BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. Chairman Okum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Robert Apke, Fred Borden, Marjorie Pollitt

    James Squires, Robert Weidlich, David Okum

    and Jane Huber

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6.  

  7. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 15 JUNE 2003
  8. Mr. Squires moved to adopt and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. All present except Mrs. Pollitt who abstained, voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

  9. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Zoning Bulletin - June 10, 2003
    2. Zoning Bulletin - June 25, 2003
    3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ė 8 June 2003
  10. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities Ė James Squires Ė none
    2. Report on Planning Commission Ė David Okum

    Mr. Okum reported that at the July 8th meeting, the Commission

    approved the conditional use permit for the drive through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike conditioned upon this board granting the variances on our agenda tonight, and with the exception of the building colors and landscaping which the applicant will bring back to Planning in August.

    There was a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor seating area at Graeters, 11511 Princeton Road and after considering restriping and safer parking layout and the addition of evergreen pots (4 in front and 2 in back) this was approved.

    The concept review of the proposed condominium project at 409 West Kemper was tabled at the request of the applicant. Jake Sweeney service bay addition, 85 West Kemper Road was approved with conditions.

  11. CHAIRMANíS STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  12. OLD BUSINESS
  13.  

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    15 JULY 2003

    PAGE TWO

  14. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Approval of deck on the side of the residence at 516 Smiley Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.580 (B) "Entrance feature..may extend three feet into a side yard."

Pat Vonderhaar of 516 Smiley Avenue said the house was built in 1987 and I moved there in 1996. At that time it had a small deck going out the side door which was never maintained. This past summer I painted the house and decided to replace the walk out deck to make it look as nice as the rest of the house.

I tore down the old one and put up a new one exactly where it had been, 3 feet 10 inches from the property line. Since then, the Code has changed to allow it to extend three feet into the side yard, so I am 10 inches more than I should be. We put the footers exactly where they had been, and I didnít come out any further in the yard than they were. I did make it a few feet longer along the house. All I wanted to do was have it big enough to have a grill on it.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking if anyone wished to address the board.

Ken Randolph, 510 Smiley Avenue said we came home from work and Pat, her sister and another man was in the side yard building the new deck on the side of the house.

I had purchased a brand new van which was parked about four feet away from where they were building this. The point is you might talk to your neighbors and tell them that the next day you were going to be doing this on the side of the house and you might want to move your new van, or what do you think? (since we are in tight quarters). She had a landing there first and now it is a deck.

The problem is that it is so overbearing in the driveway. You look out our kitchen window, and all she has to do is look down a little bit to look right in. It is right there in your face. She has a nice back yard where she could build a deck. In the front yard you have 20, 30, 40 or 50 feet before you hit the street or a neighborís yard. To be living in such tight quarters on an undersized lot and to want to make a bigger deck on the side of the house right next to my driveway is a problem. Her driveway goes right into her garage, and she has two entrances, one to the garage and one to the house. It is too close and too big, and it is not to code.

Itís too far out from the building; itís supposed to be three feet, and it can be three feet. I have a copy of the staff comments on this and it says that realistically we could go back 2í-8" to accommodate opening the door. The doors are 30-32" and a 36" deck will easily accommodate a 30 inch door which would put her back 3í-1" off the property line instead of 2í-1".

I drove around the neighborhood, and there are not too many houses where the houses are close that someone has put a deck on the side of the house. Personally I wouldnít have enough nerve to do it. If I had thought about doing it I certainly would have mentioned it to my neighbor, not just arbitrarily do it.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE THREE

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Randolph said that is all I have to say. If you are going to build a deck, build it where you have a couple of feet between your property. When you are on an undersized lot and you want to expand left and right (sheís had this problem on both sides of the house) itís pretty bold.

Margaret Haferkamp was sworn in by the chairman. I live across the street, so it really doesnít infringe on me. From the street it doesnít look obtrusive, but from Sue and Kenís kitchen, it really really is offending. It is unbelievable how close that seems, and since it is a neighboring property, I can understand how upset they were. I also have a driveway next to my home and when my neighbors are in the driveway and I am in my kitchen, I keep the blinds pulled. It is a privacy thing. This deck is obtrusive. I understand it was given one variance when the house was built and I wish we would adhere to our codes. I donít think a variance for a variance is good; how far could we go? I wouldnít want it in my face; I really wouldnít. The lady does keep a beautiful yard and a beautiful home but I think communication would have helped in this area.

Mr. Okum swore in Sue Randolph, 510 Smiley Avenue, who said I have been a resident on that property for almost 26 years. I find it very appalling. She has built an oversized deck on an undersized lot and I just hope that the board upholds the code. She lost her variance when she did not get a building permit. I agree totally with what my husband said. We have never had any problems with any neighbors. Since she knew it was an issue, she hasnít tried to say anything to us. It appalls me more to know that she wants to put a grill there where the smoke will come directly into my house. My side door is right there.

She has a back yard where she can do this. She has two entrances into her house already. I would like for the board to uphold the code and give her the least amount possible to get out that door and down the steps.

She says she built it the same size; she did not build it the same size. It did not extend out that far, and she did not just add a little on; she added a lot onto the deck. I just hope that the board supports me as a resident of 26 years over somebody of seven years.

Ms. Vonderhaar said I am kind of shocked that they are upset about it, and him saying that I didnít give him the courtesy of asking Ė I did go over to his house and knocked on his door the night before they were going to start and they werenít home. When the guy came to build it, he knocked on their door and they werenít home. Thatís beside the point; it is over and done with.

What she said about me building it bigger, I did not come out any further. The poles were put in the exact same holes. I donít understand how they can say it is not, because they took the poles out put them back in and cemented them in. If you look at the yard, you can probably tell that.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE FOUR

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Ms. Vonderhaar commented I am surprised that they think it is so overwhelming, because it is exactly the same distance out. I went maybe three or four feet longer along the side of the house, but I donít think that is an issue. As far as I know, I can go down as far

as I want on the side of the house as long as it doesnít come out the front of the house.

As far as building a deck on the back of my house, in order to get a deck in the back of my house I would have to come out that side door, all the way around the side of the house and in the back of the house. That is ideally what I would like to have done, but I donít have the money to do that. You can see the pictures, and I donít see where it is that huge; it is not that much bigger than it was. I can see that they are upset that I put that there, but it is not any bigger. If you look from the road, you can hardly tell that it is there.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.580(B) which allows a landing or steps to project only 3 feet into a required side yard. The applicant has already constructed the deck and steps without acquiring a permit.

The current Zoning Code requires that the side yard be 10 feet minimum (153.071(A)), which would allow the deck and steps to be located no closer than 7 feet to the side lot line. The property is legal non-conforming in that the existing side yard setback is 6.15 feet. The structure was constructed in 1987. Prior to March of 2000, houses could be built on undersized lots such as this with only a 5íminimum setback (see original plot plan attached). At that time, the deck and steps could be as close as 2 feet from the property line. Because this is a non-conforming use, if removed it may only be reconstructed in accordance with todayís Zoning Code.

The applicant has indicated that the new deck projects 3í-10" from the side of the house and is the same distance as the original structure. The dimension shown appears to be an inside dimension. Adding the thickness of a 4" x 4" and a 2" x 8" fascia board, the structure projects 4í-3" from the house. This places the structure 1í-11" from the property line.

Realistically, the very maximum side yard setback that could be accommodated and still be able to use the side door is 2í-8", 9 inches further from the property line than its present location.

Mr. Okum said we have a survey of the property dated July 1987. Was this staffís copy? Mr. Lohbeck reported that this was when the house was originally built. Mr. Okum added that noted on that in a little bit darker print it shows a five foot minimum from that side extension of the property and a two foot minimum from the edge of the deck to the property line; is that correct? Mr. Lohbeck confirmed that it was.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE FIVE

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Okum added that we also were provided color photographs of the deck from multiple angles and a site plan produced by Richard L. Wullenwebber dated March 1998. Ms. Vonderhaar reported that she had the survey done in March of 1998.

Mr. Okum asked if anyone else would like to speak.

Mr. Randolph said the report that I have here that Richard read a few minutes ago, at the bottom it says that "the maximum side yard setback that could be accommodated and still be able to use the side door is 2í-8", 9 inches further from the property line than its present location." That doesnít correspond with your building code of 36 inches for a deck. You are saying it has to be 42" to shut the door, and most doors are 30 or 32 inches on the side of a house. A 36 inch deck has plenty of room to close the door. This is saying that 3 Ĺ foot would be the minimum that the deck could be in order for her to close the door, and I believe 3 foot is probably what it is.

Mr. Okum commented that if a door is 36 inches and it is swinging out, ..do we know the size of the door? Mr. Randolph answered Iíll bet it is 30 or 32 inches. Itís no 36, I promise you that. Mr. Okum said it looks like it is 32 inches. Mr. Randolph commented most side doors are smaller than your front doors. A 36 inch deck is part of your code, so that should be workable most of the time and I am just asking that it adhere to the code. The door is 6 feet 1 Ĺ inches off the property line. You could put a 3-foot landing in there and still be 3í-1" away from the property line, and be doing it to code. They already have a variance for the 5-foot requirement. She is asking for something bigger when it is already a tight area

As a compromise, if they would be willing to put a three-foot landing there and not a deck, maybe I could pretty much live with that. But otherwise, if that is not a consideration, then you might as well apply the full code. I am just asking that you apply the code, and I think a three-foot deck would be a good compromise for her and for me.

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

Mr. Okum said the recorded document shows the permissible deck space, according to what was accepted by the City, as two feet. The variance request we have here is 2í-1". Are there other variances on this property? Mrs. Webb said I am sure Mr. McErlane checked that out before he prepared his comments. Mr. Okum responded there was evidence presented this evening, and I want to make sure the board is clear as to whether or not there is another variance on this site. Mr. Borden commented that there doesnít appear to be any variances. Mr. Okum responded that testimony was given that there were variances on the property, and I want to make sure that there are not.

 

 

.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE SIX

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Lohbeck if there is a variance on the property. Mr. Lohbeck and Mrs. Webb left the meeting to double check the question of a variance on the property.

Mr. Borden commented that there is no variance indicated in the staff reports.

Mr. Okum said the public hearing has been closed and if anyone does wish to address the board, please raise your hand so we can decide whether we will reopen the hearing and allow comments from the community.

Mr. Lohbeck and Mrs. Webb returned and Mr. Lohbeck reported I think where the problem lies is that Mr. Randolph is confusing the situation with a non-conforming use. There is no variance, but this is a non-conforming use. Mr. Okum added that when the property was constructed, that section of the building was allowed to be five feet from the property line, and the stoop was permitted to be two feet from the property line when it was constructed. When the code changed, setback requirements were more restrictive in your district. So you understand, it was constructed according to code. The deck was permitted and there was no variance according to our records. The survey that was submitted shows the porch and steps constructed there.

Mr. Okum asked if the board members wished to reopen the public hearing so that the residents could speak. They did and Mr. Okum reopened the public hearing.

Mr. Randolph wondered about the deck. Mr. Okum answered if the applicant had maintained that existing deck, there wouldnít have been a variance request, because she was legal and non-conforming. When she removed the structure and rebuilt it, in an area where it doesnít conform to current code that set in motion the necessity for the request for a variance.

Mr. Squires said to rebuild the deck, it must meet the current code, but we canít meet the code because the lot isnít wide enough. Mr. Okum said the whole house doesnít meet the current code. Mr. Squires said so she canít conform to code and she needs the variance.

Mr. Okum said I have difficulty with the documents that we have that show that deck two feet from the property line. The applicantís request is to make it 2í-1" from the property line, which is one inch closer to the home than what was part of our recorded documents in the City. Mr. Borden said are you suggesting that the recorded document is not correct? Mr. Okum said I am saying that the recorded document is an estimate, because it is showing 2í minimum and 5í minimum, and the applicant is requesting 2í-1" from the property line which is less than what is on this document that the city is holding.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE SEVEN

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Addressing the applicant, Ms. Pollitt said since we donít have pictures of what the old deck looked like, did you have a railing around it and steps?

Ms. Vonderhaar answered that she did. Mrs. Pollitt asked about the lattice screening, and Ms. Vonderhaar answered that there was no lattice; it was just open underneath. Mrs. Pollitt asked how wide the original deck was, and Ms. Vonderhaar answered that it was exactly the same as it is now. Mrs. Pollitt said and you added to the length? Ms. Vonderhaar responded I did not add toward the driveway; I added alongside the house. Thatís not a problem, is it?

Mr. Okum said that whole structure is now non-conforming because of the change in the code, by virtue of the increase in size, yes it is.

Mrs. Pollitt continued you have a bump out on that wall that runs the full length of the structure that you built there. What is the width of that bump out? Ms. Vonderhaar said I have no idea, probably a foot or a foot and a half. Mr. Okum responded the survey drawing shows 2í x 10í-4" long. Mrs. Pollitt commented so that just the one section there is bumped out; the rest of the house goes back further into the property line.

Mr. Squires said earlier you stated you would put a grill out there. Do you intend to put the grill there? Ms. Vonderhaar answered I was going to, but if it bothers here, I wonít do that. But they do grill in their driveway which is right outside my window, so Iím not sure why that is Ö Mr. Squires said we donít want to get into that. Thatís the only way you have to get out of that side of your house. And you purchased the house in 1996 and it was there then.

Mr. Okum asked what is inside that doorway and Ms. Vonderhaar answered that it is the kitchen. Mr. Okum asked what is on the back of your home, and Ms. Vonderhaar responded that there are two bedrooms. Mr. Okum wondered if there were doors going out the back, and Ms. Vonderhaar answered no. Mr. Okum asked if there were any other access points to the rear of your property, and Ms. Vonderhaar answered that there are only the side doors. Mr. Okum said so there are no other access points to the rear yard except the side door. Ms. Vonderhaar commented I only have two doors, the side door and the main door going into the front of the house.

Addressing Mr. and Mrs. Randolph, Mr. Squires said I suppose you are opposed to it being there at all, is that correct?Mrs. Randolph responded I would not deny her access out of there. She does have access to her back yard though from the other side of her house, which she just said she did not. She can come out of her garage and go around that side of her house into her back yard. No, I would not deny her access if there was a fire there, there is a door. That is why I said that I would like the deck gone, and go back to the landing that she had.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE EIGHT

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mrs. Randolph said I donít know where these documents came from, but it does extend out further. It is at least Ĺ foot further than what it was originally.

Mr. Squires asked if there was a landing there before. Mrs. Randolph answered that there was only a landing; it was not what I would consider a deck. It was between 36 and 42 inches max. You had room to open the door and go down those steps. I rode around today, and like most of the houses you see in Springdale, those side entrances have the cement slab enough to open the door, you step down, go down the steps and out. Mr. Squires said didnít it have rails, and Mrs. Randolph answered yes it had rails, but she did not have it extend all the way against that projection. Mr. Squires said and that comes to within 2í-1" of your driveway. Mrs. Randolph confirmed that. Mr. Okum added that 2í-1" is from Ms. Vonderhaarís property line, which is probably about four feet from their driveway.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I see a post that looks fairly new behind the lattice work that runs up through the corner post of your hand rail. Is that a new post? Ms. Vonderhaar answered all three are new posts. I took the posts out of the ground and put new posts in exactly the same holes. Two of the three holes are the original holes; the third hole is a new hole.

Mr. Okum said based on the testimony that I have heard, I cannot support the increased size of the deck for purposes of outdoor grilling or whatever. I certainly understand your need for ingress/egress because of the layout of your home, but I cannot support an expansion of that encroachment. On the other hand, the legal document that was drafted and submitted July 7,1987 shows the deck itself a minimum of 2 feet from the property line, which is the recorded document that the city has. Based on the surveyorís notes done July 7, 1987, the deck could have been 2 feet from the property line Unfortunately the survey that you had done in 1998 does not show the actual distance from the property line. However it does have a scale of 0 to 20 feet, one inch being 20 feet. Based on that and the size of that extension of your home, the dashed line indicates very closely that the deck is just a little further away from your property line than the addition is extending. It is not surveyed and does not show an exact number, but based on that, I will have to assume that the deck was pretty close to two feet from your property line.

I cannot support the deck being oversized, but I can understand the functionality of existing poles and existing holes. Based on two surveying plots that we have, I canít see this unit being that much closer to the property. It being larger affects your neighbor as well, and I will not be supporting the deck to remain at the length that has been submitted. But I can understand the necessity for ingress and egress to your home and I would support a motion in that direction.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE NINE

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Borden said I am showing a concrete patio in the back of your house. How do you access that patio? Ms. Vonderhaar answered two ways, out that side door or out the garage and around the side of the house to the back of the house. Mr. Borden asked if she did grilling back there, and Ms. Vonderhaar answered I donít do anything, because I canít get to it very easily.

Mr. Borden stated I would be in support of replacing the structure as it was with the same dimensions. Mr. Squires commented we have to determine what they are.

Mr. Okum commented based on what we have it shows a minimum of 2 feet, but we donít know if it was 2 foot or 2í-6" or whatever. I am seeing a column going vertically from the ground through the deck with a knob on it. If that reference point is where that hole was, that has to be pretty much where the deck was.

Mr. Borden added that second pole seems to be the cut off. Ms. Vonderhaar said that second pole was the cut off. Mr. Okum commented the other reference point you could use is the top column of the stairs.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Borden said I am looking at this photo. Ms. Vonderhaar showed Mr. Borden the details on the photograph, and Mr. Borden reported that Ms. Vonderhaar has indicated that the original deck is where the second (middle) post was.

Mr. Okum said you have two columns going up where the staircase is. Was your deck wider than your new stairs? Your stairs are narrower than your deck is. Was your original landing the same width as the stairs? Ms. Vonderhaar answered no, the landing was wider than the stairs. Mr. Okum continued there is a pencil mark on the drawing showing three feet to that outside edge. Was it a handís width? Ms. Vonderhaar answered about, maybe a little bit more. Mr. Okum commented that sometimes when things get increased in size and you put trim on them they appear much larger.

Addressing Mr. Randolph, Mr. Okum said that the applicant has indicated that the original deck was slightly larger than the width of the stairs. . Mr. Randolph said that is correct. Mr. Okum said based on this, the stairs notch in behind the corner post of the metal fence post. That railing is approximately six inches wide and the applicant has indicated that the original deck extended wider than that stairs. Do you recall that? Mr. Randolph indicated that it was a little wider than the stairs. I think it was maybe 42 inches; it wasnít four feet. Mr. Okum said we have measurements here at 3í-10" on the new deck. I see on the outside trim board that would push it out a total of 3 Ĺ inches. Does the railing seem more significant on the new deck? Mr. .Randolph responded it is a lot nicer railing than the other one; the other one was more basic.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE TEN

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Okum asked if the spindles or balusters were on your side on the original railing. Mr. Randolph answered I think they were. Mr. Okum commented that in itself would have brought the deck in a little bit versus placing the deck the way it has been placed now. .

Based on the information we have been provided, I think it would be a reasonable personís understanding that this platform was larger than the stair width and the new deck is somewhat larger than the original width. We also have a site plan that showed a minimum of two foot; it could have been 2í-10" or 2í-3"; we donít know that. As I indicated earlier, I think expansion of the deck wider overemphasizes the exposure to your property. Had the builder done his due diligence, he probably would never have put the stairs next to your property and your driveway. Mr. Randolph commented he could have designed it a little better, and Mr. Okum said but that didnít happen so we are dealing with an existing situation.

Mr. Okum said the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a deck to be 2í-1" from the property line. As I said earlier, I feel that going back to the original length of the platform would be appropriate, from the middle column to the rear.

Mr. Squires asked if that deck is about two feet from the property line. Mr. Okum responded that right now we know that the deck is 2í-1" from what w assume to be the surveyed property line. Iím not sure if that is the railing edge or the edge of the platform, but I assume it is the edge of the platform. This deck has a finish trim board which is about another 1 Ĺ inches closer than the original deck.

Mr. Squires said so part of the variance has to be to allow the deck itself to be 2í-1" from the property line. Mr. Okum added and there is really not a variance portion requested by the applicant for the length which is 10í long, and the width is 3í-10".

Mrs. Pollitt said this is a real hard situation for all of us to be in because we always encourage jour residents to improve their property and do their maintenance. Is there any compromise that could be reached, like screening, landscaping screening? I notice from one of the photos it looks like the Randolphísí house might be a little bit lower than Ms. Vonderhaarís house, so it probably sets on a slight grade.

Mr. Okum commented that based on the photos and the information we have been provided, there is a slope, and Ms. Vonderhaarís home is also about 2í-3" up out of the ground.

Mrs. Pollitt asked Mr. Randolph if his major concern was the length of the deck. Mr. Randolph answered I am upset with the width and the length of it because it is big and overbearing to have something that big on the side of your house when you are in such tight quarters to begin with. That is why I mentioned the compromise of a three foot deck. That is enough to be able to open and shut a door, and that would be 3 feet off the property line instead of 2 feet.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE ELEVEN

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mrs. Pollitt asked if there were some tall vegetation there, would that make any difference for you. Mr. Randolph answered I donít know. I havenít thought that far ahead. I appreciate it; itís a thought.

Mrs. Pollitt commented that any time you do home repair it is always very expensive and this looks like a nice job.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Randolph and Ms. Vonderhaar if there is any way that both of you can get together and agree on a compromise that would satisfy both of you and we could table this.

Mr. Randolph said maybe; I donít know how close we are.

Mrs. Randolph said as I said before, I will give her room to get out, but I would like it to at least go back to what it was. I feel like since she has been in there, she just wants to keep going this way. She has room in the front and room in the back. She tries to make that whole side look like her property; it is not. Some of that is our property, and I am tired of it. That is the way I feel, and Iím sorry if that is wrong, but I am a property owner of 26 years. They squeezed a house onto an undersized lot and now this is an oversized deck on an undersized lot. It is too much. I am sorry to make her lose money. If she would have gotten a building permit to begin with, she would have known that maybe she couldnít have done this or if she had even tried talking to us. We have overlooked several things since this house has been there. There are several issues, and I just have had enough.

Mr. Squires commented you do recognize that she has to have egress there. Mrs. Randolph answered I do. According to the code, she could not have an entrance at all off there, so we will give her enough to open the door and get down the steps and go to the back. She has access to the other. It may be inconvenient. I donít have an exit off the back of my house to my back yard. I have to go out the side door and walk around. Iím sorry; thatís the way I feel. Mr. Squires said donít apologize for how you feel.

Mr. Squires said so the answer to my question is that this is not going to happen.

Ms. Vonderhaar commented the problem that I have is money. I would hate to have to tear that down and that is pretty much what I would have to do. Mr. Squires said we are very concerned about that.

Mr. Randolph said she wouldnít have to buy more lumber. She has enough there to construct a smaller deck without purchasing more. She would just have some left over.

Mr. Okum said I work in the building industry. To take it back to the middle post, there will be certain parts that will be able to be reused, and it is very possible that there will be some material wasted.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE TWELVE

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Okum said my position is that this would be a reasonable approach to dealing with the problem, to bring it back to a five foot by 3í-10" landing. Now it is 10 foot by 3í-10" and it would be two feet from the property line, which is the recorded distance in the city.

I canít say, but you gave testimony that the deck projected wider than the staircase. Currently this new deck projects wider. We are splitting hairs when we talk about 3í-10" or 3í-8". From being n the construction trades, with the rim board being doubled up on the outside, this deck could possibly be three inches wider than it was originally. When you add the railing to it, you take 1 Ĺ inches off, so it is potentially 1 Ĺ inches wider than it was originally. That is what I can see, based on the drawings, the photographs we have and the construction of the existing deck. I think mass makes a big difference in how things are perceived. When you take something that was originally five foot, or 4í-8" or 4í-10" and make it 10 foot, that is mass, and that is a big element next to your property. I agree with that and I am disappointed that it is there, but it is there. Whether she shortens that, there is really not a lot you can do architecturally. It could be really ugly if you tried to bring it to the inside of the post and keep the railing system to the outside. My recommendation would be that you accept the 3í-10". Two foot is what we have of record, and by condemnation she must vacate the extra space that has been added to the deck along the side of the house. Codes do change, and most of the times they are more restrictive for future growth and development. They are taking into consideration different situations. Your neighborhood is a very tough neighborhood. It has very restrictive standards for that district with a lot of very small lots.

I drove over there tonight, and you both take very good care of your properties. Obviously you love your homes and your neighborhood, and it is unfortunate that we have a situation where both builders didnít give you rear lot access. Both of you are victims of what was built. My recommendation to the board would be that we either deny, table or give conditions on this variance.

Mrs. Randolph said you keep saying 3í-10" and it is actually 3í-11 ĺ". Mr. Okum said it is 3í-11 Ĺ" and it is still 2í-1" off the property line. If they were to put the rim board on the inside and put the

trim board on the inside between the columns, you could take three inches off of it, and frankly I think it would be an uglier structure. You look at it more than the applicant does. When they go 10 feet longer across there against your property line, it feels like they have moved into your driveway, and I can certainly understand that.

I haves to agree with what Mrs. Pollitt said earlier. I think that a couple of vertical elements along there would certainly help for separation. There are some vertical evergreens that we require in a number of projects for separation. .That would help as a screening element and it grows all year long, Ms. Vonderhaar could deal with that and it would help.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE THIRTEEN

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Apke said I have listened to the debate go back and forth and I think a reasonable approach and what I would be in favor of would be taking it back to the middle post, like the original landing. I would not do anything with the width. I believe that the applicant absolutely has to have that egress to the back yard, and we are talking about trying to pretty much replace what was there.

Ms. Vonderhaar, we are going to have to take an action tonight, and you are the applicant so it is your decision. The feeling I get from the board is that right now most of us appear to be in favor of cutting the length of the deck in half, or back to that middle post, in which case we would deny your request. We also could table your request and you could submit a new request to go halfway, to that middle post and try to remedy it that way. I donít know if you would want us to act on it, accept or deny, or if you would like for us to table it. It would basically postpone our decision one month, and maybe give you people time to get together and work this out. Do you have a feeling either way?

Ms. Vonderhaar responded Iím not sure I quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you can make a decision tonight and I would have to cut it back to that second post?

Mr. Apke answered because you are the applicant, it is really up to you. The sentiment of the board as I understand it is it would be rejected as the deck currently is, in which case you would have to tear the whole thing down. What seems to have been discussed is a compromise where you would take part of that deck back to the middle post, kind of like it was before. In that case, we probably would want to table this until next monthís meeting where we could get together and work on that as a proposal. Otherwise, I have the feeling that your request would be denied. Ms. Vonderhaar said so you are asking me if I want you to table it. Mr. Apke answered that tabling it would allow you and the Randolphs to get together and maybe come up with some kind of compromise and come back next month and we could work out something. Or, we can act on it tonight.

Mr. Okum added we can act with conditions. We can act that your encroachment to 2í-1" would only be the length of five feet along your property, with the following conditions: 2 vertical evergreens with a mature height of 10 feet to be planted between the deck and your neighborís property as a screening or buffer. That could be the type of motion that could occur. You could request that we table, you get with your neighbors and try to work up a resolve.

Ms. Vonderhaar said I think I would like to table it. Mr. Borden said either way, she will need a variance. Mr. Okum added by doing this, you can continue to have the deck there for this month and by next meeting, this board would expect a resolve. You have heard the sentiment of the board, that the deck be cut back to that second post, and that there would be some type of screening element put in place by you to buffer the properties.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE FOURTEEN

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE


Ms. Vonderhaar said let me repeat what I think you said. Iím not sure that I totally understood you. You are saying that right now I would have to cut it back to the post, but not cut any off the width from the house. Mr. Okum said from what I am hearing that is correct, provided a buffering were put in place between your property and the neighborís. Ms. Vonderhaar said and the buffering besides? Mr. Okum responded that is my feeling. Mr. Borden commented I wouldnít require a buffering. Mr. Squires said I wouldnít either.

Mr. Weidlich added that any buffering she would put there would overflow onto the neighborís yard. She only has two feet there, and you couldnít put anything there that wouldnít go over into the neighborís yard, and she couldnít go over there to do the maintenance on it. I wouldnít require any buffering either.

Mr. Squires said letís talk numbers and see if we arenít somewhat in agreement with this. What I am hearing is we could allow you to have that deck 2í-1" from the property line but the size of the deck would be restricted to approximately 5 foot in length and 3í-11 Ĺ" in width. That is going back to the second post.

Mr. Okum added it would go to the second post, plus the same exact trim boards that you have on the one side, so you would have 1 Ĺ -2 inches to that side.

Mr. Squires said the question becomes can you and your neighbors both live with that? I canít personally support the deck as it is. It is oversized; Iíll have to agree with the Randolphs on that, but I donít want to see you lose your deck totally. You have to have that egress. I donít want to see you totally rejected on it, and if your variance is denied, the whole deck has to come down.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I think the situation is that if you do request a tabling, all you are going to do is extend the period of time to the next month, and you will have the same resolve. You have heard from all the board members that it will be 3í-11 Ĺ" by whatever that post is plus trim boards and that is it for what is to remain there. If that is the result, I donít see any sense in tabling it. It is up to you. If we table it, the inevitable will occur, unless you come up with some other type of result, and I canít see any. My recommendation would be that you go ahead and continue the hearing, make a decision and deal with it, but I donít think a 2í-1" setback with a 10 foot length is acceptable to this board, so you will have to cut the deck down. Do you want to table or do you want us to bring a motion forward?

Ms. Vonderhaar commented I donít have much of a choice; you might as well bring the motion forward.

Mr. Squires moved to grant a variance to allow a deck to be built 2í-1" from the property line as it now exists and changed to a size 5í in length x 3í-11 Ĺ" in width. Mr. Okum suggested changing it to approximately 5í since we donít know the exact number, and Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE FIFTEEN

IX A DECK ON SIDE OF RESIDENCE AT 516 SMILEY AVENUE

Mr. Okum asked Ms. Vonderhaar if she understood the motion, and Ms. Vonderhaar responded no. Mr. Okum stated that the deck will go back to approximately the length it was originally. It is for the purpose of ingress and egress.

Mr. Borden said the question is time. How much time do we give the applicant to correct the violation? Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck how much time the applicant typically has for a correction of a violation? Mr. Lohbeck answered as soon as she gets the variance, she will need to submit for a permit. Addressing Ms. .Vonderhaar, Mr. Okum said you will need to submit for a permit upon receipt of the variance. You will get a temporary document this evening, and you will get a document forwarded to you next month with the findings.

Mr. Borden asked if the applicant needed to submit new plans, and Mr. Lohbeck answered that she would, on the part of the deck that you are keeping, the five-foot length.

On the motion to grant the variance, all voted, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said we have a preliminary document that you can take with you this evening, or you can wait for the one to come in the mail, it doesnít make a lot of difference. Ms. Vonderhaar chose to wait for the one in the mail. Mr. Okum thanked the residents for coming forward and presenting their case. Quite frequently we have variance issues where the residents donít express themselves and we want that; it is necessary.

B. Approval of above-ground pool 5 feet from the property line at 607 Smiley Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.488

( C ) (1) "..shall be located 15 feet from the side or rear lot line."

David Osterman of 607 Smiley Avenue said through my negligence I did not get a permit for the pool. I checked with some of my neighbors whose swimming pools were less than 15 feet, and they told me that the pool had to be five feet from the property line, so I put the pool up in what I thought was the best location. With the trees on the side of the yard and in the back by the church property, I put it where we could get the majority of the usage of my yard. I have three small children, and I also wanted the pool to be out from under the trees and in the sunlight. That seemed to be the only location I could find.

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. He swore in Rose Osterman, 609 Smiley Avenue.

Ms. Osterman said the swimming pool is 5 feet from my property line, which I donít have a problem with. He has the pool set in about the only spot that he could put it in that yard because of the trees and the shade and the leaves and the dirt falling in it. It is no problem at all for me.

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

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE SIXTEEN

IX B ABOVE-GROUND POOL 5í FROM PROPERTY LINE Ė 607 SMILEY AVE.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from 153.488( C ) (1) which requires pools to be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the side and rear lot lines. The pool has already been placed 5 feet from the west side lot line without a permit. The applicant has indicated that the pool was placed in this location because of the trees on the lot which would shade the pool. The attached aerial photo shows trees located on the east side of the lot and adjacent property in the southwest corner. Because the lot is 60 foot wide, to comply with the code, the 24-foot diameter pool would be required to be located in the middle, 30 feet from the lot width.

Mr. Okum asked him to explain that 30 feet from the lot width. Mr. Lohbeck answered that it would put it in about the middle of the yard. Mr. Okum said you have a dot on your photo that we do not have. The photo with the dot was passed around the members.

Addressing the applicant, Mrs. Huber said you do have extenuating circumstances with your trees, and I understand that if you have a pool it become very dirty very quickly with leaves and the like. She asked if the whole yard was fenced and if he had a lockable gate. Mr. Osterman said that there is a gate between the house and the garage, but the fence between the house and t he neighbors on the east side is currently missing. I was waiting to see what happened tonight before I replaced it. If I had to tear the pool down, I wouldnít need the fence.

Mr. Okum asked how deep the pool is, and Mr. Osterman answered it is a 4í deep metal pool. Mr. Okum said so it really doesnít go into the ground. Would you consider this pool permanent? Mr. Osterman said no. Two of my children should be moving out soon, I have a 14 year old who should be gone in a few years, and I have a three year old. I donít plan on leaving the pool there a minimum of three years and a maximum of five.

Mr. Okum stated that the applicant has indicated that his request for a variance is only for a temporary situation where he has a situation that this above ground pool would be taken down and removed after a period of time.

Mrs. Pollitt said it is my understanding from our last council meeting that we cannot put conditions on variances. Mr. Okum responded the law director has not given us that direction; he gave it to Council. Mrs. Pollitt answered as a council representative, I am telling you we were told that we cannot put time variances. Mr. Borden said we can have a temporary variance. Mr. Squires said no, that is a time.

Mr. Okum commented I have a slight problem with what information was provided by our Law Directorís office to Council people outside of Board of Zoning Appeals that was not given directly to the Board of Zoning Appeals members.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE SEVENTEEN

IX B ABOVE-GROUND POOL 5í FROM PROPERTY LINE Ė 607 SMILEY AVE.

Mr. Okum said there may be some case law affecting that I am not familiar with, but timed variances are customary and normal in many communities, with limitations and conditions. I understand what you are saying, and I understand what was brought up at the last meeting, but Iím not quite sure how that will shake out.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said the problem is that there was some information provided to our Council representatives. A representative of our law directorís office made a recommendation to these representatives that variances with conditions of time are not defensible legally. If a variance is granted, it goes with the land, and that is a true statement. On the other hand, many communities set limits and conditions on variances for temporary uses. You have brought to the floor something that is very difficult for this board to deal with, because we have two board members that have been given information by our law directorís office that conditions of time cannot be placed upon a variance. Based on the testimony you have given, this board memberís position is that a limitation for this temporary pool would be appropriate.

Mr. Squires said since this pool is temporary, can we not consider this just legal and non-conforming and requiring no action, because if you give a variance, that pool can be built by anybody that buys this home. It goes with the land. Mr. Okum responded we cannot as a board suspend an administrative action by the Building Department.

Mr. Borden commented I would like to see the document that the council people have seen concerning temporary variances. Mr. Squires answered there is no document; it was just a discussion pertaining to the property on Benadir where there were limitations put on the variance for that shed that was 1í-7" from the property line. I brought up the discussion to legal counsel. During the meeting I asked if we could legally do this and followed it up with discussion with legal counsel. The best advice he could give me was not to put conditions or time limitations on variances; they are just not enforceable, that a variance is permanent and goes with the land.

Mr. Okum said I think we are in a situation where we are going to need a legal opinion. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I hate to ask you to come back next month, but based on this information, and without limitations or conditions, I would be voting against your request. We need clarify from the law directorís office so we can deal with this properly and also give you an opportunity to enjoy your pool through this next month. The Building Department would not issue orders if the item is tabled. Do you have a problem with that? Mr. Osterman said no, I would rather it be tabled.

Mr. Borden moved to table and Mrs. Pollitt seconded the motion. All voted aye, and this was tabled to August 19, 2003.

Board of Zoning Appeals recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:56 p.m.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE EIGHTEEN

    1. Approval of recycling dumpster to be located on the edge of the rear parking lot at Tri-County Promenade, Tri-County Parkway. Said variance is requested from Section 153.489(A) "On corner lots, it shall be set back from the side street not less than the required setback for the adjacent main building on the butt lot plus an additional five feet."

Peter Marcus said we have the property at 11330 Princeton Pike. Kinko requested a second dumpster to be put in, and we accommodated them. The biggest discussion was with Rumpke, on where they could pick the dumpster up. We came to the conclusion that the edge of the lot where there is no parking would be the best spot. If we were going to move it to another spot, we would have lost three parking spaces and would have blocked all the gas meters. That was the only other place to put the dumpster.

To the left of the current dumpster, there is an open area with a garage door that is leased by another tenant, so we could not put it there. If we lose the three parking places, the employees would have to put three cars into the front lot where we already have a problem with parking. We currently have one vacant space, and one of the main concerns from perspective tenants has been the lack of parking. The loss of three parking spaces would definitely affect the rentability of the property. So we are requesting this variance to put it on the edge of the lot. After we get the approval, we will put the appropriate screening around the dumpster.

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

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from 153.489(A) to allow a dumpster to be placed 10 feet from the right of way line on Tri-County Parkway. The Zoning Code requires a dumpster to be located 55 feet from the right of way line. There is an existing waste dumpster enclosure located at the rear north corner of the building. The enclosure cannot be expanded due to a man door into the basement of the building directly adjacent to it.

The applicant has indicated that placement at the back of the building would result in loss of three parking spaces and block the gas meters. It appears that an enclosure could be placed at the back of the building with the loss of only one space and not block the gas meters (see attached sheet). The dumpster enclosure will be required to be constructed of wood or masonry to match materials on the principal structure. The structure must have gates constructed of wood and steel (153.489(C).

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I understand the man door issue. Your gas meters donít go all the way to the garage door. There is approximately four feet between the overhead door and the gas meters. What is to the right of the gas meters? Mr. Marcus answered that there is a small wall and then the garage door. Mr. Okum asked if there was four feet between the gas meters and the over head door and Mr. Marcus said no.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE NINETEEN

IX C DUMPSTER ON EDGE OF PARKING LOT Ė TRI-COUNTY PARKWAY

Mr. Okum continued so you canít relocate the man door over and shift and expand the existing dumpster enclosure. If the man door werenít an issue, could you expand the dumpster enclosure? Mr. Marcus said I donít think so. There is a garage door, and right next to that is a door into that basement area.

Mr. Okum said my question is could the man door be changed in location? Mr. Marcus responded you are saying relocate the man door to the basement? No. There would be no other place to put the door. We would have to take the door out, concrete it up and there would be no other access except through the garage door.

The garage space is leased for three or four years.

Mr. Okum said I visited the site, and Iím not happy with the dumpster location either. On the other hand, you obviously have a producer that generates a lot of material. Mr. Marcus responded a lot of cardboard. The home office called and said this is one of our guidelines for all landlords to have recycling dumpsters at their locations. (Kinkoís). Mr. Okum said so it is a tenant issue. Mr. Marcus said all other non-cardboard items go into the other dumpster. Mr. Okum said it was flowing today, and Mr. Marcus said I was there this morning and moved some garbage myself.

Mr. Okum asked how the dumpster people access the existing dumpster with the parking pattern that is back there now? Mr. Marcus answered that they come in before anybody arrives. Mr. Okum asked if they had any additional property to the north, and Mr. Marcus answered no, I looked at that also.

Mr. Okum said you have indicated that you donít have room in your existing dumpster location, and the only place that the new dumpster can go is in the hashed out area of your parking field. Mr. Okum asked if he could get it closer to the staircase if the non paved area were turned into a paved area next to the stairs, to pull it further back to the street and behind the evergreens? Mr. Marcus answered that we would have to take out some of the evergreens. Mr. Okum said I am talking next to the stairs, and Mr. Marcus said no, there is a concrete walk, access for the employees to get up to the back steps. Mr. Okum commented that in either place, you are not going to meet code.

Mr. Okum asked if staff had run this by the city planner, and Mr. Lohbeck reported that Bill made up a site plan and put it up against the wall. It would be right next to the gas meters, to the south, and Mr. Okum commented so you basically would lose one space. Mr. Marcus said if he was saying coming to the left of the gas meters, we would also lose probably three parking places, because you have to get that truck to swing in.

Mr. Okum commented I canít agree with that, because right now your truck has to swing in without cars in the parking lot to get to the other dumpster. Mr. Marcus responded when he comes in at 3 or 4 in the morning, he can pull straight in. If we put the dumpster to the left and put an enclosure around it, we will lose three parking places.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY

IX C DUMPSTER ON EDGE OF PARKING LOT Ė TRI-COUNTY PARKWAY

Mr. Okum responded staffís sketch shows if you shifted one parking space to the right you would lose one parking space.

Mr. Borden asked if that included the enclosure, adding that it doesnít appear to, but it does say dumpster enclosure. Mr. Okum commented that staff deals with these every day on most development plans. Cars are parked all the way across there almost in front of the garage door currently. Actually they are parked in front of the garage door in this photo. Is that area striped out? Mr. Marcus responded I donít think that is striped there.

Mr. Weidlich asked the width of the dumpster for the cardboard, and Mr. Marcus answered I didnít measure it, but I believe it is about eight feet wide. Mr. Weidlich wondered how much space would be needed on the side of the enclosure, and Mr. Marcus answered a minimum of two feet on each side. Mr. Weidlich commented so you are talking 1 Ĺ parking spaces. Mr. Marcus responded that it is two parking spaces and with the dumpster to the left, you would lose at least another parking space on the left. Mr. Weidlich showed the applicant the sketch the staff had marked up for the dumpster. Mr. Weidlich commented you actually would lose one space.

Mr. Marcus said I would be more than happy to go back and revisit it with the Building Inspector and have further discussion on it to see if we can do it, but I had not seen that sketch until now. Nobody shared it.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if he would like to work with staff on this? Personally, I have a problem with the necessity for two dumpster enclosures for the size of that parcel. I understand your situation, but that is a postage stamp site.

Mr. Marcus responded I agree; I didnít want to put the dumpster there in the first place but because of the tenant, I did so. I like getting the rent in from my tenants, and they also pay taxes to the City of Springdale.

Mr. Okum said we need to deal with the problem, but my feeling is that I would not vote in favor of this location, so I would be voting in opposition to your request, but I canít speak for the rest of the board. It is your decision as to whether you want us to table or vote on it tonight.

Mr. Marcus responded I would be more than happy to revisit it with the building inspector and come to a compromise so we can do this. Mr. Okum said I canít tell you that what he offers you is going to be a compromise on the Cityís part, but he can at least help you with the Building Department and staffís suggestions, and you might deal with some screening and those types of things.

Mr. Marcus commented I understand that even if we place it in the alternate location, we still will need a zoning variance. Mr. Okum said that is very possible, but typically we want to hold it away from the view of the public right of way. Mr. Marcus said I donít have a lot of choice.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

IX C DUMPSTER ON EDGE OF PARKING LOT Ė TRI-COUNTY PARKWAY

Mr. Okum asked if he would like to table it and work with staff, and Mr. Marcus indicated that he would. Mr. Squires moved to table and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the matter was tabled to August 19th.

D. Approval of conversion of 60% of garage into family room at 11765 Van Cleve Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.105(B) "A single 2-car garage..is required. The garage shall have a minimum floor area of 400 s.f. and a maximum floor area of 600 s.f."

Mike Burdine, 11765 Van Cleve Avenue reported that we have been thinking about this for a long time, and especially the last year and a half since our second son was born that we need more room. The houses in our neighborhood are ranches with no basements with limited area to move around in. We want to convert this garage to a partial family/play room for us and the kids to enjoy. Other houses in the area have something similar to this already, and some even have the garage door walled up. I donít particularly care for that, and I am going to leave the garage door there and have that part of the garage be storage and a work area.

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

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting to eliminate his garage and convert 60% into a family room. The balance would be a storage area and workroom. The garage door is proposed to remain. The current Zoning Code 153.105(B) requires a two-car garage 400 to 600 s.f. in area. Prior to March of 2000 the property was required to have a one-car garage.

Mrs. Huber asked the applicant how many cars he had, and Mr. Burdine answered two. Mrs. Huber asked if they could both be placed in your drive away from the sidewalk (today one was over the sidewalk). Mr. Burdine said yes. I usually park one on the street and one in the driveway. Mrs. Huber continued but you canít park both in the driveway. Mr. Burdine answered we usually donít because during the school year I teach and leave in the morning before my wife gets home, and I get home in the afternoon and we switch places so we never park in the same lot. We possibly could get both in; I havenít checked it out.

Mrs. Huber asked about the need for extra space, and Mr. Burdine said it is for a family room, a little more space because of the two boys.

Mr. Okum asked if he currently can park his car in the garage, and Mr. Burdine answered he could if he moved his stuff out of the way. We havenít had the car in the garage for the last year and one-half, since my son was born.

Mr. Okum asked the approximate size of this workroom/storage and Mr. Apke said it is about 122 square feet.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

IX D GARAGE CONVERSION Ė 11785 VAN CLEVE AVENUE

Mr. Apke said I think your picture is self-explanatory, but I still want to ask these questions. Will there be any access from the family/play room to the workroom/storage? Mr. Burdine answered that there is none planned. Mr. Apke continued what about from the house to the workroom/storage, or is the only access going to be from the garage door? Mr. Burdine answered it will be from the garage door.

Mr. Borden asked where the current access is to the house from the garage, and Mr. Burdine answered that there is none. That is what we donít like about it. That is another reason why we didnít use the garage that much for the car because we still have to come outside.

Mr. Apke said based on the fact that Mr. Burdineís property has no storage in the basement, I think this conversion would be fine, and I would like to move that this variance be granted. Mr. Borden seconded the motion. Mr. Okum asked if he was going to be specific in the motion in terms of amount of space that shall remain storage, and Mr. Apke answered the motion should read as per submission. Mr. Borden seconded the amended motion.

All voted aye and the variance was granted unanimously.

E. Approval of Front Yard Building Setbacks from Northland Boulevard and Route 4, and Pavement Setback from Northland Boulevard for Proposed Drive Through at Dunkin Donuts 11424 Springfield Pike. Said variance is requested from Section 153.424(D)(1)(a) "Front: 10í building, 50í parking" Ė referred by Planning Commission

Wayne Fan the architect of the project and Mike Patel the store owner were present. Mr. Fan reported that Dunkin Donuts Store is remodeling the store to bring a new look. The parking that is there doesnít meet the Code and we have tried to create a new parking scenario that still wouldnít meet Code, so we have to keep it as it is.

Mr. Lohbeck said that the applicant wasnít sworn in. Mr. Okum swore in the applicant.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant was referred by Planning Commission at their July 8, 2003 meeting as a condition of their partial approval to construct a drive-through and additions to the building. The building is an existing non-conforming building with respect to setbacks and other aspects of the property. The applicant is requesting variances from the following:

Existing Required Request

Front Yard Route 4 61í 100í 59í

Front Yard Northland 63í 100í 60í

Paving 0í 50í 6í

The 59í dimension requested for front yard Route 4 appears to be drawn to the wrong line.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

15 JULY 2003

PAGE TWENTY-THREE

IX E SETBACKS FOR PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH DUNKIN DONUTS

Mr. Lohbeck stated that the setback requirements are from the Corridor Review District and are the same requirements imposed on larger developments south of the site (Maple Knoll and Springdale Church of the Nazarene).

The building setbacks cannot be physically accomplished and the driveway setback is an improvement of the existing setback. The setback reductions on the building are the result of the construction of the drive-through window on Northland, and the brick enclosure around walk-in coolers on Route 4.

Mr. Okum said for point of reference, if you look to the south portion of this site, you will see a 61. Staff has indicated that it was drawn to the wrong line, and it is actually 59. The other item is on the Northland Boulevard section, you see a line, 60 feet that goes to the drive-through window. Northland Boulevard where that drive entrance is and is a right in only which is a change to the site and Planning considered an improvement.

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

Mr. Okum reported that Planning Commission approved this with seven affirmative votes with the exclusion of exterior building elevation colors and the landscaping, which Planning will review next month, and conditional upon your approval as well.

Mrs. Huber asked if Planning had any trouble with this, and Mr. Okum answered that they had no problem with these setback issues.

Mr. Apke asked about the safety issues on the traffic flow through the site, and Mr. Okum responded that this has been worked out over a period of about five months with our city planner and engineer to make it functional. It is somewhat odd, because it is a reverse rotation but the city engineer has indicated that it will function and there is enough turning space. There were some issues with big yellow bollards that Planning had concerns about,

and the applicant is going to deal with those in his color pallet submission.

Mr. Apke said it appears that Planning Commission has done their homework on this and I would like to move to approve the variances from the front yard setback from Route 4 (59í), the front yard setback from Northland (60í) and the paving setback from Northland (6í). Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

All voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Borden wondered if we were going to seek an opinion from the law director concerning time conditions and variances. Mr. Okum said we are, provided I can get the administrationís approval to do that.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    15 JULY 2003

    PAGE TWENTY- FOUR

    X. DISCUSSION - continued

    Mr. Squires asked if he would like him to ask the law director to attend the meeting. Mr. Okum responded actually, I think I will talk to the administration and see what direction they want to give us on it. We have been given mixed directions, and I would definitely like a resolve to it. Mr. Apke wondered if we could get an opinion on it prior to the next meeting so it could be in our packet. I donít know if it will be a written opinion, because I donít know the administrationís limitations on outsourcing to the law directorís office right now, because of cost curtailments.

    Mr. Squires said you are talking about conditional variances arenít you? Mr. Okum responded we are talking about conditions on a variance with time requirements. Mr. Borden said by time variances, you mean temporary variances? Mr. Okum agreed.

  3. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________,2003 _________________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

____________________,2003 __________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary