BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

7:00 P.M.

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

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

    Marjorie Pollitt, Councilman James Squires,

    Robert Weidlich, Jane Huber and Chairman

    Okum.

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck Ė Inspection Supervisor

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 20 AUGUST 2002
  7. Mr. Squires moved to approve and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.

  8. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 13 August 2002
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities Ė James Squires

Mr. Squires reported that the construction of the grade separation of S.R. 747 and the CSX Railroad Crossing will begin in 2003 and it will be approximately two years. Council authorized sale of $5,900,000 in general obligation bonds for the community center expansion. It is a very good deal for the City because of the current interest rates. We will continue to retire a million dollars a year, so it will be 10-12 years. We had the first reading on the CVS rezoning ordinances. We authorized the appropriation of property for the Urban Renewal Plan on Route 4 south from the Nazarene church to the veterinary hospital. That will eventually be occupied by a senior citizens home.

B. Report on Planning Commission Ė David Okum

Mr. Okum reported that the Conditional Use Permit for the Nazarene Church to have a non-residential driveway in a residential district was approved with 11 issues of control attached. As part of this, approval of the West Sharon Road access was granted. Elevation changes for Ruby Tuesday at Tri-County Mall was granted. They were face changes with adjustments to the façade. A Christmas Tree Lot at Tri-County Mall (by Penneyís) was approved for 30 days. We reviewed a translucent illuminated awning at Dollar Tree, 90 West Kemper Road with a sign on it. We approved the awning without signage and allowed the signage on the awning to be on the building with individually lit letters. On the submission there was a "Future Retail" where the garden area was, and that was removed.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE TWO

Vi B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION Ė DAVD OKUM

Mrs. Huber asked if the Nazarene Church roadway involved the house and garage on the property that was before us a few years ago? Mr. Okum answered that it was, and both will be razed. That gentleman did speak in opposition to the driveway. The police department reviewed it for sight distance and traffic issues, and they did not see any problem with it. It only will be used for high peak periods when it is really needed.

Mr. Squires said I neglected to report that we installed three additional police officers; we are up to 37 police officers, and our goal is 40. This is a fine police department. Council is extremely proud of the job that they do, and the quality of the officers that we installed speaks volumes of our qualifications.

  1. CHAIRMANíS STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  2.  

  3. OLD BUSINESS
  4. NEW BUSINESS

Chris Shaver, 269 West Kemper Road requests a variance to allow the construction of a 1,252 s.f. garage. Said variance is requested from Section 1534.,075 which permits up to a 700 s.f. garage.

Chris Shaver stated last time I was here, I didnít do a very good job of laying out my plan and there was some misunderstanding of the actual square footage. Tonight I am presenting 1211 s.f. inside dimensions; you have it as 1252 s.f. outside dimension. It shows the work area and stairs and hallway leading up to the top of the garage, which will be a bedroom.

Mr. Okum said you withdrew this at the last meeting and for the benefit of the record, you should consider it a new request. Therefore, you should express the reasons you need this.

Mr. Shaver responded that at the present time I have six cars. This is an oversized four-car garage with four separate doors. I have classic cars; my girlfriend has a car, which actually gives us seven cars. They wonít all be in this four-car garage. My house was built in the 1950ís and is a small house. The bedrooms are small and there is no closet space. I plan on building a master bedroom and bath above the garage with a walk in closet. Weíll actually lose one bedroom because of the entrance to the upstairs. The whole garage will be brick with a double window dormer on the east side. The garage will run perpendicular to Kemper Road, come off the west corner of my house and run back. So you might be able to see one, maybe two of the doors from Kemper Road. I need the space; I have two children. My boy has a little motorcycle, bicycles; you never can have too much storage room. Right now I donít own a lawnmower because I donít have a place to put it. I have a detached one-car garage and have my car and my boyís motorcycle in there. Iíll take that down, the driveway will stay there and itíll wrap around the back.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE THREE

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

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

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the drawings submitted on August 20th meeting showed an addition to his residence and included a 1690 s.f. garage. At that meeting he withdrew his request. BZA needs to make a determination whether or not to hear and act on a new request. The applicant submitted a floor plan similar to the original application. The following items were not submitted:

    1. A new application;
    2. A site plan
    3. Elevation drawings.

Should BZA decide to hear a new request, it should be clarified that the site plan and elevations are as submitted with the August application. Assuming that the elevation drawings and site plan are as submitted for the August meeting, comments are as follows:

The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a two-story addition to his residence, which includes a 1252 s.f. garage (area is determined from outside dimensions). Section 153.075 (B) permits up to a 700 s.f. garage. The proposed setbacks meet the Zoning Code requirements. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing detached garage. The proposed garage is a four-car garage with a floor area equal to approximately 75% of both floors of the existing residence.

The floor plan is basically the same as submitted last month, but with a workshop area 440 s.f. separated from the garage by a partition wall. It should be clarified that any new driveway is required to be paved, and that the Zoning Code prohibits automotive repair as a home occupation.

Mr. Okum said there are two things here before us. We have had a presentation by an applicant that is already on the agenda, so we went ahead and heard the testimony. Since the applicant had withdrawn the request last month, I felt it should go to this point and we could make a decision. If we are going to continue this as a new request, we probably would need a motion to incorporate the evidence presented at the last meeting as part of this discussion so it is a part of the decision making. I am a little confused as to why there is not a new application. Mrs. Webb said that is because I told him he didnít have to fill one out.

Mr. Okum said we will consider it the way it is unless someone on the board feels that we should not hear it. No one objected to this.

Mr. Okum said so we will need a motion to incorporate into this submission the site plan, the elevation drawings and the application that was submitted at the last meeting. Mrs. Pollitt moved to accept into the hearing the site plan, elevation drawing and the application from the August 2002 BZA meeting so we can discuss the application. Mrs. Huber seconded the motion and by voice vote all voted aye.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE FOUR

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

Mrs. Pollitt said it appears that you have broken the space down into a woodshop. Mr. Shaver answered it is supposed to be a workshop. Mrs. Pollitt said so you have put a partition there to take 9í-4" and incorporate that into a workshop so it takes away from the square footage of the garage. Mr. Shaver answered that was Mr. Okumís suggestion last time.

Mrs. Pollitt asked what he would use the workshop for and Mr. Shaver answered nothing in particular; maybe storage.

Mrs. Pollitt commented I really am concerned about the length of this thing. It is terribly long; if you decided to not use that as a workshop, since you really donít know what you are going to do with it, that 9í-4" could almost house a car.

Mr. Shaver responded actually you could put a car in there, but there will be a wall there. Mrs. Pollitt answered I am concerned about the actual space. Mr. Shaver said it is basically space for upstairs. Mrs. Pollitt said you have quite a bit of square footage there. I am still seeing a really large footprint.

Mr. Shaver answered if I cut down on that side on that, it cuts down on my living quarters upstairs. The top of the garage will only be 14 feet wide by 50 to 55 feet down the center of the garage because of the trusses.

Mrs. Pollitt said if you came to the board saying that you needed living space, bathrooms, bedrooms, and a playroom that would have a whole different purpose from what we are doing here. I still have a little bit of a problem with the length of this.

Mr. Squires said do those six cars include your fatherís car and your girlfriendís car? Mr. Shaver answered I have a Ď46 Ford and a í67 convertible, his car, my girlfriendís car inside and I would park my everyday car parked outside

One of the things we look for is hardship. As your application is submitted here, storing your girlfriendís car or your fatherís car is going to press the issue of hardship. Mr. Shaver said Iím not storing my girlfriendís car; she lives there. Mr. Squires said then it is the issue of storing your fatherís car; it is really pushing the issue of hardship a little bit.

Mr. Okum asked the width of the sidewalk. Mr. Shaver answered it is around 25í and Mr. Squires reported that it is 24í-6" here. Mr. Okum commented even if it were a 3-car garage with workshop, we canít control the workshop. It would be an addition on the home and not a part of the variance. When I looked at the drawing, I thought I understood what was occurring there, but I didnít know.

Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mr. Okum asked if that is a workshop, typically there is a floor level change between an occupied space and a garage, is that correct? Mr. Lohbeck answered most of the time, but it is not necessary for the workshop.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE FIVE

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

Mr. Okum asked why he didnít want to have a garage door that close to the home. Mr. Shaver answered I would like to have some kind of grass. I donít want to have from the house out just sidewalk and concrete.

Mr. Okum commented there will be so much shadowed there, I donít think you will get a lot of grass growing. Mr. Shaver answered it grows there now. Mr. Okum responded that you would be putting a structure in that would create a dead area. Also, you understand that if you were to do this, along with this there will be an asphalt surface to take up the whole area of your yard. Mr. Shaver answered I plan on doing the whole driveway in concrete; I donít care for asphalt.

Mr. Okum commented that 65 feet is almost three times the width of the existing house. I also have a real hard time justifying this four-car garage. I have difficulty seeing anything different from Mr. Shaver than the person next door or the person next door to that.

I think there is proportional reasoning that has to be considered. We are talking a bowling alley for this upper space. Can you envision 65 feet x 14 feet? If you are putting a master bedroom in there, the bedroom would be 14 feet x 20 feet? What will you do with the remaining 45 feet, closets, and bathroom? I just canít justify in my mind the need for 65 feet. When you are doing attic trusses, you wonít use them all the way across, and I just canít see 65 feet of living space. If you did it would be a marvelous storage area, but you are going to want windows on the rear side. Mr. Shaver said he was planning windows on the dormer, but there might be some on the west side. I havenít spent a lot of time planing this out, because I didnít want to spend money until I knew I could build it.

Mr. Shaver added I definitely would like to have my four-car garage. I canít get rid of the staircase; that has to be there to get upstairs. Some of that workshop needs to be there. I plan to have a separate furnace for that area. The garage will be heated. My furnace in the old house doesnít heat the upstairs; it is hot in the summer and cold in the winter no matter what I do to it. I need another furnace and another air conditioner.

Addressing Mr. Okum, Mrs. Pollitt said if the workshop is not a part of what we are looking at, then neither is the living space that will be created above. Mr. Okum confirmed that, adding that the reasoning for the size the applicant wants was to put a master bedroom up there and space to accommodate that.

Mrs. Pollitt added I was looking at the roofline. Have you thought of doing a different type of roof so you will get more living space for your money? Mr. Shaver answered then I would be even more above the existing house; it already will be a couple of feet above the house and it is more money. I donít want to put more money in this house than I will get out of it. Mrs. Pollitt commented you would never get the money out of those garages. Mr. Shaver answered I donít plan on leaving. I have lived in Springdale my whole life.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE SIX

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

Mrs. Pollitt commented I could justify that large a footprint if you were getting more of a living space on the second floor.

Mr. Shaver said I drove around for an hour before I came here looking at four or five new garages. There are a lot of three car garages with extra doors that face Kemper Road. None of them are brick; they are all siding, basically cheap garages. One of the garages was bigger than the existing house in front of it. It has one existing double door and you could put another one on it; it has to be at least a 1,000 s.f. garage. It is a pole barn, a $20,000 garage with a shed between it and the house, and the house probably isnít 30í x 25í.

I understand what everybody is trying to say here, but Iím putting $60,000 or $70,000 in my existing house to make it look better. I could be asking to build a pole barn in my back yard that would make it look even worse with the driveway 200 feet back. I am having a hard time trying to figure out what you want me to say. I just want a four-car garage; thatís all I want. I donít think I am asking for the world, and in the meantime I will get rid of one bedroom and get a master bedroom that I can actually live in. It is hard to live in a 12í x 12í square with no closet.

Mr. Okum said I can understand your feeling about the bedroom area, and having worked in the construction industry most of my life, I realize the type of interior room dimensions that you have in your existing home. That is why 65í x 14í or 50í x 14í doesnít make a whole lot of difference. When you make it that long, it really doesnít benefit. It ends up as either attic or storage or closet. It doesnít really work itself into a layout for space.

I can sympathize with you and I understand that there is a situation in your existing home that you have a very limited amount of living space. I think you can accomplish that as well with a three-car garage with a storage area or a workshop. I am having a hard time justifying the need for a four-car garage. I donít see the hardship here.

What goes for you goes for everybody. Certainly I understand your position. You are making the request with the condition that it would be all masonry. On the other hand, we have to consider what other people would be asking for. I brought this up at Planning Commission last week, because it seems like the oversize garage is a trend. Seven hundred square feet is a little limiting for extremely large lots and 700 square feet is bigger than some of the homes in our community. I am having a difficult time justifying the need for that length. Sixty-five feet is long proportionally to the side of the house, in addition to the issue of it being a four-car garage.

I think your position is that you could build a three car garage in the back of your property, run a driveway back to it and have a 700 s.f. garage. You are asking for a 1252 s.f. garage now. The problem is the way it is all packaged.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE SEVEN

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

Mr. Okum added that we are talking about a 65-foot addition onto your home, which would accommodate a four-car garage and a shop. I understand that part of that we canít look at as garage, but the package still is putting a 65-foot addition onto your home, and that makes it very difficult to justify. I see a lot of homes with three- car garages. I can understand a three-car garage with additional space, like a workshop or storage area.

Mr. Okum added that I think it is a combined situation, a 65-foot addition onto the home to accommodate a four-car garage.

Mr. Shaver responded so it is actually the four-car garage. I can get four cars in a 1,000 s.f. garage like the guy down the street from me. He has about five cars in his garage. Where I work, we have three garage doors, and we get about eight cars in there. Iíd like four doors for access to get my cars in and out. There are four car garages in Springdale; I have a picture of one here. I donít know when it was built, but it actually has four doors on it, and itís parallel to the road so everybody sees it. Nobody is going to see mine; they would be able to see maybe two doors.

Mr. Okum said it is the combination of the 65 feet and the four-car garage. It is not just the issue of a four-car garage. We are talking 1,252 s.f. for the garage space. The problem is that it becomes a 65-foot addition onto the home.

Mr. Shaver responded my point is that if it were just an addition, I wouldnít even need to be here. What is it Ė the length or he garage? I need to know what the problem is.

Mr. Okum answered Mrs. Pollitt said it very clearly. It is the expanse of the space, 65 feet. It is a big footprint.

Mrs. Huber said I will not speak because of my connection with the applicant.

Concerning the picture, Mr. Okum asked where in Springdale it is. Mr. Shaver answered that it is 732 West Kemper. There are two garages that were built in the last two or three years, and they have gravel driveways to them. They are three car garages with additions on the side. They are oversized three car garages and you could get four cars in them. I have more pictures here if you ant to see them. I donít think I am asking for a whole lot here, considering that from the back of my garage to the back of my lot would be 300 feet.

Mr. Okum said the expanse of the garage in the picture is approximately 50 feet long, or 1,000 s.f. If it is 24 feet deep, it is 1,020 s.f.

Mr. Shaver added since the last meeting I have had three neighbors ask me when I was going to build my addition. I told them I wasnít allowed and they asked why. They asked if anyone was here to complain and there wasnít.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE EIGHT

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

The members looked at Mr. Shaverís pictures. One picture showed the garage at 233 West Kemper with two overhead doors, less than 50 feet.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Shaver the depth of his lot, and Mr. Shaver reported that it is 80í x 460í.

Mrs. Pollitt said I would like to see a compromise reached, because I do feel that you are trying to do something that will enhance your living quarters. Have you thought about a garage that would have the two double doors, which would take away some of the space in between, would shorten the garage area up, and you would still get your workshop.

Mr. Shaver responded if we are going to talk about losing five or six feet, I would rather take it out of the workshop area. I would rather have the four doors. At this point, I just want a garage; that is all I want.

Mrs. Pollitt added I was looking at this roofline also. That might be something to take your eye away from so much of the length. That also would take away from the bowling alley appearance of the upper floor. Mr. Shaver said so you are saying cut down the back part of it? Mrs. Pollitt answered possibly. If you want what you are looking for, you need to do some compromising on that length.

Mr. Shaver responded I would rather keep the four doors and lose some work area. If we cut it down, that would shorten the length of the building, if that is what we want to do. Mrs. Pollitt responded the work area is not an issue; we are only allowed to look at the garage.

Mr. Squires said it seems to be the 65 feet is the part that the board would like to see compromised. Could you live with less than 65í? Mr. Shaver said how much do you want me to lose, 5 feet, 6 feet? If we knocked it down to 60 feet, that would be fine.

Mr. Okum said I am trying to think of a way to get rid of that 65-foot look. You have suggested going from 65 to 60, but you wouldnít notice much difference. Have you thought of coming out from the house 27 feet and angularly going towards the center of your rear lot and come across towards your existing garage? I know you want to see out your back, but that would pull it away from the property line and move it toward the middle. You would gain much more space upstairs.

Mr. Shaver answered we thought of that, but I wouldnít be able to see my back yard. I would like to walk out my back door and look all the way to the end of my property line and see whatís in my back yard. I could have somebody break into the back of my garage and I wouldnít know it. I have thought of all kinds of ways to do this; I thought of building a 700 s.f. attached garage and going to the back and building another garage, but it gets too expensive.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE NINE

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

Mr. Okum said if you would make the extension on your house not to exceed 57 feet from the house line, you would have to go to two double overhead doors to make it work, but you could get your workshop space in. You might be able to do one double door and two singles on it and accomplish it with a 57-foot addition. That would bring you down to under a 1,000 s.f. garage.

Mr. Shaver said so what would the actual length be? Mr. Okum responded I came up with not to exceed 57 feet. The garage could be any way you want to make it, as long as it didnít exceed 1,000 s.f. and the extension of your home not to exceed 57 feet in length. Fifty-seven feet would give him enough room for a workshop and two 16-foot overhead doors and space between the cars. I think it would work. So my recommendation would be if there is a compromise on this board, I think it would be reasonable to grant a not to exceed 57-foot extension onto the existing dwelling and a depth not to exceed 26 feet. The applicant has volunteered to make it an all masonry structure and 1,000 s.f. of garage space.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shaver if he felt he could make that work. Mr. Shaver said if I had to. What would the dimension be if I used a double and two single doors? Mr. Borden calculated it to be 1,118 s.f. Mr. Shaver responded I could live with that. That is a compromise.

Mr. Okum commented that is pretty close to what you are asking. Do you need 26 feet deep? Mr. Shaver responded if I took away from that, it would really cut down on the living area. Mr. Okum said it depends on the pitch that you put on the truss.

Mr. Shaver said I was asking for 1252 and you said 1,000 and then 1,118; that is a heck of a compromise; right in the middle.

Mrs. Pollitt moved to grant a variance for the addition of a not to exceed 57-foot addition with a not to exceed 26-foot depth. It would be a masonry structure that would include a 1,118 s.f. garage.

Mr. Squires said for clarification, are we talking about four single doors or two double doors? Mr. Okum said it doesnít matter. As long as the garage is under 1,118 square feet and the addition does not exceed 57 feet in length and 26 feet in depth.

Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Mr. Borden asked that the motion be restated for clarity.

Mr. Okum stated that the motion was to allow the construction of an addition onto the dwelling to accommodate a not to exceed 1118 s.f. garage. That addition shall not exceed 57 feet in length from the rear of the home and shall not exceed 26 feet in depth across the back of the property, and it shall be masonry.

Mr. Borden asked if the motion needed to include that the driveway as to be paved. Mr. Okum said that should be a part of the motion.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE TEN

IX A CHRIS SHAVER 269 WEST KEMPER 1,252 S.F. GARAGE

Mr. Borden moved to include that in the motion and Mrs. Pollitt seconded the motion.

By voice vote all voted aye and the motion was amended.

Mr. Squires wondered if it were necessary to include the fact that the Zoning Code prohibits automotive repairs as a home occupation, since this is a four-car garage. Mr. Lohbeck answered that it is not necessary; they just canít do it.

On the motion to grant the variance, all voted aye except Mrs. Huber who abstained and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Jeff Martin, 479 Dimmick Avenue requests variance to allow a shed to be constructed at the corner of the lot. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(D) "shall be at least 5 feet from the side and rear lot lines.."

Mr. Martin said before applying for the variance and finding out about the rule that the shed be 5 feet off the property line, the shed started collapsing, so I tore it down. I am asking for a variance to put an 8í x 10í vinyl shed in the location of the previous shed. If I had to place it five feet from both property lines, I would be cutting into my kidsí play area and would have five feet of wasted space on the side towards the residence. The other five feet would be coming out from the existing woodpile. I was putting it in the same location to keep my yard the same for the kids to play in.

Mr. Okum asked if he had replaced it, and Mr. Martin said no. Mr. Okum asked if there was a concrete pad or a foundation there, and Mr. Martin indicated that there was not, adding that it was on a plywood form.

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

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the 8í x 10í utility building would be placed in the southwest corner of the applicantís property directly adjacent to the rear and side property lines. Section 153.492 (D) requires that accessory structures be located at least five feet from the side and rear lot lines. The applicant indicates that the proposed building will replace an existing one in the same location.

Our records did not show a permit or variance for the current shed, and it must be considered a non-conforming use. Section 153.543 of the Zoning Code requires that the replacement of a non-conforming structure must comply with the Zoning Code.

The applicant does not show any physical or geometric conditions on his lot that would preclude the placement of the building and compliance with the code (question #1). The applicant states that complying with the setback requirements would reduce the area available for children to play (question #2). If this is a valid argument, it would be true for everyone in Springdale, and thus the Zoning Code should be changed to allow 0 setbacks.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE ELEVEN

IX B JEFF MARTIN 479 DIMMICK Ė SHED AT CORNER OF LOT

Mr. Squires said it looks like you had it set up to build adjacent to the property line. Mr. Martin responded some of my neighbors received their letters and walked down to see what was going on, so I put up a generic form to show them the dimensions and where it would be. It actually would be 1 foot off the back and 1-Ĺ feet off the sideline.

Mr. Squires added I noticed that your children have a tree house swing set which is quite large. In your application you stated, "The denial of my request would prevent me from reasonable use of my property. I would have to place the new shed towards the middle of my yard which would then cut into my childrenís playing area." Itís going to cut into it some, but itís going into cut into it at most about 90 s.f. and you have a pretty good-sized yard there.

Mr. Martin said the pine tree hangs over and limits doing anything in that whole half of the yard unless we took the pine tree down. Mr. Squires commented we wouldnít want you to do that.

Mr. Squires asked if the shed could be moved and be within code requirements and not affect your use that much. There is nothing topographical about your lot that would prevent it from being moved to five feet from the lines. In BZA it is up to the applicant to prove to us that this is the case, and it must be the case because of hardship, among other things.

Mr. Martin responded that the shed was there and I would like to have the new shed there to not come out any more than it had to be, with no wasted space on the side of the shed.

Mrs. Huber said it seems like your children have adequate play area. You would not be flush with the existing fencing and we are concerned about grass and weeds in that area where there would be no access to handle it. Mr. Martin responded with the shed that was there, there were no grass or weeds.

Mrs. Huber said I donít see that you have any real handicap to put the shed five feet away from the lines and still have adequate room for your children.

Mr. Okum said one of the reason that the code is written this way is for logistical access to all four sides of the shed. From the CAGIS drawing, we received showing the existing shed, there are a couple of extra lines on there. It might be that they werenít sure where the property line was when they drew it. The one line where the shed is against (483), if the property lines are where CAGIS shows it is, or the fence, the shed might already be off the property line the required 5 feet. Mr. Okum gave Mr. Martin a copy of the CAGIS drawing, saying that there is an extra line between your two properties and we donít know what it is. According to this drawing, the existing shed does not appear on that line.

Mr. Okum said based on your lot size and the space that is available, I donít believe the five foot requirement would mean a hindrance to you or that there would be an issue that would make it necessary for you to keep it closer to the property line.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE TWELVE

IX B JEFF MARTIN 479 DIMMICK Ė SHED AT CORNER OF LOT

Mr. Okum added that if you have an opportunity to bring it in, now is the time to do it. If you look at the CAGIS drawing, it shows the adjacent propertyís shed, and I believe that is correct. Their shed is off the property line

Mr. Martin responded it is somewhat off; I donít believe it is 5 feet. Mr. Okum added I would have to concur with the comments I have heard. I believe you can make it work, and I would be voting in opposition to your request.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Martin if he had a lot survey on his property recently. Mr. Martin said no. Mr. Squires suggested that he do that before he puts the shed up and have it five feet from the line. You may be closer than you think you are.

Mr. Martin asked for a surveyorís name. Mr. Squires said there are surveyors listed in the yellow pages. Mr. Okum said there is a firm north of Springdale named Duffy on Duff Drive which has done a lot of work in Springdale.

Mr. Borden said I stopped by your property, and I have to agree with my colleagues. I think you can make it work at five feet.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you have heard the comments from the board; do you want to withdraw your request? Mr. Martin agreed to withdraw the request. Mr. Okum said you are required to have the shed 5 feet from your property line. If the survey is done and the fence is in on the other personís property and there is a five-foot gap of your space, you may want to resubmit since that would be an unusual topographical issue because the fence would be in the wrong place.

Mr. Okum said let the record show that the applicant has requested to withdraw his request for his variance.

C. James Grieshop, 299 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 32í x 60í x 18jí garage at 291 West Kemper Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(B) "The garage shall have..a maximum floor area of 700 s.f."

James Grieshop said I reside at 299 West Kemper Road and would like to construct this garage at 291, which is a rental property next to where I reside.

We have a garage on that property right now, which is a basement type with a door going into the basement. We have been fighting water there ever since I have owned the property. I did install a trench type drain across the front of the door and it helped, but it wonít solve the problem. The water rushes down there so quickly that the door itself is deteriorating. It is going into the basement, and we canít use the basement for anything other than a laundry facility. There is a floor drain in the basement, and it does go out the floor drain, but the floor is wet constantly. Structural damage was done because of the water coming down through there.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE THIRTEEN

IX C JAMES GRIESHOP 32í X 60í X 18í GARAGE AT 291 W. KEMPER

Mr. Grieshop said I would like to put his structure up and eliminate that garage all together. I want to make it bigger than a normal garage because I also have things that I would like to store. I have several historical vehicles, a big camper (the reason for the height of the garage), and get things out of the driveway.

It will not be used for anything other than storage and a garage for the tenants who live there and storage of some things that I have.

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 construct a six-car 32í x 60í x 18í high 1920 s.f. detached garage on a residential property he owns adjacent to his residence. Section 153.075 (B) of the Zoning Code restricts garages to a maximum of 700 s.f. in area. Section 153.073(B) restricts the height of accessory structures to 16 feet.

The applicantís description of the problems with the existing garage has no bearing on the request before BZA for an oversized garage. It only substantiates an alternative solution to the problem by constructing a detached garage. The applicant expressed that it is needed to house a travel trailer, a boat and several historical vehicles.

The BZA granted a variance to the owner for an oversized garage on the adjacent property where he resides, 299 West Kemper. The variance is for 1144 s.f. garage, granted 8/18/92. If both of these garages are to be used by the owner, he will have 3,064 s.f. of total garage area, which will accommodate nine vehicles.

An accessory structure on a residential property is expected to be accessory to the residence on the property. If the use is not accessory to the residence on the property, then it becomes an off site storage facility for the ownerís many vehicles and a true hardship is questionable.

Mr. Okum said we are looking at a structure that the wall section is 13í-3" off the ground. In order to get that size of a garage, the peak will push it up to 18í unless they put a flat roof on it. It is very important that we understand the reason for the 18í versus 16í, but we are still talking wall sections of 13í-3" average on two sides of it.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if he were familiar with the variance granted for 1144 s.f. for the property where you live? Mr. Grieshop answered yes, I got that variance in 1992 and built that garage. Mr. Okum said you have indicated that you want to put more storage on this other property.

Mr. Grieshop added we want to put the garage next door because of the water problems that we are having and we would like to make it a little bigger and house some more things.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE FOURTEEN

IX C JAMES GRIESHOP 32í X 60í X 18í GARAGE AT 291 W. KEMPER

Mr. Weidlich wondered where the trailer, boat and historical vehicles are now. Mr. Grieshop answered that the trailer is setting in the driveway at 299 where I reside. The boat is stored at my dadís house and the car is in a storage facility. I have a í76 Ford pickup that also sets in the driveway. I also have another smaller camper that I put behind the garage. I am trying to clean things up and get them inside where they are more protected.

Mr. Weidlich asked how many garage spaces the tenant would use and Mr. Grieshop answered that they would have the two car double door in the front. Mr. Weidlich commented and the other four would be for your personal use, and Mr. Grieshop responded yes, they are all behind it. Mr. Weidlich said you are showing a double door and a single door on the front, and three down the side.

Mrs. Pollitt said so this will have five garage doors? Thatís an awful lot of doors. Mr. Grieshop said the double door and single door face the street, and the other three will face the west, toward my residence.

Mr. Okum said when you presented your request in 1992 and you presented your hardship with storage, werenít some of the items you have indicated here this evening the same items you requested a variance for in 1992?

Mr. Grieshop said I donít remember discussing anything about hardships. We had a very nice size lot and we wanted to put a bigger garage on it. Mr. Okum said you didnít mention the placement of three cars and a boat in that garage? Mr. Grieshop answered no, I guess that wasnít an issue then. It has become more of an issue now. I have accumulated more things; they are scattered everywhere and setting outside and I want to put them away. I want to try to accomplish two things at once, by also giving the garage to the property next door and eliminate my structural water problems.

Mr. Okum commented I have no problem with the adjacent property having the 700 s.f. garage, which is what the code allows. Currently there is a single car garage beneath the building. Seven hundred square feet is significantly more garage space for that property. You are not going to own that property forever, and variances do go with the land and the ownership of the land. I cannot in any way support the request for this variance based on the information that has been presented.

There are issues to deal with regarding size and mass. This is not even incorporating a structure into your structure; this is a big pole barn type building added onto your lot. I did not get a CAGIS drawing. What is the depth of your lot? Mr. Grieshop answered 407. Mr. Okum commented we cannot see where the other properties are in conjunction with that and it makes it difficult. It is 407í on one side and 395í on the other.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE FIFTEEN

IX C JAMES GRIESHOP 32í X 60í X 18í GARAGE AT 291 W. KEMPER

Mr. Okum said we are talking about a basic storage barn on a site where you do not reside. I canít support that, and the size is ridiculously out of proportion. The existing house is 47 foot, but I donít know the depth. It looks like about 30 feet, or an 1800 s.f. house, and we are talking about 1920 s.f. of garage. I just cannot support that.

Mr. Apke said according to this blueprint I have, it looks like the edge of the garage is 5 feet from the property line. Mr. Grieshop responded it will be 10 feet. There is plenty of land on the other side to put the driveway in there.

Mr. Apke continued I did a quick calculation on what you are asking for this particular garage and it is approximately 174% over what the Code allows. The one on the other property is 63% greater than the Code, so I donít think I could support this.

Mr. Squires asked the applicant if he would use both garages, and Mr. Grieshop answered yes. I took what I need to house and came up with this size. Mr. Squires continued so you would have more than 3,000 s.f. total garage area.

Mrs. Huber said for the record, I will be reading from the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of August 18, 1992, the third paragraph.

"Going on, Mr. Grieshop said that the reason he wanted a three car garage basically is because he has three cars, a boat, a motorcycle and presently most of those are in storage. He said that he would like to put these vehicles on his property. He felt that he had a big enough lot for it. He had consulted the neighbors around, and the neighbors around me have no problem, and there are other houses in the neighborhood. Right across the street, there is another three car garage, and next to him two doors down is a big building, probably a four car garage."

Mr. Okum said so there are some things that possibly were going to be in the other garage that now would go into this garage, like the boat. Mr. Grieshop answered no, the boat that I am talking about putting in the other garage is an antique boat that I have been redoing. Mr. Okum said so you have a boat in your other garage now and you are going to put a different boat in this garage. Mr. Grieshop confirmed this.

Mr. Grieshop stated this proposal that I have for this 32í x 60í building is basically one of those where you ask for the moon and then make compromises, and that is kind of what I have done here. I realize that this was bigger than probably any secondary or outlot building in Springdale. I do know that there are some bigger garages, including the one I have on this property, and I certainly am willing to downsize it. I wanted to try to house everything at one time; it is not a problem to downsize it.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE SIXTEEN

IX C JAMES GRIESHOP 32í X 60í X 18í GARAGE AT 291 W. KEMPER

Mr. Grieshop added that I would like to have one bigger than 700 s.f., if nothing else just to get my camper inside and get it off the driveway. It is a pretty good investment and I would like to put it in something that is secure and not have to pay somebody else to do that. I have a piece of property big enough to do that on, and I would like to make a garage big enough to put that in there, plus be able to give my tenants a place to put their stuff. If we can cut this thing down, that is what I would like to do, or whatever would be acceptable.

I do know that there is a garage down the road that looks bigger than the house, and those dimensions were 32í x 44í. It is pretty much the same size as the garage at 299 West Kemper. Whatever you would approve would be fine.

The 18í height is because of the peak of the roof, and the reason for that is because of the high garage doors in order to get that camper in there. That is why I asked for 18í instead of 16í and it isnít that big a deal on that size lot.

Mr. Borden asked how much storage space he really needs. Mr. Grieshop answered I would like to keep it at 32 feet wide and have the double door and single door at the front as it is. As far as going back, I would like to have at least the bay to put the camper in, so I would need a 12í x 12í door on the back, basically eliminating the two in the back or 30 feet or so. Mr. Borden commented that is cutting it almost in half.

Mr. Okum said from what I am understanding, the applicant has indicated that he would like to have the garage 32 feet across the front and 30 feet deep, or 960 s.f.

Mrs. Pollitt said so you would still have the two doors on the front and one double door on the side? Mr. Grieshop responded that there would be one 12í x 12í door. Mrs. Pollitt asked if there was a wall, and Mr. Grieshop answered I was going to put a wall up so the tenants would have more security in there, to partition it off there.

Mr. Okum said if your tenant had a motor home, he could use the 12í x 12í overhead door that would go 30 feet deep. Mr. Grieshop confirmed this. Mr. Okum said asphalt is in that whole area. Mr. Grieshop responded that there is an existing asphalt area that goes across the back.

Mr. Weidlich said if you are going to have two doors on the front, why would you need one on the side, since you are only 30 feet deep and the car would take up maybe 18 feet of that with space to get behind it. Mr. Grieshop answered if you have it 30 feet long you would have a lot of wasted space in the back because your car only takes up 20 feet. That would give me room to put the camper behind it all, and it would give you access in the front to utilize the building a little better.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE SEVENTEEN

IX C JAMES GRIESHOP 32í X 60í X 18í GARAGE AT 291 W. KEMPER

Mr. Weidlich asked how wide the camper was, and Mr. Grieshop said it was 27 feet. Mr. Weidlich asked if the camper would be backed in from the side and Mr. Grieshop answered yes, it would be a 12í x 12í door on the side. I would keep one bay, so it would give me one small bay in the front, the double way for the tenants and the spot for the camper. That way we could cut the garage in half.

Mr. Okum said I am not a traffic engineer, but the turning radius on that 25-foot apron will not handle that 27-foot motor home. You will be driving in the back yard when you pull it out of the garage. There is no way possible. You would almost be at the property line when you pulled it out. Mr. Borden agreed, adding that he has to move it over another five feet anyway. Mr. Apke commented that the applicant could reconfigure this so that the front entry bay went straight back.

Mr. Grieshop said as you were saying, I could put the 12í x 12í door in the front. It wouldnít be 32 feet; it probably would be 34 feet, but you could get the 16í door and the 12í door in there. It would just be a little bit wider. Then I could shorten it up a little more too and put a smaller door on the other side.

Mrs. Huber said I am still having a problem. A two-car or 700 s.f. garage for the tenant is fine, but the Code definitely says that it must be on your property, not something that you own to be used as storage. I would not be in favor of the proposal. I would be in favor of a garage for that property, because it needs it.

Mr. Okum commented it is very difficult because it is not your residence, and it is not for the intended use of that residence. I cannot see any hardship, any issues that are unique to that property that would generate a reason why we should permit this use.

I think you have outgrown the space you got with the variance on your residence in 1992, and that garage probably was not made to accommodate the height of a motor home. I have to agree with Mrs. Huber. Considering the circumstances and the way the Code reads, that property as it stands does not show any reason why a 700 s.f. garage could not be functional and be used. If it was a 700 s.f. garage, you would not be here.

Mr. Grieshop said so I need to get a variance on the residence I live in to put up another building to put my other stuff in. That would be considered a hardship? Mr. Okum said I canít speak to that. Mr. Grieshop commented I am trying to get the terminology right. I own both pieces of property. Mr. Okum said but you donít reside at both pieces. Mr. Grieshop responded but I live right next door to it; itís not like something that I canít see every day. Mr. Okum answered I understand, but you donít reside at that address and our Building Department says, "an accessory structure on a residential property is expected to be the accessory to the residence on the property. If the use is not accessory to the residence on the property, then it becomes an offsite storage facility."

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 SEPTEMBER 2002

PAGE EIGHTEEN

IX C JAMES GRIESHOP 32í X 60í X 18í GARAGE AT 291 W. KEMPER

Mr. Okum added that this is no different than if you would buy a vacant lot and want to put a pole barn on it. It would be offsite. The Code is established to have some regulatory control over that. I can sympathize with your water problem, but that is nothing that a 700 s.f. garage would not cure. It would be much more than what is there now. A 700 s.f. garage would be a major improvement, and I am going to have to side with the issue that there does not appear to be any of the items set forth in our Zoning Code to justify a need to grant this property a variance for anything more than what is allowed by Code.

Mr. Okum said even if we move to deny based on this plan, it would be better, or the applicant could withdraw. Would you want to withdraw your request? Mr. Grieshop said he would withdraw his request.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Okum said these oversized garages seem to be directed to one street in Springdale , that has very deep lots. Mrs. Huber added that there is another young man that wants to do this also. We are losing residents; they are moving out. Mr. Okum said unless they move into a township where there is no regulatory control, these restrictions are in all the surrounding communities.

    Mr. Okum said I donít see anything in our Code that is out of synch. I think 700 s.f. is adequate space for a three-car garage plus some space along the side for storage.

    Mr. Borden commented that the trend is definitely for a three-car garage for lots that can accommodate it.

  3. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,2002 _____________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

____________________,2002 ______________________

Jane Huber, Secretary