BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

7:00 P.M.

 

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

Chairman James Squires called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilwoman Kathy McNear, Thomas Schecker, Fred Borden, Councilman Robert Wilson, James Squires and David Okum.

Members Absent: Barbara Ewing

Others Present Richard Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

II. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 18 MAY 1999

Mrs. McNear moved for adoption and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six

affirmative votes.

III. CORRESPONDENCE

    1. Zoning Bulletin – May 25, 1999
    2. Planning Commission Minutes – May 11, 1999

IV. REPORTS

    1. Report on Council Activities – Kathy McNear

Mrs. McNear said I would like to officially welcome our newest member, Mr. Fred Borden who is a Council appointee. We’re glad to have you here. We are going to miss Mr. Whitaker, but he will be hard at work on the Planning Commission.

B. Report on Planning Commission – David Okum

There was a concept plan for the development of the McClellans Lane area, an enterprise by the name of Costco, which is a membership only outlet type business. All of those properties are committed to North American Properties and the sales are pending an agreement on the development. The basic plan was a 157,000 s.f. building with earthtone colors, not a lot of lights, very well landscaped parking areas, a very first class operation. They have plans for an outdoor gas facility on the corner of the property at Century Boulevard. The original plan had the tire center on Kemper Road, and they have agreed to move it to the side. They are willing t o do what it takes 5o make the PUD possible for the site. It was a very positive meeting in that regard.

In addition we had Mr. Paul Keels request Planning Commission request the rezoning of the property where the church is located next to Kemper Dodge. He requested us to generate the rezoning, and Planning Commission did not receive that very well. Planning told him to make the application for the rezoning and submit a plan. We encouraged him to tie in with the Costco development because they are adjoining properties and make a general submission for both so the entire site would become one PUD development. Enterprise Rent a Car did not show up and the Longhorn Steakhouse people asked to be tabled to July.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

PAGE TWO

  1. STATEMENT CONCERNING VARIANCES
  2. A. 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.

    If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after the denial.

    B. Chairman’s Statement

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board are to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this board is directed to sign in, take his places 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.

  3. OLD BUSINESS
  4. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Forest Dale Church of Christ, 604 West Kemper Road requests variance to install a 40 s.f. ground sign 20-23 feet from the adjacent property. Said variance is requested from Section 153.071(A)(6) "A maximum of 20 square feet of total signage shall be permitted …Ground signs shall be located no less than 40 feet from any residential lot line.."
    2. Ron Hall, representing Forest Dale Church of Christ stated we brought this forward because any ground sign over 20 s.f. is not allowed. We do have precedent for that; there is a sign at the Nazarene Church that is 70 s.f. and there also is a 40 s.f. sign at Calvary Pentecostal Church. There are other signs of the same size or larger in the general area . In terms of the variance based on the setback from the side yard, that adjacent property is actually owned by the church, so technically it is only 20 to 23 feet, but from a practical standpoint, it is well over the 45 feet.

      With the redoing of Kemper Road, the existing sign is having to be torn down because of the storm drain that is coming through the front yard. So, the church decided this would be a good time to come in with a new sign and it was requested that we move it from that location.

      Mrs. McNear commented the whole purpose of this board is for variances, which are needed due to hardship. I think this is a definition of hardship, and it also is a hardship that we have caused. I move that we grant the variance as requested by the applicant.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Wilson asked if he were aware when he put his first sign up that he had already requested a variance for that, and this would be a second variance for the same sign? Mr. Hall answered yes. Mr. Wilson wondered if they would be losing any of the front parking area. Mr. Hall answered I understand that the City will be putting the pavement back, so the storm sewer will not interrupt the parking in the front. Mr. Wilson commented so the movement of the sign is for the conveniences of the church. Mr. Hall answered initially the sign would have to come out because they would have to put the pipe in. Mr. Wilson said but you could put it back. Mr. Hall responded it could be put back in the same spot that is correct. It is brick, and you would have to dismantle the whole thing, but it could be done.

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      15 JUNE 1999

      PAGE THREE

      VIII A FOREST DALE CHURCH OF CHRIST – 604 W. KEMPER – GROUND SIGN

      Mr. Wilson said my question is why move it and ask for a larger sign? You say other churches and facilities have had larger signs. We are dealing with this church, so the fact that others have had signs has no bearing on the decision that this board will make. We have to deal with you as an individual.

      Mr. Hall answered I would disagree with you there from the standpoint that a precedent has been set, and after that time there have been signs approved for that size or larger on other churches in the area. If the sign is torn down and moved, that precedent is there.

      Mr. Wilson answered we differ on that, but I can appreciate where you are coming from.

      Mr. Okum wondered if he were moving closer to the right of way with the sign, and Mr. Hall answered no; we will be further away, but that was not the issue; the issue is side yard setback. Forty-five feet is the requirement and we are closer to that, but because we own that residential lot, technically we are but practically we are not. Mr. Okum commented but you may not own that lot five years from now.

      Mr. Okum asked the height limitation of the ground sign, eight or 10 feet? Mr. Hall commented the sign we are putting up is five feet high and eight feet wide with a two-foot base, so the height would be seven feet.

      Mr. Okum commented it appears you are definitely less than eight feet. Will you replace the brick planter?

      Mr. Hall answered yes, that brick planter is basically the sign, and that is what they are tearing out to put the storm sewer in so that sign would be gone, and the new sign would be placed where we are showing it.

      Mr. Wilson commented I notice you plan to remove three trees in and around the sign. Mr. Hall answered yes, and it is not due to the sign; it is in conjunction with other things we are doing. We are adding parking in the back, and we have drainage coming out to the front, so in order to get that drainage in, we need to remove some trees. Mr. Wilson wondered what they planned to replace the trees with, and the applicant indicated that nothing specific was planned, adding that when they are doing Kemper, they are removing about seven of the other trees along the front.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said under the tree replacement ordinance you would be responsible for the trees that you remove for the purposes of your parking areas. Mr. Hall responded I do have drawings that have already been reviewed by the engineer, and with a few minor modifications he has approved the parking area and the storm drain. There has been no mention of the trees. Mr. Okum responded the tree replacement ordinance is for everyone. Mr. Hall answered we have no problem with it.

      Mr. Schecker asked about the line of shrubs in front of the sign; will they be reestablished? Mr. Hall answered there will be something e established there. We are not sure if it will be trees, shrubs or flowers. Mr. Schecker wondered if that would shield the base of the sign, and Mr. Hall answered yes, that is the plan. Mr. Schecker commented it is tough coming out on Kemper with those bushes. Mr. Squires wondered if the line of sight on the new sign would be a problem; it is difficult, particularly if you want to turn left.

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      15 JUNE 1999

      PAGE FOUR

      VIII A FOREST DALE CHURCH OF CHRIST – 604 W. KEMPER – GROUND SIGN

      From the audience, Carl said that is why we have it on the east side instead of the west and we brought it back further from the street so there would be better vision turning out.

      Mr. Hall added when the storm sewer comes through, it will be taking down a few trees in that area that would be blocking not just our frontage but in front of other residences that would be blocking that view.

      Mr. Wilson said when I drove into there, I was trying to figure out how many trees along your other property line that you would have to remove so that this sign could be seen in time for people to make an appropriate right turn. Since you own the adjacent property, how do you plan to take care of this problem. You are going to remove one tree, but there is other vegetation along the side that you will have to address.

      Mr. Hall answered based on the plans I have seen from the City, they are going to remove seven trees in front of that residential area where the storm pipe goes through, so when we replace with trees or shrubs, we would set it back so that the line of sight to the sign would be good for anybody coming down Kemper.

      Mr. Squires wondered if he thought the church would hold onto the adjacent property, and Mr. Hall indicated he thought they would, adding that they had talked of making a consolidation on it. The church does not envision at any point in the future selling that piece. We use it as a youth house.

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

      Mr. Wilson commented I have a real concern about allowing a sign to be put here. Maybe it’s not our concern, but we don’t know when these seven trees will be taken down and how the line of vision will be. Could Mr. Hall and the church come back to us and ask to move the sign closer to the street or further away because of the line of sight. I don’t see how we can vote on this particular spot for the sign not knowing what the line of vision will be.

      Mr. Okum said it is a valid concern; in case a person decides to exit your entrance, that line of sight should be considered. A possible way to address that concern is we could move to grant the variance contingent on the city engineer’s approval of the sight line distance issues.

      Mr. Lohbeck said all of that is coming out when the storm sewer goes, so you will not have a line of sight problem. They meet the setback from the right of way. Mr. Okum said so you are saying that the street line from the right of way has been addressed and they are conforming.

      Mr. Hall added and in terms of timing for removal of the trees, that is up to you guys. You are doing the storm sewer work, and whenever you are tearing it out, that is when it will come out, and I assume that is this year.

      Mr. Squires asked if anyone in attendance wished to speak. From the audience, Wilbur Molen of 655 West Kemper Road, Forest Park said I live in the neighborhood, and when the trees come down for the sewer there will be no problem with the line of sight. I live three or four houses from there.

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      15 JUNE 1999

      PAGE FIVE

      VIII A FOREST DALE CHURCH OF CHRIST – 604 W. KEMPER – GROUND SIGN

      On the motion to grant the variance, voting aye were Mr. Borden, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

      B. Dan DeHamer requests variance for the partial conversion of the garage area at 11978 Navona Court. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(F) "Each single family dwelling..shall have a one or more car garage..not less than 240 square feet and no more than 600 square feet."

      There was no one present on this matter.

    3. Michael Murdock, 12172 Greencastle Drive requests variance to allow the construction of a 12’ x 16’ shed in his rear yard. Said variance is requested from Section153.036 "A separate accessory building..other than a garage, shall not exceed 120 square feet in area."

Mr. Murdock stated I have lived on Greencastle for about 11 years, and my back yard is on the hill in the cul de sac from Kenn Road. What I want to build is a 12 x 16 shed, in the corner five feet from the property line. I was able to bring a diagram showing the shed itself. It will be high quality materials and painted the shade of the house with a shingled roof. It is nothing out of the ordinary other than the fact that it is larger than 12’ x 10’. There will be lattice around the bottom and shrubs to make it look presentable. I have a two-car garage, but I also have a riding lawn mower and tiller and things like that which I want to put inside that shed.

Mr. Okum wondered if the exterior would be wood or siding, and Mr. Murdock answered wood, and it will be painted otter & white like my house, and I will decorate it according to the house. On the rear two corners, what are those adjoining sites. Mr. Murdock answered Mr. Lindner’s property is here and there is a 20-foot easement of trees between Fairfield and Springdale, and Mr. Browning is my neighbor on the other side, and Mr. Simmons is on the other side.

Mr. Wilson said I went to your property this afternoon, and I noticed with the fence there is a lot of open area back there; are you ever concerned about vandalism? Have you had any problems; it is wide open. Mr. Murdock answered no, because the Mr. .Simmons has always been very observant and knows what is going on. I understand what you are saying, but any more with people stealing things, if they are going to take it they are going to take it.

Mr. Wilson added I noticed the tiller and some of the other apparatus you have around your wood deck. It will be a walk to get all the way back to the shed. Do you feel that 12’ x 16’ will be adequate for all that? Mr. Murdock answered all that stuff you saw will not go in that shed; some of it will have to go per Mrs. Murdock, and that is why we are trying to clear the area out and make it appropriate.

Mr. Schecker said a shed this size would not be appropriate in many locations, but considering the size depth and isolation of your property, it makes it not obtrusive at all and pretty appropriate. I would have a hard time if it were closer to another person’s property than it is. Mr. Murdock responded that is why I took it to the corner and offset it with plants to make it attractive.

Mr. Okum said I can only echo what Mr. Schecker said and for those reasons, and I will move to grant this variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

PAGE SIX

VIII C. MICHAEL MURDOCK 12172 GREENCASTLE - 12’ X 16’ SHED

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one came forward.

On the motion, voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Borden. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

D. Pat Wells, 203 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow him to park his truck in the driveway. Said variance is requested from Section 153.044(B) "..only passenger cars..may be parked or stored upon a driveway.."

Mr. Lohbeck stated that he called and said that if he did not show up, he sold his truck. The motion was made and seconded to remove this from the agenda. All present voted aye and the item was removed.

    1. S. John Richardson, 644 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 960 s.f. garage on his property. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(F) "...shall have 2 or more car garage..not less than 400 s.f. and not more than 600 s.f."

Mr. Richardson said I am asking for a variance to construct a three-car garage with a little extra space for extra equipment. I have a one-acre lot and quite a bit of yard work so I have a large tractor and roto tiller and shredder and mulcher. I have a two-family house and I feel I need a three-car garage. I have my contractor here to answer any questions.

Mr. Squires said there is a shed there now that comes down. How many vehicles do you have, and Mr. Richardson answered three. I have never been able to have a garage.

Mr. Okum asked how big the old garage was, and Mr. Richardson answered the old building was 25’ x 30’ and was just a shed for storage. Mr. Okum said you realize that this is significantly larger than most other garages in the area? Mr. Richardson responded other places only have a two-car garage; I have a two-family house, which would warrant a little extra.

Mr. Okum commented your house sets on a legal non-conforming site. This is actually a residential single family district. Mr. Richardson answered this is grandfathered in from years back. Mr. Okum said that is pretty significant; I understand your lot depth and your site. Will you bring the gravel driveway all the way back to the new garage location? Mr. Richardson answered I will put in blacktop. I didn’t address the tree issue; I didn’t know that was necessary. One tree definitely has to come out right behind the shed, and there is a another one that may have to come out. I have another tree that is close to the maple on the west side that will take the place of the other one.

Mr. Wilson said when I walked around your property, I noticed possibly three trees that would have to be removed as a result of putting that garage there. You have a lot of land behind the shed; I am trying to figure out how much space you have. Mr. Richardson said it is 400 feet deep; it is 100’ x 400+ feet. Mr. Wilson commented I am trying to figure how many trees would have to be removed as a result of putting this garage there. It appears to be three or more. I can understand your wanting to do this because you have a deep lot and a two-family house, perhaps the only one in that area, but that is an awfully big garage. Mr. Richardson responded I would rather have that than a shed or something like that extra.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

PAGE SEVEN

VIII E JOHN RICHARDSON, 644 WEST KEMPER RD. – 960 S.F. GARAGE

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires asked him if he had rejected the idea of a two-car garage and then add a shed. Mr. Richardson confirmed this, adding he wanted a three-car garage for the three cars.

Mr. Okum said you could make it work with a 36 foot garage. I agree with Mr. Wilson; 40 feet is awfully large.

Mr. Richardson responded the only reason I was going with the 40 foot was because it is a pole building, and they come in eight-foot sections, but they can cut them down and I could make it 36 feet. Let’s make it a 36’ x 24’ garage.

Mrs. McNear wondered if he had considered putting the new garage in the space where the shed is currently. Mr. Richardson responded my wife wants a yard behind the house, so I want to go back a little further. Mrs. McNear said and you will extend your driveway, 66 feet. Mr. Richardson said it won’t come all the way to the house; it will come in from Kemper and go all the way back to the new garage. Mr. Okum said so the majority of the gravel area will become yard. Mr. Borden wondered if it will be seeded, and Mr. Richardson indicated that it would be.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked him if he would take care of replacing all trees removed for the improvement. Under the tree preservation ordinance, it is 50% of the total removed. Mr. Richardson responded that he would.

Mr. Wilson said I am trying to determine what type of materials you will be using. Will it be the same color as your house? Mr. Richardson indicated that it would be the same color as the house with the same green trim.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present would care to speak. No one came forward.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the following conditions:

    1. That the owner follow the tree replacement provisions at a 50% rate of the trees removed;
    2. That the garage plan submitted be modified to reflect a 36’ wide garage 24’ deep as stipulated by the applicant;
    3. That the garage will be a metal finish with colors similar in color to the existing dwelling.

Mr. Okum said point of information, Mr. Lohbeck indicated, and I had forgotten that the tree provision replacement is not required under single family residential. Actually we have a non-conforming multi-family residence here. Do multi-families fall under the tree preservation ordinance? Mr. Lohbeck said no. Mr. Wilson wondered if it mattered if the applicant agreed to it. Mr. Richardson said I will replace trees. Mr. Okum said then I will amend my motion to include along with the acceptance of the applicant and submission of the applicant that he will conform to the tree replacement ordinance.. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion,.

Voting aye were Mr. Borden, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum and Mr. Squires. The variance for an 864 s.f. garage was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

PAGE EIGHT

 

    1. Timothy G. Smith, 537 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow

the conversion of his carport into a patio enclosure. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(F) "..shall have a 1 or more car garage..not less than 240 s.f. and not more than 600 s.f."

Mr. Smith submitted three copies of the drawing, adding that he is enclosing two sides of the existing carport. I would like to enclose the north elevation in a manner typical to the south elevation by utilizing a patio type sliding door fixture.

The purpose of this is to enhance the existing property. The carport is not big enough to use as a garage and the aesthetics of trying to store anything in the area is degradading to the surrounding neighborhood. If you tried to utilize it as a garage, you can’t open the car door.

The property has been in the family since 1954 when my father purchased it new, and we see this as an enhancement to the property value. We want to utilize it as an enclosed glassed sunroom type patio area. I believe there is an adequate parking area available to accommodate parking spaces. If I am not able to do a stationery enclosure of this north elevation, it would still be my desire to enclose that area, either utilizing either a typical garage door type system which is not real feasible or possibly doing a bifold door system, accommodating the materials that were used on the west elevation of the structure.

To have to construct a garage would not only be costly but also more importantly I think it would compromise the existing landscape of the neighborhood. I feel putting another structure in that back yard would not help the surrounding property values.

Mr. Squires wondered how many vehicles are in the family, and Mr. Smith answered two. Mr. Squires wondered if his boat would remain there, and Mr. Smith answered it has, although I guess I could find storage for it. I do have a bucket truck in storage to comply with the City as well as another boat in storage. From my viewpoint, there is still ample parking space and where the boat is located, I don’t believe it takes away from any aspect.

Mr. Squires asked when he started construction on this; you have quite a lot done, and you did it without a permit. Mr. Smith responded two weeks before the documentation of May 17th.. It was not a complex structure.

Mr. Squires commented I was a little concerned that the construction is at this point. Didn’t you realize you would have to have a permit for that? Mr. Smith answered I didn’t know whether or not I actually would. The structure was all there existing, and there was no load bearing on these partitions that were being put in. At that point, I didn’t know if I would enclose the front end or not.

Mr. Squires said and you have no future plans for another garage at all. Mr. Smith indicated that he did not.

Mr. Okum said I have to be sensitive to the fact that with a 10-foot wide carport enclosed as a garage, it would be very difficult to open your car doors and get out of your car. Is there a doorway off this and into your home? Mr. Smith indicated that there was, with one step down.

Mr. Okum added I do have a concern about your building materials and how they will hold up over the next 20 years. You have a sliding glass door on the front and a swing door that almost looks commercially oriented.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

PAGE NINE

VIII F TIMOTHY SMITH 537 WEST KEMPER CARPORT CONVERSION

Mr. Smith responded there is only a slider door that is depicted. Those are the side panels. Don’t you have any pictures, and Mr. Okum said we have photos of the rear, but we can’t envision how the front will look. This is the picture of the rear and this window unit doesn’t complement the sliding patio door you have next to it, and that would be similar to what you propose for the front, wouldn’t it. Mr. Smith answered yes.

Mr. Okum asked the distance between the columns and Mr. Smith said it is a six-foot wide opening and between the columns is 10 feet. I believe the full width of the corner column would be about 16 inches, so it would be 10’-8 ½" between the wall of the house and the corner of the column. Mr. Okum commented if the external dimension of that carport is 10 feet, it would be logical to assume that it would be very difficult with the landscaping and the width of the car and swing of the door would be a problem. On the other hand, if the unit dimension between the inside of the brick column and the house is 10 feet, the unit is wider across the frontage of the home, which makes a difference, whether there is truly a hardship and you can’t use it for a garage anyway. Mr. Smith said I do believe it is 10 feet wide.

Mr. Wilson said I tried to visit your property but one of the dogs was unleashed so I didn’t get a close look. I do not have a problem with your converting it in view of the fact that you can only get a Volkswagen in there and open the doors. My concern is the aesthetics of that. With the materials that you are using, will it appear like a sunroom or an en closed garage; how will it appear? Mr. Smith answered it will look like a sunroom.

Mr. Schecker commented the reality is that you haven’t put a car in that space for quite some time. Mr. Smith answered quite some time; it is awkward to utilize it.

Mr. Okum said my purpose was to determine whether the purpose of that development when the home was built was for it to be a garage. I do have a problem with the building materials and the way they will appear to the front, and I think continuity across the front of your home is just as important as continuity along the side. On the sides you have managed to have some balance; each glass is proportional and equal, but on the front and the back, you have not done that. I would certainly expect the front to not look patched, and frankly if it will look like the south elevation, then I have a problem with it. I know you can get patio doors that will fit that opening, and it certainly would be better than having that cedar trim that doesn’t blend with the rest of the house.

Mr. Smith commented the texture of the cedar tends to blend in with the brickwork. Mr. Okum responded it will for the first six or eight months, but then it will go black and gray. It is very difficult to keep it up. Would you have any objection to eliminating the cedar on the front and doing an aluminum vinyl sliding window enclosure so it appears like a sunroom? If it’s going to be a sunroom it should look like a sunroom; the applicant certainly has demonstrated that on the right elevation but not on the rear nor does he intend to on the front elevation. I have some reservations, but I would not vote in favor of this if it were to look like a patchwork enclosure that somebody stuck a sliding patio door into an opening. If it was made to look like a sunroom and its purpose is a sunroom and for us to understand that his could not be used as a garage, I do not have a problem with it.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

PAGE TEN

VIII F TIMOTHY SMITH 537 WEST KEMPER CARPORT CONVERSION

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Lohbeck if the applicant had to go before the building department to get final approval of the front enclosure. Mr. Lohbeck confirmed this, and Mr. Squires added we could only vote for the conversion. Mr. Okum added we could pass zoning variances based on hardship and put conditions on those variances.

Mrs. McNear asked if it would be heated or air-conditioned and Mr. Smith answered not at this time. It might be nice to heat it a little bit with some supplementary heat in the winter but right now, I think it would be sufficient with the heat from the house with the extra buffer to help the house retain heat.

Mr. Wilson said I assume you are doing all this work yourself; are you a licensed electrician or carpenter? Mr. Smith answered I have been in the construction trade since I was 15, and I am 42 years old; I have a masters electricians license. Mr. Wilson added I have to agree with Mr. Okum about the frontage. . Would you consider aluminum rather than what you are presenting at this time. Mr. Smith answered if I can be clear on his suggestion.

Mr. Okum added my recommendation would be to have your aluminum enclosure on the front elevation to be an all aluminum and safety glass enclosure, no cedar. Frankly I am not happy with the rear either, but you have gotten that constructed and it is up to the building department as to whether it meets standards.

Mr. Smith responded I am sure it will be costly to purchase the aluminum, but I will yield to that if that is your request.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the following conditions: (1) that the structure meets the building department approval for materials and structure and (2) that the north elevation be treated with all glass and aluminum, no cedar. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

G. James & Barbara Boso, 669 Cedarhill Drive requests variance to allow the construction of a 160 s.f. garden shed. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 "A separate accessory building..other than a garage, shall not exceed 120 s.f. in area.""

Mr. Boso said I want the 10’ x 16’ shed because I want a garden shed with double French doors and windows on each side and flower boxes and use it for storage and have it something that looks good and is pleasing to my neighbors. I plan on using the best materials I can possibly get, use siding the same color as my house and have landscaping in front of it.

Mr. Wilson said Mr. Boso’s property line is all a six foot privacy fence except for the extreme rear which backs up to the Glenmary property, so anything he would put in his back yard less than six foot tall would be hard to see. The building itself is beautiful, and is something his wife wanted. His neighbors have all agreed that they don’t have a problem with it, and I don’t either.

Mr. Borden said I have a note dated June 8th; are you requesting a 10’ x 14’ or 10’ x 16’ structure? Mr. Boso answered I originally asked for a 10’ x 14’, but I thought I would ask for a 10’ x 16’. The only reason I wanted it longer than 12 feet was so I could put the doors and windows in and make it look nice.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JUNE 1999

PAGE ELEVEN

VIII G JAMES & BARBARA BOSO, 669 CEDARHILL – 160 S.F. GARDEN SHED

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you do understand that the purpose of the signatures is to inform your neighbors of the public hearing; it is not an approval or disapproval. They had an opporo8tuonity to be here, but no one is here. I do not have any objection at all tow hat you ant to do. I would like to see the unit stay at 10’ x 14’. I do not have a real problem with the 10’ x 16’, but I have to consider precedence. I think you want to build a first class garden house on the back of your property, and I would endorse your 10’ x 14’ request without hesitation.

Mr. Boso commented I would still like to have the 10’ x 16’ but I will yield to Mr. Okum if that is what it takes. I’ll go with whatever the board agrees to.

Mr. Wilson said if you went with the 10’ x 14’, what would you have to eliminate for storage? Mr. Boso said one of my ladders; I don’t like to leave them hanging outside. Addressing the board, Mr. Wilson wondered if anyone had a problem with the 10’ x 16’ side in view of the fact that we just allowed the 12’ x 16’ shed with no privacy fence?

Mr. Schecker answered since we consider everything on an individual basis, and in this case Mr. Boso has a very private situation in his back yard, I do not have any problem with that at all. Mr. Squires commented the extra two feet makes it a much better looking building. I think the 16 feet is better. Mrs. McNear added I concur on the 10’ x 16’; I have no problem with that.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance for a 10’ x 16’ shed and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden, Mr. Okum and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Wilson said up and down Kemper Road we see a lot of people

    who want to build mini houses in their back yards. Some of those lots

    are very deep but that will change the whole makeup of Kemper Road

    from Route 4 east to Lawnview. Maybe we need to start thinking

    forward to see what we are going to do. When you look at a three car

    garage that is almost the size of their house, at what point do we say no

    more two and one-half story three car garages? In the last couple

    of months we have been getting all these oversized garages. We try to

    do them on an individual basis, on a hardship basis.

    Mr. Schecker commented those lots are very very deep and most of those houses are very small, and people need room for storage. Mrs. McNear commented as time goes on, we’ll probably see many more of these requests since people do need to store their materials.

    Mr. Squires commented maybe Council or Planning should reconsider this 120 s.f. maximum for out buildings. That seems to be small for some of these lots. Mr. Schecker answered the problem with that is when you look at a property like my own, which is a postage stamp.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    15 JUNE 1999

    PAGE TWELVE

  3. DISCUSSION – continued

Mr. Okum commented I recall when we had a Lotts Auto Parts on Kemper Road and they had a garage in the back that was their showroom, so it has come along way. We are faced with some interesting situations Mr. Schecker’s lot size versus a one acre property has the same requirements for the outbuilding. Possibly we should have looked at that when we were doing our zoning code review, and possibly a graduated scale should be considered. Planning Commission has requested a comprehensive land use plan, which will encompass some of these concepts.

Mrs. McNear commented the lots are all different and that is why we consider these on a case by case basis. Dave and I live on the same street, and he could have a storage shed in his back yard and nobody would even know it. If you drove by my house, there isn’t a spot in my back yard you couldn’t see if I put something up, so I think the case by case basis serves us best in these situations.

Mr. Wilson said do you think we need to bring this up at Council? I like the case by case basis because of the separate needs, but I think we s should have some parameters based on lot size. They still would have to come in for a variance, but it would give us some kind of leeway. Over the next couple of weeks let’s think about it and talk about it. Mrs. McNear commented we brought it up before Council once before; maybe it is something we need to take a look at.

Mr. Lohbeck said does the board wish to do something with Item B, Dan DeHamer’s request for the partial conversion of the garage area at jk11978 Navona Court? Mr. Squires indicated they did, and moved to remove it from the agenda. Mr. Okum seconded the motion and the item was removed from the agenda.

Mr. Okum said about a year ago we passed a variance for a property owner on Tivoli to park his trailer on the street with the condition that they landscape against the adjoining property. To date, the motor home is still setting there and the adjoining property is totally exposed; there is no landscaping against the trailer. The variances required that they do a planting of evergreens or shrubbery across that property line, and it has never been done. Mr. Lohbeck said we will check into that.

Mr. Okum wondered if we know the resolve of the signage for the Oil Change and lube place on Kemper Road? Mrs. Webb indicated they are requesting a variance for that at the next meeting.

X. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. McNear moved to adjourn and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion,. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________,1999 _______________________

James Squires, Chairman

 

_____________________,1999 _______________________

David Okum, Acting Secy.