing is that you really donít have any rules to say what actually he can do back there. There are no limitations really. Mr. Tiffany stated it is the law directorís opinion that we do by the 35%. Mr. McErlane stated I just roughed it out, and if you take it back to the garage and the driveway in front of the garage, it would be about 35%. The house itself definitely isnít drawn to scale, and it is probably set back further than it really is on this drawing.

Mrs. Boice said the only thing with something like this is to appeal to common sense and neighborliness, and I donít get the impression that this approach will work. Mr. Tiffany commented they have something in mind, and itís sort of tough to change their thoughts when they have to decide what they want to do with their property.

Mr. McErlane reported that initially the patio started out as their solution to a water problem they had in the basement, and things progressed from there.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 19965

Page Twenty-One

VIII DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Mitchell stated that was the reason why last month I asked them to put together drawings, because not seeing this or that idea on a drawing makes it hard for us to determine what is going on. Mr. Squires commented in the original discussion we had with them, the garage wasnít mentioned. Mr. Mitchell said she said something about parking a car back there at the last meeting, but she never said garage.

Mrs. Ewing said I want to say that he did have a point; even though it is all wrong, there is a lot of money that has been expended into the project that has concerned me. If the project was going the wrong way with maybe $1,000 or $2,000 invested, we could have stopped it and told him he was off base. He has really put a lot of money in and thatís why I agree we need a lawyer here. He said he was given the go-ahead by whomever. Mr. .Tiffany responded I share that concern and that is why I pushed to table because I want to get to the bottom of that. If that is the case, we may just have to take this one on the chin, and itís going to hurt.

Mr. Mitchell suggested he put up a fence. Mr. Tiffany responded thatís not a bad idea because that would impede him from infringing on their property with a car or truck coming through there. He says he can pull a truck right thorough there with no problem. Mr. McErlane added he had to take his mirrors off to do that. Mr. Tiffany continued seven and one half feet is tight. The problem is the way the Code was written, and Planning is talking about having the Code updated because it is screwy the way things jump around. The driveway width on the side yard is addressed in fence regulations; it is not in driveway regulations. From that standpoint, I canít blame Gordon for not knowing that it was there. If he looked at driveway regulations, there would be nothing there.

Mrs. McNear commented I feel for the amount of money they have invested, but consider the neighbors and how much money they have invested. It is a tough situation. Mr. Tiffany agreed, adding that we have to look at the total thing. Mr. Squires commented this is going to go beyond us. Mr. Tiffany responded I hope not; I hope we can come to a reasonable solution, and I will know when I talk to Ken Schneider.

On the stakes inspection, Mr. Tiffany said that this is has happen twice in the past couple of months; the other one is Boston Market where they moved the building further forward than it was proposed to be. Again, it is like Bill said; we would have to have our own survey crew to go out and check these things, but on a major project, we may want to consider that. Mrs. McNear commented I think we should. Mr. Tiffany continued weíll bring it up in Planning Commission and go from there.

Mr. Tiffany reported that Bill and I talked to Mr. Eades, who was here before the last meeting upset about our not notifying him of the variance request from Bings. The reason he was not notified was because on commercial property there is no notification process like we do with the residential properties. I donít know that this is right. Bill and I both had concerns about that.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Twenty-Two

VIII DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Tiffany continued on the residential notification process, we also have concerns with handing somebody a form. They could go out and fill the thing out themselves and bring it back. So, we propose to put a sign in the yard in advance, saying that on this date there will be a public hearing concerning this property and zoning issues. We would put that in their yard and it would stay there; that way as the neighbors drive by, they are fully aware. Mrs. McNear commented maybe we should send out letters. Mrs. Boice added we do if there is a zoning change involved. Mr. McErlane stated we discussed that also, and in instances where Planning Commission refers somebody to the Board of Zoning Appeals, we are not sure everybody would get the mail that we might send to them. Mrs. McNear added at least you would make every attempt. Mr. Tiffany said thatís what we thought was best about the sign in the yard. It is there and lets everybody be aware; at the same time we would keep the form for them to go around for their neighborsí signatures, but it covers us on everything. I think we should do it with commercial and residential; it is a good investment and covers us very very well.

