BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. Mr. Okum called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Robert Weidlich, Robert Apke, Councilman James Squires, Fred Borden

    Jane Huber and Chairman David Okum

    Members Absent: Councilman Robert Wilson

    Mr. Squires stated that Mr. Wilson is recovering from surgery and will not be present.

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 15 MAY 2001
  6. Mr. Squires moved for adoption and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8 May 2001
    2. 5/16/01 Letter to William Syfert from David Okum re Suggested Review of Zoning Code (size of utility buildings)
    3. Zoning Bulletin ĖMay 10, 2001
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė May 25, 2001
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities Ė James Squires - no report
    2. Report on Planning Commission Ė David Okum

Mr. Okum stated that Michael Tire Center at Tri-County Mall were in at the request of Planning because they had changed the color of the building without a PUD approval. That was tabled to the next meeting, and they will submit three or four options for the Commission to consider. The Conditional Use Permit for the Day Care Center on Springfield Pike was considered. There was a meeting between the operator and the Building Official and City Planner just prior to the Planning meeting, and nothing had occurred since the December meeting. They had been given instructions as to what they were to do regarding the noise problem. The applicant thought that General Revenue was doing it and General Revenue via a faxed letter stated that they were not interested in doing it at this time and they were going to leave it up to the operator to take care of it. The operator is in the process of getting those things taken care of. They indicated they would be working on it this past weekend. There will be two or three spot checks for sound levels by our plannerís team to determine if those noise levels are below 65 decibels. If they donít, I donít think the next Planning Commission meeting would be very fruitful for them.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TWO

V B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION Ė continued

Mr. Okum stated that Pictoria Island was in for site plan approval. They rotated the second building and put a center entrance into it and they requested approval for them to grade and remove trees in the area next to their adjacent property so it can be done before the weather changes. They had a meeting with one company who was looking at 200,000 s.f. of one building, so things are looking pretty good for that site to be built out.

Mr. Squires asked about the letter to Planning requesting the size of the utility buildings being increased. Mr. Okum responded Planning had some comments regarding it but nothing very significant. Ms. McBride will look at some other communities that have similar lot sizes and uses and see if they vary their utility building size based on the lot size and density.

  1. CHAIRMANíS STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  2. Chairman Okum said let the record show that all present stood and were sworn in.

  3. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Gregory Neville, 314 West Sharon Road requests variance to allow a 32í x 28í garage on his property. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(B) "The garage shall have a minimum floor area of 400 square feet and a maximum floor area of 700 square feet." Ė tabled 5/15/01

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said there is also a request for variance from the Springdale Church of the Nazarene. Since your request for variance levies on that, would you want to moves your public hearing portion to a later time in the agenda so the Nazarene Church can be heard? Mr. Neville answered if that is the way you want it, that is fine. The board members concurred, and the item was moved to follow III A.

B. Kerry Ford, 150 Northland Boulevard requests variance to allow the installation of a 236 s.f. wall sign. Said variance is requested from Section 153.531(D1) "A single wall sign shall not exceed 150 s.f. in total area" and Variance 20-1990 granting a 217 s.f. wall sign and 153.531(C1)(b) "Maximum gross area of signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 square feet" Ė tabled 5/15/01

Patrick Merten said the picture of the existing sign that replaced the previous sign is Exhibit A. Exhibit B is site information surrounding zoning and property. Exhibit C is the location of that wall sign on the main building, and Exhibit D is a summary of existing and proposed signage. That is what you were looking for at the last meeting, so there is no guesswork in terms of additional signage coming in.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE THREE

VII B KERRY FORD 150 NORTHLAND BLVD. Ė SIGN APPROVAL

I also have some other items that I wish to submit. For the record, I would like to provide you with Exhibits E and F, which are the awning designs as well as the other smaller wall sign.

Essentially Kerry Ford is asking for a modification of the previous variance to accommodate a wall sign. The previous face, which was there for Walker Pontiac GMC totaled 217 s.f. and my client changed the face because there is a new end user. The face of the sign is the same; it is the amount of area on the sign that has changed, because they have changed the font and come up with a creative way to identify Certified and Kerry, so the signage area has increased from 217 to 240, a difference of 23 s.f., so we are asking for a modification for that.

The difficulty is in the way the sign was designed. Some of the end caps on the fonts are bigger than the rest of the letters. In a sense it is not a new sign; it is the way you calculate it that has changed.

With Exhibit A, I have tried to illustrate where that number comes from in calculating the signage area. I have taken the existing sign and made a window of what would be considered signage under the code, and that is where the 240 s.f. comes from. The board has not changed; what has changed is the way the signage is on that board.

In order to heighten the aesthetics of the property and help internal circulation, my client applied to put awnings on two separate doorways. Those would be blue with an insignia of Kerry Ford, and that is Exhibit E. The calculation for those two awnings is about 16 s.f. On Exhibit D there is a 5 with a circle, and that is where the large awnings are proposed on the side of the building for pedestrian access into the building, and those total 1.6 s.f. If you can find number 6 on the southern side, that is where the other awning is going, about 5 s.f.

I have also shown the existing wall sign and the existing pole signs. The other item was the auto body sign. Trying to help with the internal circulation, they would like to put an Auto Body sign up that is roughly 4í-7" x 6í-5".

When you look at what is existing and what is being proposed with the awnings, there is about 560 s.f. The difference is about 25 s.f. The difference in the wall sign is 23 s.f. and the total signage difference is 25 s.f., going from 535 s.f. to 560 s.f.

Mr. Okum said I would like these numbers confirmed by our building Department representative, and called on Mr. Lohbeck.

Mr. Lohbeck stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 240 s.f. wall sign to remain on the front fascia of the building. The sign was painted on an existing sign panel without first acquiring a permit.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE FOUR

VII B KERRY FORD 150 NORTHLAND BLVD. Ė SIGN APPROVAL

Mr. Lohbeck said that the awning signs and the Body Shop signs are proposed; all others are existing. A pending application for the Body Shop sign shows a bigger sign than indicated in the tables. The copy attached to the permit application shows a Body Shop sign of 5.5í x 7í or 38.5 s.f. The applicantís total tabular area is indicated at 559.9 s.f. If the Body Shop sign is 38.5 s.f, then total sign area is 569.1 s.f.

Section 153.531(D)(1) allows an individual wall sign to be a maximum of 150 s.f. A variance was granted for the front wall sign on 7/17/90 to allow a 217 s.f. sign.

Section 153.531(C1)(b) allows maximum total signage to b 340 s.f. On 8/21/90 Variance 22-1990 was granted to allow 535 s.f. of sign area.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he understood those numbers, and Mr. Merten indicated that he did, adding that he could account for the difference. The way I was reading the code in terms of the area of the sign, according to 153,522, "the area of a sign composed of characters or words if such characters or words stand alone without framing or additional backdrop, ..shall be the smallest rectangle. If you look at the exhibit showing the autobody sign, if you look at the invisible rectangle around the Kerry Ford symbol in the collision center text, you come up with 29.35 which is where I was getting my number. The board it is attached to is the number that Mr. Lohbeck alluded to.

Mr. Okum said on the awning, it is calculated from the circle in. Is it painted on the awning? Mr. Merten answered it is part of the fabric, and if you draw that indivisible rectangle around the oval, the dimension on the smaller is 2í-6" x 12í height, and the larger one is 1í-8" and 3 Ĺ foot long, and that is where my numbers are coming from. Mr. Okum added and on the auto collision center sign, you created an internal square around the text and oval.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing asking anyone to speak. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Squires wondered if there were one or two awnings in Exhibit D. Mr. Merten answered there are three awnings total, but there is one small awning proposed, and it is on the sales hut on the southern part of the property. Mr. Squires said and your dimensions are 2.5í x 1í so that is 2.5 s.f. and not 5 s.f., which reduces the total to 557.4 s.f.

Mr. Okum asked where the Indian pole sign was, and Mr. Merten answered Exhibit B shows the Used Car Lot as well as the New Car Lot, and the Indian Pole sign is somewhere north of the property line for the Used Car Lot. Mr. Okum said it is not identified in your numbers. Mr. Merten said that is correct because it is not inclusive of this site. It is a different dealership and different entity.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE FIVE

VII B KERRY FORD 150 NORTHLAND BLVD. Ė SIGN APPROVAL

Mr. Okum wondered how the canopy with Kerry on it would function below the certified used vehicles sign, and how far will that canopy project. Mr. Merten said if you will look at Exhibit A, the smaller picture in the center at the bottom, it shows a majority of that elevation. Right under the U in used there is a door leading into that building, and this canopy would hang under the u in a blue that matches the Kerry insignia. It will project three feet.

Mr. Squires said we keep granting variances for signage on Kerry Ford. In 1990 we gave you a pretty good variance, and now you are asking for another one. Where is it going to stop?

Mr. Merten answered I hope with this request. I think what we propose is adequate signage to shuffle people from the credit sales hut into the auto body shop. This in my opinion is adequate signage for Kerry Ford. Mr. Squires commented in 1990 we went from 340 s.f. to 535 s.f. allowed, and now you are asking for 566 2/3.

Mr. Merten answered that this board has been very generous in taking care of its businesses in the city. We are about 25 square feet over the 535 and a lot of the challenge is with the wall sign that changed that I am showing you in Exhibit A. That difference from the 217 to 240 is 23 s.f. It is already on the building with the same sign background. It is just the way they designed that sign and the way they organized the letters. There is a lot of area in that rectangle that does not have signage.

Mr. Okum said from what I understand the collision center is totally new, and if it is meant for direction, I think you just need to post a little sign on the property saying auto care or collision center this way with an arrow. I find this nothing more than advertising Kerry Collision Center. I donít have significant issue with increasing Exhibit A by 19 s.f. but I donít have a major problem with the awnings, but the fact that it already says Kerry on your big sign doesnít mean it needs to say Kerry on the one awning. This probably has the biggest sign of any used car lot in history. Kerry is the benefactor of the earlier variances granted. If a new business had come in requesting a huge pole sign on Northland Boulevard, I would have had some hesitation about it. At this point you have not presented anything to me that supports the necessity for the Kerry Collision Center. In fact, the Kerry awning sign on the front of the building right below the u is a little redundant. I have no problem with the b location for the Kerry awning sign.

Mr. Merten responded one of the challenges that Kerry has is to get people to the right location when they need estimates. I think there needs to be signage to maintain that and put circulation on the site for the collision center. Maybe it doesnít need to say Kerry, but we would like some consideration for Collision Center. We would be willing to remove Kerry from the awnings if that would help.

Mr. Okum wondered why Kerry didnít take that into consideration when they put that big used car pole sign on Northland Boulevard?

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE SIX

VII B KERRY FORD 150 NORTHLAND BLVD. Ė SIGN APPROVAL

Mr. Merten answered it is a business situation that they probably noticed after they were there, the volume dealing with insurance claims.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Borden said are you suggesting that the signage on the awnings would be eliminated? Mr. Merten answered if that would help facilitate some resolution, I am, and that would take care of 14.1 s.f.

Mr. Squires said you also indicated you would consider leaving off the Kerry logo on the collision center sign. How much would that be? Mr. Merten answered it would be 6í-5" wide and 2í high. That is another 12.8 feet. Mr. Squires said so the new total would be 539.7 square feet.

Mr. Okum said the applicant has indicated that by reducing the Kerry insignia on the awnings and taking the Kerry emblem off the collision center and leaving the sign with smaller case to accommodate 12.8 square feet of collision center information is their request. Therefore the new total is 539.7 square feet.

Mr. Squires commented so when we compare that with the variance granted in 1990 to 535 square feet, we are almost right there.

Mr. Merten stated that he had discussed this with his client and he fully understands how signage is calculated. If there is ever a modification to the wall sign that they changed from the Walker Pontiac, you can be sure that the fonts and the way it is set up will be a lot different.

Mr. Okum said on Exhibit A you are showing the proposed wall sign calculations at 236 s.f. and on the calculations chart it shows 240 s.f. After some calculations, Mr. Squires stated that it is 240 s.f.

Mr. Squires moved to grant a variance to Kerry Ford to allow a total of 539.7 square feet for their total signage. Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Mr. Borden said so the variance is for a difference of 4.7 s.f.

Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Apke, and Mrs. Huber. Mr. Borden and Chairman Okum voted no and the variance was granted 4-2.

Mr. Merten asked if the wall sign was included in the variance and Mr. Okum answered you have 539.7 square feet for the total amount of signage permitted on the site. Mr. Merten added that on Exhibit A there is a change from 236 s.f. to 240 s.f.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE SEVEN

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Springdale Church of the Nazarene requests variance to allow them to move a garage from their property at 306 West Sharon Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(B "A single 2 car garage..is required."

David Ralph, representing the Springdale Church of the Nazarene said that their request to move the garage is based on our acquiring the property at 306 West Sharon Road, and with the intention that, after the removal of the building, we would be able to request access from our parking lot to Sharon Road through that. We felt we first needed approval of the removal of the garage.

The only access we have as a church is onto Springfield Pike. During peak periods on Sundays, it is very difficult to get out. When we polled our congregation, we found that on Sundays would alleviate about 25 cars an hour between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. Our request for variance is based on future work we would be doing with that property.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant wishes to remove the garage at 306 West Sharon Road. Section 153.075(B) requires a garage for the single household dwelling on the property, and the applicantís only reason given for eliminating the garage is because it is not currently being used.

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

Mrs. Huber wondered if the residence would remain on the property or be razed because of your wanting to make the exitway. Mr. Ralph responded at the present time we plan on keeping that residence there, but it would not be used as a permanent residence. It would be used as a missionary sabbatical residence at the very minimum.

Mr. Squires asked if they would construct the driveway from Sharon Road to the church property. Mr. Ralph said yes, if we get the approval. Mr. Squires commented that it would have to go to planning, and asked the width of the driveway and how close it would be to the house. Mr. Ralph did not. Mr. Squires commented your reason for wanting to eliminate the garage is because it is not being used. Is that really the reason you want to get rid of it?

Mr. Ralph responded the person w ho would have been here in the past is Ralph McSwain, and the church has delegated that to me so this is my indoctrination of baptism into this. He was in Florida when I got the information, so what I put down and what he had told the church secretary are different. It is truly for two reasons. One it is not going to be used as our plans are, and we do want to be able to put the driveway at that location. So the submission was different because of my not understanding what Mr. McSwain had talked to the church about.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE EIGHT

VIII B SAS SHOES 12195 PRINCETON PIKE Ė WALL SIGN

Mr. Squires said I would really like to see what Planning intends to do with that because of that driveway through there.

Mr. Okum said serving on both boards, I can understand the churchís long range goals of having that other exit to take some of that traffic off Route 4 during peak periods. On the other hand, as a Planning Commission member, I have to be concerned how that impacts the adjacent property owners on the east and west sides. On the east side the home is so far away that I donít feel they would even know that cars were exiting there. On the west side there is a residence and that resident would have to deal with that driveway on that narrow accessway.

It is really not a hardship for the church for the garage to remain there. The garage is in fairly decent condition. As it is in decent condition, the code requires that the garage remain on that single household lot. So I canít find a reason why that garage shouldnít be there. At such time that the Church of the Nazarene provides a set of plans or goes through a concept discussion with Planning Commission on their long-range goals, then I may have a different opinion about the garage being removed. Mr. Ralph said that is fine. We thought we needed approval of the variance before we addressed the driveway. Mr. Okum said Planning Commission should look at the churchís concept and if that house would eventually be torn down, then the removal of the garage would be an appropriate consideration. But at this point there is a single-family residence on that property and a garage requirement ties to that.

Mr. Ralph responded then we will go through Planning to address that and come back here at a future time. Mr. Okum responded we sort of forced you to be here because we had a request for a garage placement, which was the relocation of this garage. I will speak as a Planning Commission member and tell you that I would be very concerned about how that driveway would impact those residences along Sharon Road. I think the Church needs to take that into consideration before they move forward.

Mr. Ralph answered we would come to the Planning Commission with the resident in support of this. Mr. Okum said you realize that the variance stays with the land forever, and the resident who owns that land now may not be the same 10 years from now.

Mr. Okum said if the applicant wishes to withdraw this he can, but I think it would be good for the board members to express their positions before he makes a decision.

Mr. Squires said I want to see the final plans that the church has for that property so we can get a better perspective as to what this variance means to you.

Mr. Weidlich stated tonight I would not support your request to remove the garage.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE NINE

VIII B SAS SHOES 12195 PRINCETON PIKE Ė WALL SIGN

Mrs. Huber said I concur with what has been said, but what I would like to know is if there is a current variance on that garage because it exceeds the 120 s.f. minimum. Mr. Lohbeck indicated that he did not know; he would have to look that up.

Mr. Apke said the first thing this board needs to determine is a case of hardship, and because no hardship has been demonstrated here, I probably would vote against this.

Mr. Borden said I concur; if I had to vote on this tonight, I would not approve it.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he would like to withdraw the application? Mr. Ralph indicated that he would and the item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Mr. Okum said we will go back to the item of Old Business.

Gregory Neville, 314 West Sharon Roads requests variance to allow a 32í x 28í garage on his property. Said variance is requested from Section153.075(B) "The garage shall have a minimum floor area of 400 square feet and a maximum floor area of 700 square feet."

Mr. Neville said I will withdraw my request but I will say that I donít use my garage right now. My vehicles park in the driveway and vehicles next door park in their driveway. We have several houses down on Glensharon Road that donít have garages. I just wanted to make that point, but I will withdraw my request.

B. SAS Shoes, 12195 Princeton Pike requests variance to allow the wall sign in the front of the store to remain. Said variance is requested from Section 153.523(A) "Wall or panel signs shall not project more than 18 inches from the building wall to which they are attached and shall be set back from the end of the building and party wall line..at least 3 feetÖ"

Julie Weitzel representing SAS Shoes through Accent Sign said Mr. McErlane requested that the signage which is 27í-10" be reduced to 25 Ĺ feet so it would be 3 feet from the end of the building and 3 feet from the party line.

Our hardship is that Ms. Remke purchased the franchise, and the SAS corporate office is in San Antonio Texas. They went through a sign company in San Antonio and the sign was shipped here. It is on the corner lot, and they say 31 Ĺ feet in the front and 70 feet on the side. I believe the zoning requirements say that for the side elevation you are allowed to use 40% of that side elevation. Mr. Squires said it is not 40% more; it is the width of your building x 1.5 + 40.

Ms. Weitzel reported that the sign company in Texas expected the sign to go on the side of the building. On the side of the building there are trees, and the sign would not do much good there, so we put it on the front of the building. She opened on June 1st, and without the sign she would not have had any business.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TEN

VIII B SAS SHOES 12195 PRINCETON PIKE Ė WALL SIGN

Mr. Lohbeck stated the applicant is requesting a variance to place a 32" high by 27í-10" long wall sign on the face of the building closer than 3í from the end of the building and closer than 3í from the adjacent party wall line to the south. The tenant storefront width is 31.5'í To comply with Section 153.523(A), the maximum sign width is 25.5í.

The sign was installed without a permit being issued. The Building Department received the application for permit on May 31, 2001 and the sign was found installed on June 1, 2001.

Ms. Weitzel said it is not our practice to put up a sign without a permit, but the store was opening on June 1st and our client the sign company in Texas, insisted that the sign go up.

Mr. Okum asked the total signage permitted adding that it seems like they squeezed everything into the front. Ms. Weitzel said the side of the building is 70 feet. Mr. Okum said it would be 70 x 1.5 + 40 so it would be 145. Are they over on their square footage? Mr. Lohbeck said the problem is that they do not maintain the distance between the party wall and the end of the building. Mr. Okum commented if those letters were shorter and smaller, it would look a little strange.

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

Mr. Borden wondered if it would be possible to remount the sign and move it closer? Ms. Weitzel said yes. Mr. Borden said you would consider that then, and Ms. Weitzel answered yes.

Mrs. Huber wondered if comfort shoes were a brand name and if that could be squished together. Ms. Diane Remke the owner said SAS Comfort Shoes is part of the logo. By squishing it together, you would run the words together. SAS is one word and if you run comfort and shoes together you wouldnít be able to see each separate logo as part of it.

Mr. Borden said so you are not willing to remount. Ms. Remke answered I donít know that comfort could be squished together. The problem is that the sign would have to go back to San Antonio in order to be able to do that. They are the ones who designed it. Accent Signs was subcontracted to hang the sign.

Mr. Okum said those are individual channel letters in three different boxes. I think what the board members are saying is that SAS can get a little closer to the C and the S on Shoes can get a little bit closer to the T and can be a little bit further from the corner and a little bit further from the party line wall.

Ms. Weitzel said it is possible to re mount those. We may still not be at the zoning requirement of 3 feet (Mr. Okum commented there is no way you could), but we could try to move it. Mr. Borden said so even if you remounted it, you still would need a variance.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE ELEVEN

VIII B SAS SHOES 12195 PRINCETON PIKE Ė WALL SIGN

Mr. Okum wondered if the soffit extended past the corner of the building. Ms. Weitzel answered it is 21 feet past the corner of the building. Mr. Okum asked if along the north side, the overhang extended out past the window like a canopy? Ms. Weitzel answered that it did, and Mr. Okum commented you really are extending past the store itself. Mr. Weitzel answered the corner of it looks like it does a little bit.

Mr. Okum said I do recall other instances in the city where we have multiple businesses in developments where this three foot requirement has been varied because of size constraints. There is some precedent to allow some adjustment if the applicant is willing to make some adjustments on their part. I am certainly encouraged by the applicant being willing to move the SAS inward. That is the one thing I noticed the most.

Ms. Weitzel commented the building shape is kind of funny, because SAS Shoes goes back and their store goes behind Verizons. They just donít have the frontage, but they have the rest of the building. The Verizon sign is approximately 20 feet off to the left of the SAS Shoes.

Addressing the owner, Mr. Okum said if you were to expand your business and Verizon would scale down their business, would you then relocate the sign centered over your business? Ms. Remke responded yes. Part of the reason why it is the way it is now is to try to be over the center.

Mr. Weidlich moved to grant the variance- as proposed with the condition that the applicant bring the separate sections closer together. Mr. Apke seconded the motion.

Mr. Borden asked if the board needed to know the number of inches that they will be moving those letters? Mr. Okum responded I would like to have the applicant give us that. Ms. Weitzel responded that is something that we would have to go out there and see how close we could move it in. I would say we probably would be able to move them in closer together at least 10 more inches.

Ms. Weitzel answered I donít have the dimensions that are between the letters now. Mr. Squires responded donít put yourself in a bind by doing this. It is my understanding that the word Comfort is on one frame, so you will move that frame. You say 10 inches, but you might not have that much room. Ms. Weitzel responded that would be total between the SAS and Comfort and between Comfort and Shoes, moving them closer together five inches on either one. That may be too much. I would really like to be able to measure and see what would still look aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Lohbeck stated that if we do not put a specific number in, ilt is hard for us to approve it. I could go get the permit application; maybe the dimensions are on there.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TWELVE

VIII B SAS SHOES 12195 PRINCETON PIKE Ė WALL SIGN

Ms. Weitzel stated that the SAS is 55 Ĺ inches, Comfort is 131 inches and Shoes is 105 inches.

Mr. Okum asked the owner if she would be willing to agree, if this variance were granted, that the signage request for the north side of the building would not occur? Asking if he meant the side of the building, Ms. Remke stated that the sign already had been made. I donít have any of the measurements. Mr. Okum responded so you already have a sign going in on the side. Ms. Remke answered we donít have it in. It was made by the company in San Antonio. Mr. Okum commented that scares me; does that one meet specifications? Ms. Weitzel reported that sign is 15í-8 inches long. Ms. Remke added it just says SAS Shoes, because the façade is shorter on that side of the building. Mr. Okum asked the width of the sign, and Ms. Weitzel answered that the Shoes is 1í-2" and the SAS is 30 inches. Mr. Okum said so the total signage would be what? Mr. Squires answered I am estimating somewhere around 74 s.f. Mr. Okum commented that is about 50% of their allowed signage. I just want to make sure that we donít sign the building to death and squeeze both corners at the same time.

Addressing the owner, he said so in exchange for allowing the width and the encroachment as part of the setback, you are going to limit your signage on the right side to 80 s.f. Ms. Remke answered yes, but currently the SAS Shoe sign there is 53 s.f. Mr. Okum continued and the amended motion would say not to exceed 80 s.f. on the north side. Ms. Weitzel commented then she can still use the sign that she has. Mr. Okum said it is up to the board.

Mr. Borden said are you suggesting that they maintain the 3-foot requirement on the corner in the front? Mr. Okum answered my suggestion is that on the north side they limit their signage in exchange for the variance that is granted on the front. On the front they are encroaching on their required setback of the sign. Mr. Borden commented they already have their side sign. Ms. Weitzel said it is not up. Mr. Okum added that it is only 53 s.f., and my suggestion is that it shall remain no more than 60 s.f. They would be getting less future signage on the north side for what would be allowed on the front. It is just a suggestion.

It has been suggested that the Building Department be given a number, and the number given was 10 inches of reduced width for the front sign, and I have suggested that the signage allowed on the right (north) side be reduced.

Mr. Squires said in all fairness to the applicant, I think you may not have 10 inches there I think you are being very optimistic.

Ms. Weitzel answered I agree with you. The more I look at it the more I wonder.

Mr. Okum said I think SAS can move closer, but I donít think that Comfort and Shoes can move closer. I think SAS can get a little closer, may six or eight inches.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE THIRTEEN

VIII B SAS SHOES 12195 PRINCETON PIKE Ė WALL SIGN

Mr. Squires commented if they are willing to go with six, that would allow the applicant sufficient space. Mr. Okum said Mr. Squires has made a suggestion for the motion to bring the SAS in by six inches. Mr. Borden asked the distance between SAS and Comfort. Mr. Okum said we donít know.

Mr. Squires said I would like for the variance to be read again. Mr. Okum said we have had some suggestions. Mr. Weidlich made the motion. Did you include a reduction? Mr. Weidlich said yes, but not the amount. If the applicant is willing to reduce the total width by 10 inches, Ms. Weitzel answered after listening to Mr. Squires, I think I jumped the gun in saying 10 inches. I would feel more comfortable with six inches if that is acceptable. Mr. Weidlich said so I will amend the motion to say that you will reduce the total width of your sign by six inches by pulling SAS in. Mr. Borden wondered if they had six inches. Mr. Weidlich said I would think so; you are looking at almost a letter width of SAS between SAS and Comfort, which is 18 Ĺ inches roughly, if you take a ratio. Addressing Mr. Okum, Mr. Weidlich asked if we needed to put in his recommendation on the side sign. Mr. Okum responded it is up to the board if they want to discuss it or make it a part of the motion. Mr. Weidlich had indicated that the applicant should be limited to signage on the north side of no more than 80 s.f. Mr. Borden seconded the amended motion.

All present voted aye and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Beeper Zone Communications, 11512 Springfield Pike requests variance to allow neon around the store front windows. Said variance is requested from Section153.423(C)(6) "The use of neon lighting shall be prohibited."

Keith Bowens said I am the owner/operator of Beeper Zone Communications said we are here to ask for a variance for the neon. Our sign is hidden among the trees and we are a side entrance operation. We would like to use a neon border to catch some attention to our business being there. I am currently the owner and operator of the other businesses adjacent to it, so it wouldnít have too much effect. I thought it would bring more business to that building. We do not catch a lot of traffic with the side entrance and our sign being around the front an partially blocked by trees. We checked the ordinance and the person we checked with indicated that it was okay to use a neon border. When we came back, we got the notice from Springdale that it was not okay. At the time we put the sign in, we tried to make sure that we were clear and under the ordinance. I still would like to file for a variance to allow us to have this. Our business is new there and the business has increased since we have been there.

Mr. Lohbeck said that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow blue neon bordering the windows, and Sec6ion 153.423(C)(6 prohibits neon lighting in the State Route 4 Corridor Review District.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE FOURTEEN

VIII C BEEPER ZONE COMMUNICATIONS 11512 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Lohbeck added that the applicant has not acquired the necessary approval from the property owner to request this variances. Our records show that the property is owned by Rakan Shteiwi and not Keith Bowers as the application shows. The property ownerís affidavit and signature on the application should be required before the variance can be made effective. Mr. Bowers said I did get that affidavit signed by Mr. Shteiwi.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking anyone who wished to speak to approach the board.

Doug Allison, 1901 Hopkins Avenue said I did the sign work for them, and I did call and at the time he said it was fine to put it in. In the City of Cincinnati, neon is considered a border as long as it is not spelling out anything. I came in after I got the letter and spoke with Betty and the gentlemen had to look it up to see that at one time the ordinance allowed neon, but it had changed, and they did not know this until the day I came in.

The border is around the windows and it is drawing attention in. If you look at the pictures, you will see that the trees are taking out the view of the sign that is setting out front. The hardship would be to be able to draw more attention to the business to get more to come in. He also has another business next door and it is also drawing more attention towards the businesses there. The best thing I could stress here is that we did go through the procedures of it and we called in and at the time he said it was not a problem. Then when I came up, I was informed we had to come here for a variance.

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

Mr. Borden wondered if the big sign out front was internally lit. Mr. Bowens answered currently it is not. I would replace it, but there is an ordinance saying that once you take it out, it cannot be replaced. There is a major malfunction and it keeps shorting out. Itís not worth rebuilding it, itís also blocked by the view of the trees; when you are traveling down Springfield Pike, you cannot see it.

Mr. Okum asked if there was advertising on the sign, and Mr. Bowens answered that it has the name of the business. Mr. Okum continued so you do have some identity on Route 4. Mr. Bowens answered yes, but trees block it. When I first opened up, Mr. Lohbeck came out and I asked him what I could do for the City to have the trees cut.

Mr. Borden said I wondered if we couldnít trim the limbs. Mr. Okum responded they have been trimming those limbs pretty consistently. If you look at the color photo, youíll find it is not totally blocked. There is a new streetscape program that Council approved that will enhance this area, but I donít know what it will do to the trees. Mr. Squires reported that some would be replaced with a different type of tree. Mr. Okum said one that would grow a little taller so you can see the stores and signs.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE FIFTEEN

VIII C BEEPER ZONE COMMUNICATIONS 11512 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Borden said so his existing sign is grandfathered in. Mr. Okum responded it is permittable. You probably would have been better off to put the money in to get some wire run out to that sign so it would light so it can be seen from Route 4. It is not a signage issue as I understand it. It is a Corridor Review District variance request, because in the Route 4 Corridor, neon lighting is not permissible. Mr. Shteiwi requested a similar treatment on the Gold Star building, and he worked closely with the City and did not put the neon lighting on it.

Mr. Okum said personally I am very sorry that this has occurred, but if you do it, the next guy does it, and so forth. I believe those stores around you are far in excess of their window signage allowances. It is a shame that you incurred that expense, but it would be wrong for the variance to be granted.

Mrs. Huber moved to deny the request and that the existing neon be removed within 30 days. Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the variance was denied with six affirmative votes.

    1. Chris Smith, owner of 601 Cloverdale Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a 2,005 s.f. family residence 6í from the east property line and 10í from the west property line. Said variance is requested from Section153.071(A) "..shall have a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet each side with a minimum total of 22 feet."

Chris Smith said I am returning and hope that I can receive this variance and build the house that I want to live in on Cloverdale. I did make some adjustments and on the right side is where I need the variances. I left 10 feet on the left because that house is closer to me than the house on the right. That property is already 25 feet from the property line or more, so that leaves over 30 feet between the two houses on the right side, and 20 feet on the left side.

Also I have a picture of the house so you will have a better idea of what I want to build. As you can see, it will be stone in the front and brick wrapped on the sides around the first floor, with siding on the second floor. Its value will be close to $200,000 because of the things I am putting into it.

I had comments from some of the neighbors as to whether or not I would live there or sell the place. I told them that I plan on living there, but if something would happen to me, this house would be a beautiful house and whoever would move into the house would keep it up. I think it is something that would appreciate that neighborhood because of its size and the way it is built. The house is 29 feet wide

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.071(A), which requires a minimum 10-foot side yard and total of 22 feet for both side yards. The applicant is requesting 6í from the east property line and 10 feet from the west property line for a total of 16 feet.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE SIXTEEN

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Lohbeck stated that the applicant indicates that the dwelling unit size is 2,000 s.f. There are inadequate dimensions and the drawings are not to scale. However, the size of the dwelling appears to be close. It should be made clear that the variance is not for dwelling unit size, but that 2,000 s.f. will be required.

Mr. Okum said so staff recommendation is if a motion to approve would be made this evening, that motion should include wording that the dwelling unit size shall be 2,000 s.f.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking anyone who wished to speak to approach the board.

Mike Laage, 616 Cloverdale said I would like to read a letter from a neighbor at 604 Cloverdale, from Charles and Rita Kloth:

"Building Department

City of Springdale

6/19/01

How many times do we have to come to these hearings or write letters if we cannot attend to say no? If the land is not big enough to build a house on by law, Springdaleís law, it is not big enough. I believe that says it all. We do not want this house built on this, and this is the third time we have had to say the same thing. No."

Mr. Laage said this is the third time that we have been here, and I think this says something about our severe convictions and our feelings about this. You can tell by our sitting here that it comes from the heart. It is not a fly by night issue. We live in this neighborhood. This is our home. The whole concept is wrong here, and our feeling has not changed from the very beginning. I remember the first night we were here, there were comments about "Whatís the problem? Is this too small a house or is this too big a house?" Our response to that was that it is not the house, itís the lot. It is 45 feet wide. We have sat here all evening, and we are talking about inches, six inches on a side. That is not small, and I thought that was a small deal.

This is the smallest residential lot that I know of in the City of Springdale. The leaders of this community thought enough to upgrade our standards, to upgrade the size of the lot. As Mr. Apke said on another issue, where is the hardship on this. This is not a hardship. There is no residence there. This owner bought this lot after the first issue was denied here. This is not an issue where he has to build on this lot. He does not have to build on this lot. I think as an appeals board the code is there, and I really feel that there must be a sense of what the community wants.

If this community just revamped the Zoning Code to upgrade the standards, we are downgrading ourselves. We are not following what the community wants. And we are not talking about a small variance here. Again I believe the total width now is 80 feet on a lot, and this is 45 feet. This is not a small variance.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE SEVENTEEN

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Laage added that two doors up from me a family owns a double lot; an extra 75 foot lot. I would expect eventually that 75-foot lot would be a house, because it is a nice lot. What happens if they come in and want to build on a 40-foot lot. Are you going to okay it? Itís only five feet less than the 45 feet we have across the street. Or is it going to be another minimum of 45 feet? Well if itís only 45 feet then we have 30 feet less. Letís take a little bit from that other lot and fit in two houses here. You have to take a stand for the betterment of this town. Not to be a yes board or a yes city to say yes itís okay to come in. Itís okay to build. We sit back and suffer this. This may seem very cruel, but I just wish one of you or all of you would live next door or in the immediate neighborhood. I think you might feel a little bit different; it just becomes a little more emotional.

I drive by that lot every day now. I look at it and am trying to be fair to Mr. Smith. I have had many conversations with him outside of our dealings here. I think he is a very likeable gentleman, but I canít agree with his position. I look at that lot and see the house he is proposing, and it will be like a white elephant setting on that little lot. First of all the measurements that have come in here are wrong. I donít think it is six feet on the east side or 10 feet on the west side; that may be changed. I think that is wrong.

Another thing that I did want to say is that I have been in touch with the property owner on the west, the property owner on the east and Mr. Smith in relation to buying the property. I am committed to not having this built if I can, because I really feel this will not help me. I am a stage of my life where there are paybacks due, and this isnít going to help our city here to have this house built on this little lot. We are talking now, and if there is any way that this lot can be subdivided, and I think there is a possibility that it can, then it is going to be done if we can do that. All four parties are talking right now. That is my objective, that it can be subdivided and we can make the house on the left have a bigger lot and the house on the right have a bigger lot.

In relation to the comments about the property line being 25 feet from the house to the west, what happens a year from now when the new owner of that house comes in and wants to put an addition on that house? Are we going to penalize him because the property owner now on that vacant lot is six feet from that property line? No, you shouldnít and I think that owner could come asking to build an addition on that house. I think he would be penalized.

We are coming down in variances; we are switching and there is basically one variance now. I think you also have to think about the initial variance that was granted on this lot.

This lot was originally 50 foot. When there was a variance granted to build on that, was it 45 feet? Mr. Squires answered that the adjacent property owner acquired that five feet by adverse possession. Mr. Laage responded my question is was the variance granted after they lost that five feet or was it granted when it was 50 feet? Mrs. Huber answered it was granted after she had lost the five feet.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Laage said I donít want to be disrespectful, but in conversations with Mr. Smith, and I have had many, I get a different story, and other neighbors have also. The first time we were in here they had a buyer. The second time it had changed. The third time Mr. Smith says he would live here, and we have talked about how long he would live here. I told him Heaven forbid that this goes through. Iíll dread it if it goes through, but if it does, the best thing that could ever happen would be that Mr. Smith would live here now until he is 80 years old. I am a firm believer that any owner-occupied home will be taken better care of, and as a builder, I think he would. So if it does go through, I hope the man does live there.

However, I canít rely on Mr. Smith living there. Mr. Smith says this is a $200,000 house that someone is going to buy on a 45-foot lot. I find that difficult. Letís face it. Why donít we go up in West Chester or Mason, where there are a lot of $200,000 and more houses, and find one on a 45-foot lot. I think that would be darned hard to find. It just doesnít happen. People who build a four-bedroom house usually have children and want a little bit of lawn, and there will not be any lawn on this.

If you looked at the drawing submitted, one of the bedrooms is 11 x 7.1. I guess that is a little kidís room, because that is an awfully small bedroom. I lived in Royal Oaks and we loved that area. The only reason we moved was because I had four kids and didnít know what to do with them and all the toys. All three bedrooms were small, but none of them were seven-foot. I wonder about that also.

Mr. Laage said the minimum lot size is 12,000 s.f. and that is roughly an 80 x 150 s.f. lot. What we are proposing here is a lot less than 47% of that, 5,625 s.f., a lot 45 x 125. We are talking small numbers.

You get personal on some of these issues, and I have been accused of being bull headed at times, and at times I wonder why someone else thinks different than I do. I guess everybody has a different perspective and a different opinion. I just hope you listen to us and where we are coming from. We are people who have lived in Springdale a long time. I have lived here 25 years, 18 on Cloverdale, and I am probably one of the youngest people. Some of these people have lived 20, 30 40 or 50 years in our town. They have seen a lot of changes. I love Springdale; itís kind of hectic at Christmastime, but there are very nice neighborhoods and everything you would want here. I think we have a good mix of people and everybody gets along very well. I think there is a point in time when you have to look at your greenspace. We talk about trees.

I looked at the Zoning Code and some of the objectives and they talked about overcrowding, density, being fair, hardships. I think a lot of those issues pertain here. I really want you to examine the necessity of going with something like this that I feel will be a problem. It may look beautiful the first year, itís going to be new but eventually, when you look at the total neighborhood.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE NINETEEN

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Laage said I hope all of you have gone over and looked at the lot, see how small that lot is, 45 feet. It might be advisable to go home and put a tape measure across your front line to see where it hits. I did it on my front lawn.

Mr. Laage said I thank you for your time and effort. I hope you believe that we are very sincere on this. There is no malice here whatsoever. We are homeowners for a very long time. Another house went up the street; those are 50-foot lots and one of the boards made him build one house on that instead of two houses. I thought that was great. That is the issue here. We have to safeguard our neighborhoods. The City has done wonders in regards to the urban renewal, but a residential urban renewal program is probably well overdue. Your value here is not your stores; your value here is your people. You have to have good people; you have to keep good people, and you are not going to have it with a bunch of garbage in the neighborhoods.

Tina Stroud of 595 Cloverdale, the house to the east, said I have only lived in Springdale for two months. I lived in Sharonville all my life. A lot of the reason that I chose this home is because the houses are spread apart a little more than what I was going to get in Sharonville. One of my concerns is the way this is written today

Is there is a six foot variance from the east side and 10 feet from the west. I am the east side. I took the tape measure out and the east side of my home is where I have the larger lot. Most of the homes have one side of the property that is a little larger, and your driveway side is usually a little smaller. The side that he would be building on is my smaller side.

With the six foot as written here it would make the touch of my home to the touch of his home 16 feet. If he is doing it 10 feet from my side, we are looking at 20 feet. As Mr. Laage mentioned, if the house next door that is empty is sold that person has the choice of looking at the home and saying that it is built awfully close and I am not interested in it. I am already here. I moved in two months ago and I donít have the choice to say this house is too close. I canít move now.

Another thing that was mentioned was increasing the value, a $200,000 home. I canít see that it will increase the value so much that a $200,000 home would be built on a $10,500 lot.

Another point that Mr. Laage brought up was that he would hope Mr. Smith would stay here because some one who built the home might take better care of it than someone who just lived there. I am very concerned that a lot that cannot be maintained empty, with just grass, would be maintained with a home on it. My first month and a half in Springdale I spent calling at least two to three times a week just to get the grass mowed. It was three feet tall at one point. I live by myself and work odd hours. I come home in the dark and to me that is a safety issue. I canít see over there; the grass is extremely tall. I have had several animals in the yard; I have a dog and if it gets that tall we are looking at snakes.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TWENTY

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Ms. Stroud added that the grass was mowed fresh today with the meeting being tonight. It concerns me that if you canít maintain an empty lot, what kind of maintenance would be done on a lot with a home on it?

This is my first home, and I wanted to be here tonight to show my support to the neighborhood.

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

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires said at the last meeting, I made the motion to deny your request and it was a 4 to 3 vote. Mr. Laage alluded to the fact that you closed on this lot after the first hearing when we denied your request.

Mr. Smith answered at the first hearing he mentioned that I had that house sold, but that first variance was for a smaller house, and I had someone who was going to buy that house if I could have built the smaller house. After I made the purchase, I decided to build a 2,000 square foot house and live in it myself. I like Springdale too. My mother lives here and I really like the area. That is why I went on to extend the house and really make it a nice home.

We have said it before; this lot is buildable. I donít know why they keep thinking that if you deny me here today that I canít build a house on that lot. The house can be built; it just wouldnít be a nice house like Iím trying to do for myself. I probably would end up building something to rent out because it wouldnít be the house I would want to live in personally.

I am trying to build something that I would like to live in. I could say that I am going to be there for the next 20 or 30 years until I couldnít take the steps any more. I did develop a nice home that would appreciate that neighborhood. If somebody was going to build a house next to me that would raise the value of my house I donít understand their concern.

I did talk to a few of the neighbors and even the chief here, and his concern was whether or not I would be there. At the same time he is telling me he will be there for a few more years and then he will go out in the country and buying the house. One of the other neighbors across the street said they are getting ready to leave. What is the real concern here? I am putting up a nice home. Iím going to live there and maintain the house. It is a buildable lot. I donít understand.

Mr. Squires said you did purchase the lot with the intent of building on it and you were aware of the restrictions Springdale had regarding square footage and width. Mr. Smith responded I knew that I had one or two choices. Either I could build a house for myself or I would have to conform to the building codes and build the house to rent out.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Weidlich asked if the total width of the house was the footprint, or if it included overhangs. Mr. Lohbeck indicated that it was the footprint, and Mr. Weidlich said so the bay window and overhangs donít figure into the side yard setbacks.

Mr. Okum said I have a hard time seeing where the bay window is on the drawing. Mr. Smith said it is on the second floor. Mrs. Huber said that would impinge upon the side lot line. Mr. Okum said no it doesnít. According to Mr. Lohbeck, they go by the footprint of the house. So the bay window and the overhangs donít encroach. Mr. Okum commented I donít understand that window in the closet. Mr. Smith answered the appeal is on the outside, curb appeal.

Mr. Okum asked if the house set down into the ground at all. Mr. Smith said it will have a full basement. Mr. Okum asked how far out of the ground the house would set, and Mr. Smith said about two feet.

Mr. Squires wondered why the Variance 33-1987 was issued for that lot, which allowed that lot to be 5625 s.f. Was it the intent for a house to be built on it? Mrs. Huber said the variance says that it could be a buildable lot. Mr. Okum added that there was a site drawing of a house that had been on a 45-foot lot. At that time, the Code only required 4í6" of setback on the right side and 4í6" on the left side. When the Code was changed this past year and those setback requirements were changed. There are parcels all over the community like this.

Mr. Smith said in the discussion it was mentioned about homes being $200,000 on a 45-foot width lot. Down the street in this development, on Princewood Court, those homes run anywhere from $140,000 to $275,000 and the lots are only the width of the house. Mrs. Huber commented that those are landominiums. Mr. Smith added the desire to have a lot of yard space and upkeep is a thing of the past. These days you have couples who are working and donít want a lot of yard to cut. I think there are a lot of people who would like to have a nice home with a small yard. When you go to the Homerama, you have homes that are $700- and $800,000 on small lots, and people are buying them.

Mr. Borden said if an applications denied, doesnít it have to wait six months before being reconsidered? Mr. Okum responded if it is a new application with a new plan, it doesnít have to. The setbacks have changed and the site plan is different.

Mr. Squires moved to reopen the public hearing to hear further comments from the people in the audience. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Mr. Okum reopened the public hearing.

Tina Stroud, 595 Cloverdale said to respond to the comment about the homes on Princewood and their lot sizes, that is how the neighborhood is set up. They are all built on the 45-foot lots. That is one thing.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Ms. Stroud added this is one home in the middle of an entire neighborhood where the houses are not crammed into lot sizes. I think it is going to be an outcast of the neighborhood. It does not flow; it will not look right. If a neighborhood chooses to build houses on 50- foot lots or 45-foot lots, that is how it is set up and they are aware of that going into it. This is one house going to be put on a small lot that is against the grain of what the rest of the neighborhood is like in terms of lot sizes. I wanted to stress that point.

Mr. Okum asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Smith said that area has all kinds of homes, some small, some large and with some of the lots, you donít know if they are on the same lot or not. It is all mixed over there; there is no set pattern at all, so I disagree with her comment. A couple of doors up there is a little house and they share a driveway with the house next door to them.

Mr. Okum asked about the trees on the west side of his lot. What do you intend to do? Mr. Smith answered I donít know how close they are to the property line. Mr. Okum said so you donít know if they are your trees. Have you had a survey done on the lot? Mr. Smith said no, not yet.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Laage referred to the issue of the numbers, saying that they are not exact. Mr. Smith responded they are exact. If you are looking at the plot plan, it shows the width of the house and the side yards. All those numbers are right. The only thing in question with Bill McErlane was the square footage of the house, and I brought up the new plans and they give the square footage. My CAD program is pretty accurate.

Mr. Borden commented it appears that the drawing may be wrong. Mr. Smith responded that the drawing is not printed out in scale. Mr. Borden added on the site plan, it appears that the 10í and the 6í should be reversed. Mr. Okum said it appears that the staff reversed the notes; the submission is accurate. Mr. Smith added that is one thing I did look at, the distance between my lot and the neighboring lots. With the code today, you could have 20 feet between houses and I was trying to give 10 feet on the left (east) side. On the other side, the house is already more than 25 feet away from the property line, so it is six feet on that side which is plenty of space.

Mr. Okum asked the size of the overhangs and Mr. Smith responded I believe they are one or two feet. I believe these are shown as 2-foot overhangs.

Mr. Squires said Showcase Builders is your company and you alluded to the landominiums on Princewood Court earlier. Did you have anything to do with building those? Mr. Smith said I was involved in the building of those houses.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Squires said you have a garage listed as 20í x 20í or 400 s.f. On the detail you have it 19.4 x 19.8 or 380 s.f. Mr. Smith reported that it is 20í x 20í. Mr. Okum asked the required space for garage. Mr. Lohbeck answered it is 400 s.f. finished. Mr. Okum said so he would have to make some type of adjustment to accommodate that. Mr. Smith responded I can make it work. When I was submitting with Bill he said it had to be 20í x 20í out to out.

Mrs. Huber said as we have seen in the past, they have a garage and it is suddenly filled up with two cars. Then they need a utility building, and with that big house on that little house, where would they put much more than the house itself. It is just too too much house. I understand that the variance goes back to 1987 for the lot size because of owner neglect but to set that in the midst of the homes that are there, I donít like it. And I feel so badly for these people. They are the ones that have to live there, and as many of them have said, they have lived there a long time.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires said I have been struggling with this thing. There is no question about it. I am going to base my motion on what I think is best for the City of Springdale. It has nothing to do with anything else. That variance in 1987 was granted with the idea that a house could be built on that lot. Zoning has changed considerably since then. Without further ado, I would make the motion to deny the request for this variance. Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Apke said Mr. Laage said there were some discussions between you and some of the neighbors about possibly subdividing this lot. If this request were denied, would we see you again next month with another rendition or would you get with the neighbors and pursue selling this lot to the different residents?

Mr. Smith responded he had expressed interest in buying the lot, and I told him what the price would have to be. If I am denied here, my only alternative is to either sell the lot to him or to build a house that will fit. That was not my desire in going in here. I am really hoping that I can be a neighbor, a part of Springdale, and a part of this great community here. It depends on what happens here tonight. I definitely wonít be back. I have been here several times trying to make this work, and I put forth a diligent effort to do something that I thought would be nice and appreciate the neighborhood.

Mr. Apke said that the first time you came in you asked for three variances. The second time you came in you asked for two. Now you are down to one. You have shown a willingness to try to take the boardís comments to heart and you have shown a willingness to try to work with us and try to work with the neighbors. I think everybody here does appreciate that. Having said that, one of the things we look at along with hardship is if the granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or impair the public interest.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 JUNE 2001

PAGE TWENTY-FOUR

VIII D NEW RESIDENCE Ė 601 CLOVERDALE AVENUE

Mr. Apke said as much as you have tried to work with us, and I do realize that if this board denies your request, you can go right in and build a house that fits the code and nobody here can say the word. I would be inclined at this time to deny your request; I want that to be on the record.

Mr. Okum said I cannot support the denial because of the fact that I am in the building industry and I know the applicant can easily build on that lot, basically a block building and meet the code. I think the applicant has truly shown a willingness to try to adapt to the needs and requirements of the code. Had it not been for a change in our code, we probably would not be hearing the case this evening, because 4.6 were the required setback. He has given us 10í on one side and 6í on the other side.

On the other hand there was a reason that the code was changed, for the community as a whole, not a single lot. We are dealing with one lot and one situation. There has been proof given to this board twice for the first variance that a home could be built on that site. In my opinion a vote to deny his request is nothing more than a take of his right to build on the property. I think sometimes flexibility is in the interest of everyone and although many times I will be in opposition to a request for a variance, in this case, I think the applicant has made a sincere effort to accommodate the design of the code.

I was on that design committee of the Zoning Code and I am not totally in agreement that every parcel in Springdale should be a minimum of 2,000 s.f. for a home. I also have a lot that is 125 feet deep. He has a front yard setback of 35 feet and I can take the Terrace or Heritage Hill and two large housing stock areas in our community, and I donít think those homes are any worse or any less than any of the homes in this community. I lived in Heritage Hill for 16 years and I didnít feel demeaned that I had a 6-foot setback on the right side of my property.

As far as that is concerned, I honestly believe that the applicant has made every effort that he could to make this work and indeed the applicant can build, and if I were him I would build on that site and make a house work. Mr. Smith wants to build a nice looking home, and he tried every way he could to make it meet the code. Since that is the case, I cannot support denying his request and I will be voting no on the motion.

On the motion to deny, voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Huber, Mr. Weidlich and Mr. Apke. Mr. Borden and Mr. Okum voted no, and the variance was denied 4-2.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2.  

     

     

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    19 JUNE 2001

    PAGE TWENTY- FIVE

  3. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________,2001 __________________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

______________________,2001 __________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary