20 JUNE 1995

7:30 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud


Members Present: Councilwoman Kathy McNear, William Mitchell, Chairman Ralph Nadaud, Wilton Blake, and

James Young.

Members Absent: Councilwoman Marge Boice and Linda Stanton


Mr. Blake moved for adoption, with one correction. On page 1 Section III,

"Mr. Blake moved to adopt, and Mrs. Blake seconded the motion." I donít

think she was here; it was Mrs. Boice. Mr. Young seconded the motion, and

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

affirmative votes.


A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 9 May 1995

B. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 5A - May 15, 1995

C. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 6 June, 1995

D. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice - no report

E. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Nadaud stated Mr. Blake has submitted a written copy of those.

Mr. Blake moved to adopt his submitted report and Mr. Young seconded

the motion. All present voted aye, and the report was adopted and

placed in the Minutes.

"The following action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 1995.

1. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Tuffy Auto

Service, 370 Northland Boulevard - passed 6-0.

2. Final Site Plan Approval - Proposed Tuffy Auto Service,

370 Northland Boulevard. Passed 5-2.

3. Douglas & Arlene Eades & Bernice Biddle Request to Rezone

Property at 11675 & 11685 Springfield Pike to R-1-B-T

Passed 7-0.

4. Sibcy Cline/Christopher Homes Request Concept Approval of

Garden Style Homes at 309 Princewood Court. Passed 7-0.

5. Replat of Century Business Park - Lots l7, 8 and 9. Passed 7-0.

6. Brinker International Requests Final Approval of Chiliís/

Macaroni Grill, East Kemper Road & Century Blvd. Passed 7-0.

Wilton E. Blake, I


Planning Commission"


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Two



A. James Stander, 537 Grandin Avenue requests variance to allow

the construction of a 360 s.f. expansion to existing garage. Said

variance is requested from Section 153.025(F) "A garage shall be

not less than 240 square feet and not more than 600 square feet."

(Tabled 16 May 1995)

Mr. Nadaud said you were here last month. Mr. Stander reported I am going with the garage. Mr. Nadaud responded you are requesting a variance to enlarge your garage. Mr. Stander added it will be 18 feet; it was going to be 21 feet. Mr. Nadaud asked if he got estimates, and Mr. Stander answered yes, I have not decided which one I am going with yet, but I have my plans.

Mrs. McNear asked the total square footage on your garage with the addition? Mr. McErlane responded it is a 360 square foot addition; the total would be 878 square feet.

Mr. Nadaud commented you have ample space in your back yard. Mr. Stander added it would be 37 feet from the back of the new addition to the back property line. The neighbor in the back said it was fine with him. I have plenty of room on the other side; I have 43 feet.

Mr. Blake said refresh my memory; why do you need so much space in this new addition? Mr. Stander answered car one will go here, and car two will go here. This is being put on to make it look nice in the back; it would look goofy going straight back like that. He showed this to Mr. Blake on the drawing. Mr. Blake responded I am asking because you are asking 35 to 40% above code. I am trying to see if there is any way you could cut down that on that in the back, to come a little closer to the code. Mr. Stander responded it was 21 feet long and now it is only 18 feet long. I did cut down on it.

Mr. McErlane asked Mr. Stander if he can park two cars side by side in his current garage, and Mr. Stander answered no. Mr. McErlane continued that is the reason for the depth, to be able to park the two cars. Mr. Young said heís going to stack them. Mr. Blake said I can understand that; I went by and looked at it. I donít have a problem with that; Iím looking at the percentage of the square footage over code.

Mr. Stander reported the way the driveway is designed, I canít get into the other side of the garage.

Mr. Young commented I do not think I have a problem with the layout, but I still have a problem with the total size. Did your neighbors have any problem with your building this? Mr. Stander reported no, they do not. They have already signed the papers.

Mr. Blake asked Mr. McErlane if there were any way you and Mr. Stander can get together and see if you can reduce the square footage somewhat? I am having some problems with this.

Mr. McErlane reported the only way you can accomplish that and still be able to stack cars end to end in there is to reduce one side of the addition and not make it full width.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Three


Mr. Nadaud commented that would create an L-shaped building, which the gentleman had considered in his original request and due to the appearance of the building, would prefer to have it in box style rather than the L-shape.

Mr. Blake said due to the configuration, the way his house is set in that driveway, I can understand the necessity for him to do this.

Mr. Nadaud stated personally I have no problem with this since Mr. Stander has ample footage in the back and on the sides. I really do not have a problem with his request.

Mrs. McNear said I know you mentioned that you really didnít want to have an L-shaped garage because of the aesthetics for your neighbors. Would they enjoy having some landscaping around that L-shape rather than the box? You are looking at a very very large garage here. Youíre trying to have a square garage here rather than L-shape, but you really donít have that square anyway because you have that little Florida room in the front of your garage. Even if you put this double wide garage on here, you still will not have a square. So, if you can make this L-shape and do some landscaping in there that would be aesthetically pleasing, you could still stack your cars in there and not have the excessive overage of square footage on your garage. Would you be open to that plan? Mrs. McNear drew a plan to show Mr. Stander, adding by the code you are allowed to have 600 square feet for your garage, and you are looking at almost 900 square feet. That is a significant overage. We also have to worry about setting a precedent. Maybe others in Springdale want to have a 900 square foot garage, abut not all the lots can accommodate that. We are trying to work with you to stay within the code and also accomplish what you are trying to do.

Mr. Stander said what are you trying to tell me? Mrs. McNear answered we are saying that almost 900 square feet is a very very large garage. You are allowed to have 600 square feet by the code, and we are trying to get a little closer to the 600 square feet. Mr. Stander responded I donít know how you can do it. Mrs. McNear stated that is why I said if you did it in the L-shape it would be closer in size. Mr. Stander responded this section was to make it look nice, and also I could use it for storage. Mrs. McNear responded I understand what you are trying to accomplish; we are just trying to get that square footage amount down.

Mr. Stander responded I canít do it that way.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance, adding I will be voting against it, but I want to bring it up in a positive manner. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nadaud. Mrs. McNear voted no, and the variance was granted by a vote of four to one.

B. Richard E. Dooley RED Construction requests variance from rear

yard setback requirement (35 feet) for proposed 2326 square foot

building addition at Micro 1, 155 Northland Boulevard. Said variance

is requested from Section 153.165(G) Referred by Planning Commission - (Tabled 16 May 1995)




Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Four


Mr. Dooley reported we proposed an addition to Micro 1, submitted a site plan and if you have any other questions, we are here to answer them.

Members reviewed the site plan. Mr. Nadaud commented apparently you are going to have less than the 35 feet required by code. I am having a little trouble seeing what that setback would be with the addition of the new building. Mr. Dooley stated the minimum is 21.71 feet. Mr. Nadaud responded and that is the variance you are requesting? Mr. Dooley confirmed this.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Blake the discussion by Planning Commission. Did we cover everything with detention or retention of the water that this would displace?

Mr. Blake responded Iím almost positive we went over everything. Don was here, and I think we covered everything. The only problem was they had to come here for the setback. Was there anything else, Mr. McErlane? Mr. McErlane reported they currently are working on the issue of retention, and I think it is down to discussion of whether or not what they are required to do is even economical from the standpoint of the small amount of retention that is required for the addition. So they will be back in to Planning Commission next month. Planning Commission looked at it from a conceptual standpoint, and didnít really have a problem with it. They voted in favor of it from a conceptual standpoint.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance for Micro 1 and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Blake, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.


A. William Pease, l720 West Kemper Road requests a variance to

construct a 24í x 48í garage (1152 s.f.) Said variance is requested

from Section 153.023(F) "..A garage shall be not less than 400 s.f.

and not more than 600 s.f."

Mrs. Pease approached the Board, stating that the garage will be two cars wide and two cars deep. Mr. Nadaud asked if there were existing buildings there right now, and Mrs. Pease answered we are getting them taken down.

Mr. Young commented I stopped by, and saw the two buildings. I noticed behind them there are a couple of more vehicles. Is there any particular reason why you are looking to have a garage of this size? Mrs. Pease answered to put the cars in. Mr. Young responded I understand that, but you realize that the maximum allowed is 600 feet, and you are asking almost double that. You are looking for more than a two car garage. Is that because you have a need for business vehicles or trucks? Mrs. Pease said no, those are our cars. My husband has a lot of car magazines; he is a packrat, and he has a lot of things in the house that we need to get moved into a garage. The existing buildings arenít big enough to hold any of these things. Mr. Young said so you are looking for the garage to house vehicles or as storage? Mrs. Pease answered both.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Five


Mrs. Pease continued that is why the top would be taller than normal. On the plans it is 10 feet high instead of the normal six feet high because we are putting flooring up there and that is where he will put his what I call car stuff. That is why the pitch is taller than it normally would be.

Mr. Nadaud said the cars will be moved into the new facility? Mrs. Pease answered yes. Mr. Nadaud asked if her husband restored cars. Mrs. Pease answered no, one of those cars is his first car that he will not get rid of.

Mrs. McNear commented I want to make sure I understood what you said. This will have a second floor on it too for the storage area? Mrs. Pease answered itís not really a second floor. It comes up high enough so you can walk down the middle. Mr. Nadaud said you have ample back yard there.

Mr. Young commented if the two buildings come down and a new addition goes up, I think it would be a great improvement to the property. The concern I would have would be if the existing vehicles would continue to set out as opposed to being put into the garage. If we look at the variance, the existing buildings have to come down. The size bothers me a little bit, but based on the size of the property and the way it is shaped, I donít see a problem with it. So, I really donít have a problem with this as long as the existing buildings go and the existing vehicles setting out are housed.

Mr. Blake asked Mr. McErlane if in granting a variance, can we put the stipulations as expressed by Mr. Young? Mr. McErlane answered in terms of demolition of existing buildings? Certainly, you are only permitted to have one detached garage anyway, unless you grant a variance for an additional garage. As long as they are conditioning their request on removing it, there is no problem with that. Mr. Blake asked about the housing of the cars. Mr. McErlane answered Iím not really sure where the cars are parked currently. Mrs. Pease reported he moved them to the back area. Mr. McErlane asked if there were pavement back there, and Mrs. Pease answered no. Mr. McErlane stated that is a violation of the Zoning Code anyway so they would have to be on a paved surface anyway. Mr. Nadaud said so additional language would not be required. Mr. McErlane answered no, but I would like to clarify something. I did not notice that there was storage area above shown on your plans. Mrs. Pease responded itís not really a storage area; the roof will be pitched higher. Mr. McErlane reported there is a maximum height of 16 feet permitted for an accessory building, and that is one thing you have to consider. Mr. Williams commented her plan shows 18 feet. Mr. McErlane stated so that would be another consideration for a variance.

Mr. Nadaud said the maximum height for an outside structure, accessory building can only be up to 16 feet, and your plans state 18 feet. Mrs. Pease said so you want us to lower it? Mr. Nadaud responded if we were to grant your variance tonight to allow you the square footage that you are requesting, you would have to either revise your plan to the maximum height of 16 feet to satisfy the code, or you would have to come back to us and request an additional two feet in height. Mrs. Pease responded I can tell my husband; I donít think there would be any problem with dropping two feet. Iím pretty sure that we can get an eight foot from the company, which would bring it down to 16 feet.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Six


Mr. McErlane stated the drawing is not really representative of what is proposed. You would have eight foot garage walls and another 10 feet for the trusses the way it is proposed currently. Mr. Nadaud commented so they would have to revise that to an eight foot truss.

Mr. Blake moved to grant the variance, adding I am satisfied that the Building Department will take care of the height; that would automatically be taken care of. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. McErlane how much depth you need to put in two cars, end to end in a garage? Mr. McErlane answered typically, you look at a 20 foot spacing, and it is more than adequate for a fairly full sized car. Our parking spaces in open parking lots are 19 feet.

On the motion to grant the variance, voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Young. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

B. James Graham, 227 Ruskin Drive (The Terrace) requests a variance

to construct a 12í x 20í room addition 24í from the property line. Said

variance is requested from Section 153.024(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards must

be at least 35 feet deep." (variance granted 17 May 1994 to allow

10í x 19í room addition 26 feet from property line

Mr. Graham reported I have a chance to build a family room on the back of the house. It was approved last year for 10í x 19í, and we increased it to 12í x 20í. This is what we would like for the size of the family room. Mr. Nadaud said and that would allow a setback of what, 24 feet? Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Mr. Nadaud asked if they have a concrete slab and will this occupy that slab? Mr. Graham answered no, that slab will be taken out. There is a patio back there now.

Mr. Young said isnít it going to be the same place that the patio is? Mr. Graham answered yes, except for a few feet. Mr. Young continued you are going another foot or so back, and maybe a couple of feet wider than the patio? Mr. Graham responded it is 19 feet now and we want 20 feet, just add a few feet on each side.

Mrs. McNear commented I do not have any problem with that. We are looking at a two foot difference from what we approved last year, so I would move that we grant the variance as requested. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Young. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

C. Randall A. Carter, 358 Cameron Road requests a variance to install an

above-ground swimming pool 6 feet from side lot line. Said variance is

requested from Section 153.047(A)(1)(a) "..shall not be located within

15 feet from any lot line."

Mr. Carter reported I would like to put a 24í above-ground swimming pool with a deck and a hot tub. With the size of the pool, there is no way to make it 15 feet from the property lines, and there is a tree next to it, so I am forced to move it to one side. The people living in the house next to me on the side where it is only six feet from the property line are offering to help put the pool up.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Young commented based on the shape of his lot, I would not have a problem with this, especially if his neighbor does not have a problem with it.

Mrs. McNear said can I assume that this pool will be completely fenced in for safety reasons? Mr. Carter responded there is fence running along both sides of the lot right now. I can close off one end of the yard if I have to, put up a privacy fence between the garage and the opposite property line. Mrs. McNear asked Mr. McErlane if pools arenít required to be enclosed by a fence? Mr. McErlane answered in the case of an above-ground pool, if the walls of the pool are four feet and access to it is through a lockable gate or a removable ladder, they donít need an enclosure around it. In this case, I believe the plans detail a lockable gate on this. Mr. Carter reported there will be a lockable gate on the deck. Mr. McErlane do you know if, in order to level your pool walls, youí will end up lower? Mr. Carter answered I donít see putting the pool more than six inches in the ground. It depends on how far out of level the ground is, but that should be about all. And there wonít be a ladder from the pool to the outside of the pool; there will be one up onto the deck.

Mrs. McNear commented I donít have any problems with this plan, either. My brother lives a few doors away from you, and those lots are all very narrow, but very very deep, so he does have some constraints to work with.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance for the above-ground pool, and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Blake, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

D. Maria Schon, Manager of Carriage Court Apartments, 11580 Olde Gate

Gate Drive requests a variance to hang temporary banners as needed.

Said variance is requested from Section 153.160(C)(3) "Temporary

signs..may be permitted in General Business Motorist Service or Retail

Service Districts." (b)"Such signs may be placed only on the interior

of windows or doors and on the exterior of buildings" (d) "..shall in no

event exceed two consecutive weeks and..four occasions of usage

during any calendar year."

Since the applicant was not present, Mr. Blake moved to table and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the matter was tabled to the July 18 meeting.

D. Jo Mar Properties, Tuffy Mufflers, 370 Northland Boulevard requests

variance to allow 104.87 square feet of signage. Said variance is

requested from Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "...maximum gross area of

signs = (Wx1.5) + 40 s.f.". A second variance is requested to allow

ground sign 6 feet from right of way. Said variance is requested from

Section 153.193(C)(6)(d) "All signage shall be no closer to the public

right of way than 10í"

Rick Joseph of JoMar Properties stated I am here on behalf of the Tuffy Muffler location on Northland Boulevard, and we are requesting a variance for the additional square footage, and a variance for the location of the sign, which is closer than the required 10 feet from the right of way.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Joseph continued Planning Commission has seen this plan and we have final approval, but we need a variance from this Board to build it as the plan shows. He showed the location of the ground sign on the site plan. Mr. Young asked how far it was from the gas station, and Mr. Joseph answered approximately 55 feet. The reason we are asking to keep it there is if we move it this way, we will lose an additional parking space. In order to keep the curb cut here, Planning Commission asked us to remove these. Mr. Young said these were the parking spaces, and this is your building; is this where you will have the Tuffy sign on the wall? Mr. Joseph showed the walls on which the Tuffy signs will be. Then there are smaller ones which we have reduced from 18 inches to nine inches so they are not counted in the square footage consideration. Mr. Young asked if there was a reason to have those over those doors, and Mr. Joseph answered yes, it is for the benefit of the customers that come into the parking lot. Once they are there they will see the other services that are offered. On the other hand, it has to be small enough that it is not noticeable from the right of way. Northland is so far away youíre really not going to see them from the street. Mr. Nadaud asked when you say six feet from the right of way, are you talking about the end of the sign to the sidewalk? Mr. Joseph said yes.

Mr. McErlane reported it is important to clarify a couple of things. During discussions, Planning Commission had some concerns about traffic backing out into the access in this parking lot, and one of the conditions on their approval was that these be removed. As such this handicap space was moved over to this location. It is a van-accessible handicap space, which requires 16 feet. Our typical parking spaces are nine feet wide, so we will pick up an additional two feet; the way the sign is shown right now is four feet from the right of way. Planning Commission recommended since we were going to pick up an additional two feet of greenspace that we move it back that additional two feet and make it six feet. Another condition was that the signs over the garage bays be reduced to nine inches in height, so they are not counted as part of the signage because they do not serve a purpose off the site.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the handicap space will still be 16 feet wide? Mr. McErlane answered it has to be because it is van accessible. Mr. Young commented so really you are not moving the sign; they are just going from four feet to six feet. Mr. McErlane answered no, the sign is actually moving back. It was four feet from the right of way and will be six feet because we reduced this parking bay by two feet.

Mrs. McNear asked if this line were the edge of the driveway? Visually we donít have any problems with it blocking? Mr. McErlane answered no, since we are right turn in and right turn out, even if it were a problem which it shouldnít be, it would only be looking at the tail end of the cars in front of you anyway.

Mr. Blake asked where the Friends sign is located, and Mr. McErlane answered it is almost to the corner. Mr. Blake continued so it wonít be in front of these spaces. Mr. McErlane said no, this will be a landscaped area, and they probably will put a curb in here to bring this forward.

Mrs. McNear asked how much are we over on the square footage of the sign? Mr. McErlane answered 4.87 square feet. Mrs. McNear commented I donít have any problems with that.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Blake stated Mr. Joseph has been very cooperative in trying to work with Planning. He has made some concessions, and has tried to work with us. With saying that, I move that both variances be granted. Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Young. Both variances were granted with five affirmative votes.


Mr. Nadaud stated I have a note from Marge Boice which says "I will not be at the June 20th meeting. Please extend my welcome aboard wishes to our new member William Mitchell." Mr. Nadaud added Marge stated last month that she was considering attending a reunion in New York.


Mr. Nadaud continued I also have a note from Linda Stanton saying she wouldnít be here tonight. I received a phone call from Peggy Manis earlier this evening saying that Linda would be submitting a letter of resignation. Due to conflicts with her childrenís schedules, she is having problems getting to the meetings, and she felt it would be in the best interests of this board to resign. Weíll forward that to Council and have them appoint a new member to our board.

Mr. Young stated I thought this might be a perfect opportunity to bring up replacing Mrs. Stanton as secretary with somebody that would be able to do a good job and I thought Mr. Blake would be that person. We should try to fill the position tonight if we can.

Mr. Nadaud said that is a very appropriate request; do I interpret that as a nomination? Mr. Young said absolutely. There were no other nominations from the floor. Voting on the motion were Mr. Young, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Blake. Mr. Blake was elected secretary of Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Nadaud commented we have a guest here tonight, Councilman Robert Wilson. Do you wish to address the Board? Mr. Wilson stated I would like to formally introduce to you your new member, William Mitchell. I have known him since 1989 when he came to Springdale. In terms of his background, he has a B.S. Degree in Architectural Engineering from North Carolina A & T University. He currently is a project superintendent with Turner Construction. A lot of his work involves zoning. He is involved with commercial and residential real estate, currently working with the Adams Landing Project, which are condos on the river. I am particularly pleased that he accepted our nomination to join BZA. I think he will be a welcome addition to BZA with his extensive background in zoning, and I would encourage you to lean on him for information, for guidance if need be, because heís got it. I am particularly pleased because he is new blood and has fresh ideas; he has not been tainted by politics or politicians and I sincerely believe he will do a good job.

Mr. Nadaud said on behalf of the Board I would like to welcome you. We certainly can use all the expertise we can get; weíll appreciate your help and guidance in helping this Board move along.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 June 1995

Page Ten



Mr. Blake moved for adjournment and Mr. Young seconded the motion. Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


______________________,1995 ____________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman


______________________,1995 _____________________

Wilton Blake, Secretary