Mrs. Boice commented I had a call from a constituent who was very upset about the Extended Stay going up; why had she not been notified? Of course, there was no zoning change. If you get into the notification by mail, the paper work would be almost unbelievable. Mr. Tiffany commented if you do just the properties that contact it, and maybe the three across the street, the guy in the fourth house would want to know why he wasnít informed because he can still see it. Where do you draw the line, because the guy three blocks away drives by every day and he has to see it. I think the sign is the best way. Mrs. Boice commented I think it is an excellent idea. Mr. Tiffany asked if Mr. McErlane had talked to Cecil about this, and Mr. McErlane reported that it is in next yearís budget. Mr. Tiffany wondered if we canít get it before then. Mr. McErlane stated it is $780 to buy 12 signs; itís $60 a sign. Mr. Tiffany wondered if we couldnít get it before next year. To Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice said as a member of Council who is on the Board of Zoning Appeals, I would suggest we bring it up before Council. Mr. Tiffany said pass it as an emergency measure and get it done. The sign ordinance that we just passed went to Rules and Laws Committee April 9 of last year, and we just got it back. We have had countless businesses that have come into the City of Springdale during that time that could have been addressed under this new issue; now we have to go back and have them change signage. Mrs. McNear asked Mr. McErlane to put something in her box so she can have hard figures to present to Council. Mr. Tiffany asked who would be doing the signs, and Mr. McErlane reported he checked with High Tech Signs. Mr. Tiffany said it would be a sign that would have a dry erase type thing, because we would have to change the date continuously. Mrs. Boice stated weíre only talking about $780. Mr. McErlane said this board only has $120 per year for supplies. Mrs. Boice said transfer it out of the Building Department; Iíll give my Board of Zoning Appeals report, and then Kathy can talk about the signs.

Mr. Tiffany said my last item is concerning Valentina Shuster and this new FCC regulation. Mr. McErlane reported that within a residential district, you cannot stop any dishes which are one meter or less (approximately three feet). Within commercial districts, you canít regulate anything two meters or less (less than six feet).

 

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Twenty-Three

VIII - DISCUSSION - continued

Mrs. Boice said so Tumbleweed Restaurant could have their two satellite dishes. Mr. McErlane answered actually they could put them in the front yard if they wanted to, or mount them on the front of the building. The next step for the FCC is you canít regulate monopoles. Mrs. Boice said so we will not be hearing these any more. Mr. McErlane answered only if they are larger than a meter. Mr. Tiffany added and I donít see that because everybody is going to the 18 inch dish Mr. McErlane reported the 18 inch dish was exempted anyway.

Mrs. Boice stated we have a letter on CB Commercial and their temporary variance on the trailer. They said they do not need it to be extended? Mr. McErlane reported they are gone. Mr. Tiffany stated they were supposed to send us something in writing, but we havenít received it yet.

Mrs. McNear commented Bings looks great; they cleaned it up in no time. Mr. Tiffany asked the status of the deck and Mr. McErlane reported that her engineer contacted me and I sent him over to the city engineerís office.

Mrs. Boice said I have a question about that deck; how are they accessing it? In order to wait on the people, will they go through the kitchen? Mr. Tiffany reported that still has to be worked out. The way she had it drawn was you went out the front door, around the front and into a door on the front side. My concern was with liquor, I donít think they will allow you o go outside the building with your liquor to come back in to serve it. One of the contingencies we had was that the Liquor Control approve it also, and that may not fly. Mrs. Boice they might cut through the back of the bar and install some type of a covered area. Mr. McErlane reported that her original plan did that, but the plan showed the walkway going on Mr. Eadesí property. Mr. Tiffany added at the right end of the bar she wanted to put a door in, go out, make a left and go down the back side of the building, but it puts her right on the property line. Mrs. Boice commented otherwise they will have to move that kitchen to the other end. Mr. Tiffany said theyíll have to do something, but you have to commend her. She kept her end of the bargain. Within 30 days she had that thing cleaned up.

Mrs. Ewing said Iím not sure if BZA deals with this or not, but I live on Cedarhill Drive, and there is a curve and a family which has two vans that they are parking on the curve, and the family on the other side of the street has a car parked there, and where you used to be able to pass a car, now one has to stop and wait.

Mrs. McNear commented I have a similar problem on my street and I mentioned it to Doyle and he said I should say something to the Maintenance Department or the Police Department.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 May 1996

Page Twenty-Four

VIII. DISCUSSION - continued

Mrs. Boice commented her daughter had the same problem, and they solved it neighbor to neighbor. Has any attempt been made that way at all? Mrs. Ewing responded for me, they are unapproachable, but it has bothered me and has gone on for a while now. Mr. McErlane added I donít know how they establish fire lanes that they do on Cloverdale and Smiley and those areas where one side of the street is a fire lane.

IX ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 10:07 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_______________________,1996 ________________________

Barry Tiffany, Chairman

 

 

_______________________,1996 _________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary