BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

17 JULY 2001

7:00 P.M.

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Acting Chairman Fred Borden.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Acting Chairman Borden, Councilman Robert Wilson, Bob Weidlich, Bob Apke, Councilman

    James Squires and Jane Huber

    Members Absent Chairman David Okum

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 19 JUNE 2001
  6. Mr. Apke moved to adopt and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All

    Members present, except Mr. Wilson who abstained voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.

  7. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 12 June 2001
    2. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2001
    3. Zoning Bulletin – June 25, 2001
    4. 7/12 Memo from Anne McBride re Utility/Storage Buildings
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities - no report
    2. Report on Planning Commission – no report
  1. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  2.  

  3. OLD BUSINESS
  4.  

  5. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Michael F. Kock, 11560 Walnut Street requests variance to allow the construction of a 7’ x 12’ addition to the existing 10’ x 12’ barn. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(B)(3) "Detached accessory buildings other than garages shall not exceed 120 square feet in area."

Mr. Kock said I want to have extra room for storage. The construction will be the same as the barn that is there. I’m not going to change the existing structure; I’m just going to add on to it.

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

Mrs. Huber asked Mr. Kock if the addition would be toward the inside of his yard rather than going toward Cherry Street, and Mr. Kock confirmed that it would be.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE TWO

VIII A MICHAEL KOCK 11560 WALNUT STREET ADDITION TO BARN

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires reminded him that he would need a building permit, asking if he had applied for it. Mr. Kock answered that he hadn't, stating he wanted to get the variance first.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the variance would be from Section 153.492(B)(3) to construct a 7’ x 12’ addition to the 10’ x 12’ utility building for a total of 204 s.f. A permit will be required for this work and will require detailed construction drawings with the permit application.

Mr. Wilson said I went out to the site and if you look at the staff comments section with a diagram, the storage shed is parallel to the driveway. Between the driveway and the shed are four large trees. The edge of the current shed would extend almost parallel to those two trees. Extending the barn to the right would only be seen from the neighbor to the far right, which is 70+ feet away. It is 14 feet from Oak Alley to the storage shed so you have to drive past Oak Alley to even see this. It is unlikely going past Walnut Street that you will see much of it. If he parks his cars in the driveway, you may not even see the shed from the right hand side.

Personally I don’t see a problem with this in view of the way the garage, the shed, the driveway and the cement patio are located. It is 52 feet from Cherry Street, and across the street is a guy whose house faces this building, but it is 52 feet away. The other guy is even further. I don’t see a problem with this, and in view of my going out and visiting the site, I will be in support of it.

Mr. Wilson moved to grant the variance with the condition that a building permit is secured and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Jacqueline Rowe, 11775 Neuss Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a utility shed 2 feet from the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(D) "..shall be at least 5 feet from the side and rear lot lines."

Mrs. Rowe said we would like to install a very nice utility shed; we are going to Amish country to get it. We were scaling in the back corner of the yard to allow the five feet from both fence lines when the neighbor on the backside said that we could get a variance.

The existing pad is all the way into the corner of the fence and wouldn’t allow us to go behind and trim, so we are asking that it be two feet from the fence to allow us traffic area behind. The fact that the back yard is so small, that three feet will mean a world of difference walking out the back door. It is really a space issue for us. We designed it to be eight feet deep so it takes up less room since the back yard is so small.

I took a last minute look this evening, and there is an existing flowerbed back there. To give you how close this is, from the proposed barn to the edge of that flowerbed is currently seven feet. If we would take another three feet off that and move it in closer, we are talking about four feet between the flowerbed and the barn.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE THREE

VIII B JACQUELINE ROWE, 11775 NEUSS UTILITY SHED 2 FEET FROM LINE

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

Mr. Lohbeck reported that they are requesting a utility building 2 feet from the rear property line. Section 153.492(D) requires a 5-foot minimum setback from the side and rear lot lines. The applicant has indicated that the reason for the request was because of an existing 7’ x 10’ slab in the far northwest corner of the property. We are not sure how the existing slab relates to the request. The proposed shed is shown to rest on wood skids and not constructed with the walls anchored to the slab. The proposed shed is larger than the slab and it appears that the skids will rest partly on the existing slab and partly on earth. A building permit will be required and modifications to the plans to show a 24" maximum stud spacing which will be required to issues the permit.

Mr. Borden asked Mrs. Rowe what the slab had to do with the request. Mrs. Rowe said it would offer a greater amount of support for the shed so we don’t have to create it with any other artificial concrete blocks into the grass area. It will actually support the majority of the barn.

Mr. Wilson said I have a diagram that you submitted which shows that with the 8’ x 12’,you will be 31 feet from the house. If you give us the 3 feet you will be 27 feet, but you mentioned the flowerbed. Is there a way you can reorient the barn so that the entrance would be on the side? Since the cement pad will support only about 60% of your barn, you still would need to spend dollars. I’m wondering if it would be cheaper to put some other kind of support on the bottom or add to this. Either way you would have to do something to support an 8’ x 12’ barn. Is the concrete slab 7’ x 10’? Mrs. Rowe answered yes. Mr. Wilson said so you are saying you have a7’ x 10’ concrete slab, and I realize that would be a cost to you to either remove that pad and/or relocate your shed an additional five feet both ways to be in compliance. So you are asking for a variance with two issues, two feet from the back and two feet from the side. My point is you would have to spend more dollars to expand the concrete pad to 12 feet in one direction and 1 foot in the other direction. Will you have a concrete slab that will be 8’ x 12’?

Mrs. Rowe answered actually we weren’t going to pour more concrete. There are concrete blocks that we are burying in the ground to be level with the existing slab. The shed itself has 4’ x 4’ runners that it will set on. It won’t set directly on the concrete slab because there has to be air under there. There are concrete blocks that we are burying in the ground to be level with the existing slab.

We actually would have less work to do and less cost by doing it the way we are doing it and thereby allowing us more back yard.

Mr. Wilson commented I assume that a 7’ x 10’ storage area is out of the question. If you used the existing 7’ x 10’ concrete pad you would be downsizing the barn. Mrs. Rowe answered except that the 7’ x 10’ slab is all the way in the corner, and there are fences on both sides.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE FOUR

VIII B JACQUELINE ROWE, 11775 NEUSS UTILITY SHED 2 FEET FROM LINE

Mr. Wilson said so you are not going to put the barn on top of the concrete pad; you are going to come out some. Mrs. Rowe said we are going to come off it two feet, so really we are using 5’ x 8’ of the existing 7’ x 10’ slab.

Mrs. Rowe said the drawing you have shows a concrete patio or porch. Off the porch this whole area, probably half the width of the house and all the way around the porch is gravel. Off the gravel is a flowerbed that comes way out into the yard. The dotted line, which shows the 12-foot width of the barn, would be our proposed front. To the very edge of the existing flowerbed is only 7 feet. She showed the members photographs of the area, adding that it is a tiny back yard; that is the main issue. Mrs. Huber commented that the back yard also rises up.

Mr. Borden asked Mr. Lohbeck if two variances were needed for this. Mr. Lohbeck stated that both items, the rear and side yard lot lines, would be covered in one variance.

Mr. Squires said for the record, after construction of your shed you will be no more than 2 feet from the property line in any given direction.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance to allow her to place a utility building two feet from the rear and side property lines. Mr. Apke seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Jerome Sharkey, 746 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 32’ x 28’ three-car garage. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(B) "A 2 car garage..is required..maximum floor area of 700 s.f."

Mr. Sharkey had not been present when the others were sworn in, and Mr. Borden swore in Mr. Sharkey.

Mr. Sharkey stated that he was requesting a variance to build a 32’ x 28’ three car garage to replace a 34’ x 24’ garage/apartment that was on the property when I bought it. I have five vehicles, and three of them need to be in the garage so I need the variance.

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

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the request is for a 32’ x 28’ garage, 896 s.f. The applicant had a non-conforming oversized garage with an apartment on the second floor, which was demolished in June of 2000. Because the Zoning Code requires a garage on a single-family lot, the owner is required to replaces his garage. The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum area of 700 s.f. The only reason for the request given is the need for a three-car garage. The applicant has not demonstrated that a three-car garage can be constructed within or closer to the 700 square foot limit. We did a little research and found that you can purchase kits that would have 768 s.f.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE FIVE

VIII C JEROME SHARKEY, 746 WEST KEMPER – 32’ X 28’ 3-CAR GARAGE

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Sharkey if he could live with a 768 s.f. garage. Mr. Sharkey answered I probably could, but the plans that I have are for a 28’ x 32’ garage. That would give you room on the backside to have shelving for storage and other uses.

Mr. Squires asked if he were going to store anything else in there besides the automobiles, attic storage? Mr. Sharkey answered that there would not be attic storage, but there would be room to build shelving on the back wall. That is what I want, because there is no storage in my house. My house has one closet for three bedrooms. On top of that, I have a riding lawnmower, two push mowers, and two tillers. I have enough lawn equipment to start a lawn care business.

Mr. Squires wondered if he were planning on adding a second story to that at some time in the future. Mr. Sharkey answered absolutely not.

Mr. Wilson said the dimensions of the building that you demolished was 24’ x 34’. Mr. Sharkey confirmed that. Mr. Wilson added that it is smaller than what you want to build now, which is 32’ x 28’. So you are asking for a bigger building than what was there before. Is that correct? Do we have the right dimensions? Mr. Sharkey responded that can’t be right. The one I am building now is smaller; I know that for a fact. Mr. Wilson said 24’ x 34’ totals 816 s.f. Mr. Sharkey said but it also has a second floor.

Mr. Wilson asked if the lawn equipment wouldn’t fit in the shed. Mr. Sharkey answered that I have a 3’ x 8’ toolbox that takes up pretty much half the shed now. It will go in my garage, and all my lawn equipment would fit in my shed, but I still want my garage for storage. I want to store the stuff that won’t fit in the house.

Mr. Wilson responded I can understand your dilemma, but we are looking at is 196 s.f. over what is allowed. That puts us in a dilemma. So you need a storage area for three cars, your lawn equipment that won’t fit in the shed, and storage items that you can’t keep in your house, that you normally would keep in a closet.

Mr. Sharkey said yes, and I also have a house in Louisville full of furniture that was my wife’s grandmother’s that needs to be brought up here. I have no place to put it; that is why it is still in Louisville.

Mr. Squires asked how deep the lot is, and Mr. Sharkey indicated that it is 377 feet. Mrs. Huber asked if he has an acre, and Mr. Sharkey said he believed that it is ¾ of an acre. Mr. Squires asked the width of the lot, and Mr. Sharkey said that it was 77 feet.

Mr. Borden asked the size of his shed, and Mr. Sharkey stated that it is 10’ x 12’, and it is full.

Mr. Borden asked why the previous structure was demolished, and Mr. Sharkey answered that it needed a lot of repairs. When I bought this property seven years ago, a member of Council came and told me that the City did not want it to be rented.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE SIX

VIII C JEROME SHARKEY, 746 WEST KEMPER – 32’ X 28’ 3-CAR GARAGE

Mr. Sharkey added that the City wanted it to be a single-family property. They wanted to do away with double occupancy residences. I had no problem with it. It was an eyesore and needed too much work to fix up, so I demolished it.

Mr. Squires asked the applicant if in the event he got the variance he planned on removing the existing 10’ x 12’ shed, and Mr. Sharkey responded that he did not. Mr. Borden asked if he would consider removing it. Mr. Sharkey answered if it meant getting a variance, maybe, but I still would have to store all my lawn equipment with all my cars, and the kids’ bikes. I want to keep my lawn equipment separate from my cars.

Mr. Borden responded we understand that, but you are over the limit by 196 s.f. Mr. Sharkey said may I ask why other people in the City have been able to build the same garage with sheds? Mr. Borden responded I don’t know what other people you are referring to. Mr. Sharkey stated that these plans are the same plans that a friend of mine built the same garage in the City of Springdale with a shed just as big as mind.

Mr. Borden stated that we consider each property individually, so each case is different. I don’t recall the property you are referring to.

Mr. Wilson asked if his friend built the garage in the last five or six years. Mr. Sharkey indicated that it was. Mr. Wilson said if there was a comparable garage built in Springdale five years ago and the zoning change came two years ago, anything prior to that would have been grandfathered. These were built prior to the zoning change, and we have to deal with what is current. That is our dilemma.

We would really like to work with you, but we have a challenge here. If on a blanket approval we approve your shed as stated, 896 s.f., everyone in Springdale could request the same thing and we would have to approve it. If we approved this as is, we would be setting a precedent. My question to you is, is there any way you can downsize it?. Is there any way that you can rearrange this so you could eliminate your shed and use this building for everything?

In other words, what are you willing to do to work with us? Do you have any ideas of what you possibly could do to work with us as opposed to us trying to approve it as is? You are entitled to a 10’ x 12’ shed, but an 896 s.f. garage is over by 196 feet. Have you and your wife talked about that and given yourselves an alternative? Is there any way we can work it out?

Mr. Sharkey responded I have not looked at any alternatives because I have seen what other people have done in the City in the last couple of years. Mr. Wilson responded that was before the zoning change.

Mr. Sharkey said if I downsize my garage, can I put a lean-to on the back of it where it is covered and where I can store stuff underneath it? Would you allow that? It would be covered with asphalt shingles.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE SEVEN

VIII C JEROME SHARKEY, 746 WEST KEMPER – 32’ X 28’ 3-CAR GARAGE

Mr. Borden wondered how big of a lean-to he wanted. Mr. Sharkey answered at this point I don’t know. Off the top of my head I don’t know. Mr. Borden continued because right now what you are asking for is over 1,000 s.f. of storage on your property, the 896 s.f. for the garage, and the 120 s.f. for the shed you currently have.

Mr. Lohbeck said the variance is for a garage, not a shed. The shed is there and there is no problem with that. The garage is what we are dealing with. If he wants to put up a lean-to, it would be just like a storage shed. Mr. Borden said and that would be two sheds on the property.

Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mr. Squires said I want to agree with you that we are looking at a variance for a garage only. The shed is irrelevant. It is there; it is the applicant’s and it doesn’t figure into this.

Mrs. Huber said there is an existing concrete floor I suspect where there was a two-car garage at that time with the apartment above Mr. Sharkey answered that it was a three-car garage.

Mr. Squires said I believe Mr. Lohbeck said earlier that there are kits available that are 768 s.f. Mr. Sharkey asked if that were for a three-car garage, and Mr. Lohbeck stated that it was.

Mr. Squires asked if the applicant had made any attempt to study this at all? Would you be willing to sit down with our building representatives and study this to see if you could get by with that? Mr. Sharkey responded at this point I have not. Mr. Squires asked if he would be willing to do it.

Mr. Sharkey answered from the sounds of it, you are not going to grant my variance. Mr. Squires responded I don’t know that. Right now I don’t even know how I stand on it, to be fair with you. Seven hundred and sixty-eight square feet is still 68 square feet over the limit that we have, but if you could live with that, I have a feeling that some of the other board members could live with that also. I don’t know.

Mr. Sharkey said I guess I could. Mr. Squires asked if he were saying that to agree with him and be nice or did he think he could. Mr. Sharkey responded actually, I don’t think I could live with it. Mr. Squires said I appreciate your candor.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Wilson said if the variance is denied, it would be six months before you could come before us again. If we tabled this at your request, that would give you an opportunity to sit down with the Building Department with other plans or with what he has, and see if you can live with something between what you want and the City might approve. It would be a lot easier to approve 80 some odd feet over than 160 or 190 feet over. All I am asking sir is if you are willing to sit down and look at the plan that the Building Department has, the 768 s.f. and between you and the Building Department arrive at something that would be agreeable to both you and the city.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE EIGHT

VIII C JEROME SHARKEY, 746 WEST KEMPER – 32’ X 28’ 3-CAR GARAGE

Mr. Wilson added that you could then come back next month and I would say you would have a much better chance of getting your variance than you would tonight. The gut feel I have here is that it may be denied. You want the garage up, and six months is a long time. That is winter. That would mean construction in the wintertime if it was approved and if you didn’t change it, it could very well be disapproved again. Now we are talking July. This is your call. You can ask us to vote and get it over with and you would have your answer. Or you can request the board to table this and talk to the building department to see if you can come up with a compromise that would be satisfactory to you and to the City. You could come back next month and say this is what we agreed upon. I feel that you would have a better chance getting a smaller building approved than you would this 896 s.f. building. I am speaking for myself. I am speaking in terms of what I can feel here as I am sure you can, but it is your call. Whatever you would like to do.

Mr. Sharkey said so I either have you vote tonight and you tell me yes or no, and if it is no, I have to wait six months. Mr. Sharkey said do I have to wait six months even for a two-car garage? Mr. Wilson said no, if you decided to go with a two-car garage and it is less than 700 s.f….

Mr. Sharkey said my wife and I talked about it last night, and she is serious and I am serious about it too; I will move out of the City. Mr. Wilson responded I understand sir; that is your option. If you want to go with a two-car garage, under 700 s.f., you don’t even have to come back. It is your call, sir.

Mr. Sharkey said just take your vote; that is fine, and he left the podium. Mr. Borden asked him to come back to the podium. Mr. Sharkey did saying that his name was Sharkey, not Starkey..

Mr. Squires said I am sorry; I apologize for that. You don’t think you could live with the 768 s.f. at all.

Mr. Sharkey answered honestly, no. I have a toolbox that is three foot deep. When you pull the drawers out, it is that much further deep. If you have three cars in the garage, I wouldn’t be able to get in my toolbox practically. I want to have room to walk around my cars without damaging my cars with bicycles, lawn equipment, and open toolboxes.

Mr. Squires asked how much equipment he would move up from Louisville. Mr. Sharkey answered it is furniture, and it won’t fit in my house but belongs to my wife’s parents and her grandmother. It is not a lot of stuff but it needs to be re finished. It can’t go in my house the way it is. I don’t have any place to store it in my house and it won’t fit down my basement steps. It has to go either in a storage unit or in a garage. It might be seven pieces of furniture, but they are big pieces of antique furniture.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE NINE

VIII C JEROME SHARKEY, 746 WEST KEMPER – 32’ X 28’ 3-CAR GARAGE

Mr. Squires asked if he thought he could live with 800 s.f. Mr. Sharkey answered I don’t know how that would work with the square footage. I’m just throwing out some numbers. What I am really trying to do is to bring you back into line with what Mr. Wilson was suggesting. We really want to work with you to grant you a variance and to keep you happy and be fair with you. This board is not out to create a hardship on any citizen. We also have the codes that we must work with as well. It is true that not everybody in Springdale has a 377-foot long lot; you have a very large lot. Something over 700 s.f. possibly could be tolerated.

We are willing to work with you at length to keep you happy here and see if we can’t come to some agreement with what you could live with. The Board and I doesn’t want to see you walk out of here unhappy. We are not a punitive body; we never have been and I hope we never will be. We want to work with our citizens, and we are more than willing to work with you and the Mrs. Under the set of circumstances that you have, which are legitimate. You have a lot of things to store.

Mr. Sharkey said I want to bring up one point. When I bought this property seven years ago, you couldn’t see the house. You couldn’t see the storage shed at the back of it because it was so overgrown. I have had people who I don’t even know stop in front of my house and thank me for cleaning it up. There were trees against the house; the whole property was run down. I have done nothing but improve this property, and building this garage is doing nothing but raising my property value and my neighbor’s property value. I have pictures of what I had. It was an eyesore. It’s not there any more. (He showed the picture). He said had I known that it was going to be a problem to build a 28’ x 32’ garage, I would have kept what I had and fixed it. I would have kept that for the storage. A friend of mine within two years has built a garage identical to the plans, and the City approved it. Evidently the ordinance has been changed since he built his. Had I known that, I probably would have kept what I had.

Mr. Squires commented what you had before was a 816 s.f. which included a second floor. Mr. Sharkey said no; that was the garage only.

Mr. Wilson said I am looking at these pictures, and I am sure to repair this to the standard to which you are accustomed would have cost almost as much as a new one, which is the reason why you chose to tear it down. Unfortunately, you are in a situation where the zoning laws changed, and it put you in a dilemma. It puts us in a dilemma too because if we approve this, that opens Pandora’s Box. I want to open the door again and ask you if you will talk with the Building Department and see if there is some way where we can come to a happy medium. I don’t want our residents to leave the city with ill feelings because this is a beautiful city. I have been here 23 years and I wouldn’t live any place else.

Mr. Sharkey commented I have lived here longer than that.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE TEN

VIII C JEROME SHARKEY, 746 WEST KEMPER – 32’ X 28’ 3-CAR GARAGE

Mr. Wilson commented on the other hand, you have to understand that by approving this what we would be doing. I understand your friend built the same garage five years ago, but this is 2,001, and what was allowed five years ago is not allowed now. What was allowed 20 or 25 years ago is not allowed now.

Mr. Wilson added there was a time when you could put any kind of house on your property and get away with it. Now the zoning laws state that the house must be 2,000 s.f. and it must have a two-car garage. If you were to tear down your house today and wanted to build a smaller house, you couldn’t do it. If you wanted to build a house the same size, you couldn’t do it. The zoning laws we hope are for the betterment of the community.

If we allowed 896 s.f. every piece of property on Kemper Road that is close to your dimensions….Mr. Sharkey commented most of them already have them. Mr. Wilson responded a lot of them do, that is true, and a lot of them were built prior to the zoning change. All I am saying is give yourself an opportunity to see what the Building Department can do. Maybe there was something that was overlooked by us or you so we can come up with a compromise. I don’t want you to leave the City. You have been here longer than me. Mr. Sharkey said I have lived here all my life. Mr. Wilson said you have seen the changes then; you can remember the horses and the chickens and the dirt road. Mr. Sharkey responded I am not that old. Mr. Wilson said it wasn’t that long ago. Some of my friends told me that we had horses in Springdale. My point is that we have evolved as a city and the evolution meant changes, and not all of us like them. Fifty years ago I couldn’t have moved here; maybe 30 years ago I couldn’t have or Mr. Borden couldn’t have, but thank God things change. Now we are a diverse community and we are still growing in spite of that.

All I am saying sir is give us a chance to work with you. Mr. Sharkey responded I tried to work with the City before with the trees in my front yard. My trees were killed with construction, and I still have a dead tree in my yard two years later. I have tried to work with the City.

Mr. Wilson responded I wasn’t aware of that and I can ‘t address that. Mr. Sharkey answered it is a separate issue, but the City wants to work with me, and they didn’t work with me on my trees very well because it has been two years and I still have a dead tree, and two that are crooked that they replanted. So you want me to work with you, I have already had the City work with me, and what I have is one dead tree and two crooked trees, when I had 60-foot trees. That is working with the City?

Mr. Wilson answered unfortunately I can’t address the trees. That is not a zoning issue, but I understand where you are coming from. If you want a vote, that is what we will do. Mr. Sharkey said I suggest that you vote.

Mr. Borden said members; we need to move on this. I know this will be difficult, but we have to make a decision.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE ELEVEN

VIII C JEROME SHARKEY, 746 WEST KEMPER – 32’ X 28’ 3-CAR GARAGE

Mr. Wilson moved to deny the request based on the square footage. Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Squires and Mr. Borden. Voting nay were Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Apke and Mrs. Huber. There was a tie vote, and Mr. Borden announced that the motion to deny the request failed. There is no automatic approval, and because of the lack of a favorable vote, the request is denied.

 

  1. DISCUSSION
    1. Size of Utility Buildings

Mr. Borden said Mr. Okum originally brought this up for discussion (our requirement is 120 s.f.). There is a summary of what we have done in the past, and it appears that we have been granting several that are larger than that (several are 10’ x 16’). The idea was to look at this and make any comments as to whether we should change our code.

Mr. Squires said if we look at the last page of Anne McBride’s memorandum, it appears that a citizen can go to Home Depot or Lowe’s and get 140 s.f. kit right now. The largest unit, Sears, is 250 s.f, and 8’-10" high. I don’t think we would go that far, but I don’t have any problem with 140 s.f.

Mr. Squires commented we have approved so many that were larger than 120 s.f. Some of our lots are large and some are small, and I really think it depends on the size of the lot. Mrs. Huber agreed. Mr. Squires continued we can leave it the way it is and treat each request individually. Rather than ask for the code to be changed, I would like to leave it at 120 s.f. and consider each lot individually.

Mr. Wilson said my first question would be the standard sized shed that a person could buy. Ten by 12 or 10’ x 16’ is we normally see, and we have approved a number of 10’ x 16’ sheds. I even see one 220 s.f. pole barn, which was for a very big lot on West Kemper Road, which are very deep. We have made exceptions, and if we do our homework and find that the average shed that most of our residents buy is 10’ x 16’, maybe we would want to look at that. A suggestion would be is if we find out the most popular size shed, we could use that as a guide. These things are guides, and when individuals come in with requests for larger barns, we deal with them on an individual basis.

We probably need to look at whether or not we are going to continue to review three car garages. Years ago everyone had one car garage; now we have two car garages. Is the trend now three car garages? Normally a three-car garage is with a home worth $260,000 or more, usually in the newer developments. The standard is two.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE TWELVE

IX. A. SIZE OF UTILITY BUILDINGS

Mr. Wilson commented that 10’ x 12’ used to be the standard sized shed. Maybe we need to look at a 10’ x 16’ if that is the average being sold at Sears and Lowes. We can’t leave it open.

Mr. Borden said we have made exceptions in the past of granting 10’ x 16’ sheds. Do the exceptions warrant changing the code? Are there enough exceptions to change the code?

Mr. Wilson responded we have had two so far this year, one in the year 2,000 and 5 in 1999. Mr. Borden commented I would say that three or four a year is not enough to warrant changing the code, because these are exceptions. Mr. Wilson agreed with that.

Mr. Squires said 120 square feet in the existing code is fine. Some of our lots can easily take 160 s.f. or even 200 s.f. Mr. Sharkey’s lot could have taken a bigger shed had he requested one; it is 277 feet deep. Most of our lots don’t run anywhere near that. I would rather leave it the way it is, and consider each resident as a special case on its own merit and on its own hardship.

Mr. Borden agreed. Let’s give the 120 s.f. minimum a little more time, and see what happens.

Mr. Squires commented one of the things that we are faced with on this board is the fact that so many people will purchase larger sheds than allowed and start construction on it without a permit. Then they come to us and say we have to have this variance. That really puts us in a dilemma. We don’t want to have to make people tear things down. At the same time, we have to stick with what we have. One hundred twenty square feet is a pretty good-sized building. I’m not so sure my lot would take that, but there are plenty of lots around Springdale that would.

Mr. Apke said I agree for the most part, but I think the trend is towards the bigger buildings. I know that 8’ x 10’ was standard five or six years ago; now it is 10’ x 12’, and it is moving toward 10’ x 16’. I think we will see this type of request a lot more in the future. The other thing I want to point out is that in Ms. McBride’s memorandum, a lot of them are going by percentage of the rear yard area. We have the deep lots on Cedarhill and Kemper, but then you have the ones in Heritage Hill where they are very small. Maybe a percentage of the rear yard is a better measure. Mrs. Huber said then nobody in Heritage Hill would ever have a barn. Mr. Apke added according to this, it seems like the neighboring communities, for better or worse, seem to allow about twice as much space. A few of them are up around 35% where we are at 18% and quite a few are around 500 s.f. where we are only at 120 s.f.

Mr. Borden commented the other thing I noticed is that in Springdale, we allow only one shed. We really can’t tell, but they may allow more than one.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JULY 2001

PAGE THIRTEEN

IX. A. SIZE OF UTILITY BUILDINGS

Mr. Apke said having said that, I probably would agree that we should stay with 10’ x 12’ minimum. I don’t think it warrants a change because there are not enough exceptions.

Mr. Borden said we will have to stay on top of that and monitor it.

  1. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________,2001 ________________________

Fred Borden, Acting Chairman

 

 

_____________________,2001 __________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary