BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2011
7:00 P.M.
I CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
II ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jim Squires, Lawrence Hawkins III, Robert Weidlich,
Robert Emerson, William Reichert, Jane Huber, Chairman Dave Okum
Others Present: Randy Campion
III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Okum: There is no correspondence for this meeting.
V REPORT ON COUNCIL
Mr. Hawkins gave a review of the October 5th, 2011 Council meeting, summarizing several
ordinances that came before them.
VI MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
(Mrs. Huber made a motion to adopt the September 20, 2011 minutes as written; Mr. Hawkins
seconded the motion and with a unanimous affirmative vote from the Board of Zoning Appeals
Members the minutes were approved.)
VII REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Okum gave a summary report of the October 11th, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting.
VIII CHAIRMANS STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
IX OLD BUSINESS
A. Chairman Okum: The first item continued from the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
September 20, 2011 is the owner of 538 Smiley Avenue is requesting a variance to allow him
to park a recreational vehicle on his driveway. Said variance is requested from Section
53.480(D)(1)(b) When stored in the front yard
it must leave two additional
spaces not less than nine feet by 19 feet or maintain the entire original driveway space
if there originally existed less than two such spaces.
Mr. and Mrs. Shroyer, the Building Official looked at this and he still feels that based
upon the information, you are still, no matter which way you look at it, in need of a
variance of one foot.
Mr. Campion: That is correct.
Chairman Okum: The reason is there are sections of the Code that we were not familiar with
that state, if we would allow horizontal parking in the driveway or left to right parking
in the driveway, every time you would move that around you would be out of conformance
with the Code. I wanted you to understand that is the reason it was continued; Staff has
indicated arranging is not going to eliminate the issue.
Mr. Ken Shroyer: I will request the variance, I suppose.
(At this time, Chairman Okum opened the floor for comments from the public.)
Mr. Brian Faught: I live at 534 Smiley and I live next door to Ken. They keep everything
clean and neat and in my opinion I think it would be o.k. to approve it.
(No other individuals from the audience came forward to speak, and this portion of the
public hearing was closed.)
Mr. Squires: I would like to make a motion to grant a 1 X 19 variance to the
owner of the property at 538 Smiley Avenue to allow him to park a recreational vehicle in
his driveway, as requested from Section 53.480(D)(1)(b).
Mr. Campion: The other point that I would like to make that wasnt in the original
Staff report, it reads: one recreational vehicle, one boat on a trailer or one
trailer used for recreational purposes may be stored in an unenclosed area on the property
but no closer than five feet to the nearest property line or the right of way line. Such
recreational vehicle, boat or trailer used for recreational purposes shall not exceed
30 in length and 11 in height. The reason that is important is because
for him to meet the Code, he has to park his vehicle in that parking space on the left and
he couldnt turn it sideways because then he would be closer than 5 to the
property line. The vehicle has to be in the parking spot on the left and not on the right.
If he would have turned it sideways, then part of the vehicle would be closer than 5
to the property line, which means you need a variance to allow that
1 X 19.
Mr. Hawkins: I will second the motion from Mr. Squires.
Mr. Campion: Really, the variance would be to allow one spot to be less than
9 X 19. The one on the right side is going to be 9 X 19.
Mrs. Carla Shroyer: The driveway is 31. With the tongue on the trailer it is
16 X 4.
Mr. Emerson: Are we giving him a variance to park the camper or are we giving him a
variance to allow him to have a driveway that is one foot too short.
Mr. Campion: Our ordinance says that you have to have eighteen feet. You are allowed to
have an existing non-conforming driveway, which is what you had. When you improve it you
are supposed to meet the standard.
Mr. Hawkins: Along the lines of what Mr. Emerson said, is it possible to have a motion to
grant a variance for the applicant to park a recreational vehicle on his driveway and to
give the dimensions of the vehicle and trailer.
Chairman Okum: What is the size with the tongue?
Mrs. Shroyer: 16 4 is the length, by 7 width.
Mr. Campion: The only thing that they could do is expand their driveway to the left at
least 5 and park that vehicle on the right and be in compliance.
Chairman Okum: Mr. Squires, I think that you want to withdraw your motion and we will get
a new motion.
Mr. Squires: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my motion.
Mr. Hawkins: I withdraw my second to that motion.
Mr. Emerson: I would like to make a motion that we allow a variance for a 16-4
long by 8 wide recreational vehicle to be parked in Mr. Shroyers driveway.
Chairman Okum: We have a motion on the floor for a 16-4 X 8 recreational
vehicle to be permitted to park on the existing driveway surface at 538 Smiley.
(Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion and with a unanimous affirmative vote from the Board of
Zoning Appeals Members the variance request was approved.)
Chairman Okum: You have a variance for your recreational vehicle 16-4 by
8 to be permitted to be parked on your existing driveway surface of 18 X
31.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. Chairman Okum: The owner of 534 Smiley Avenue has applied for a variance to allow her
to construct an addition to the residence in the required front yard setback. Said
variance is requested from Section 153.070(A) Single household dwellings
shall
have a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet.
Mr. Brian Faught: We are wanting to put on a two-bedroom addition to the east side of our
house and we are wanting our addition to extend out seven feet from the front of the house
toward the street.
(At this time Mr. Campion read the Staff comments.)
Mr. Brian Faught: I saw the drawing that shows the master bedroom in the back and there
are several issues that we have with that; one is the master bedroom where the adults
would be, we feel should be toward the front for security purposes and protection of our
house. We intended on the master bedroom being to the south side of the house where it
gets the natural sunlight and we also intended to use the bump out from the main part of
the house to add a gable as well as a large window to balance out the new addition of the
house to the existing part of the house because currently the existing part of the house
from the far side has a gable and a large picture window in the front. We also move our
trailer in and out of the backyard and with other obstructions that are in the backyard
now; if we add an additional 7 to the backyard we wont be able to maneuver the
trailer or other vehicles in the backyard.
Chairman Okum: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board
concerning this request?
Mr. Ken Tillery: I would be the general contractor on this project and a couple things
that we looked at in setting this part of the house closer to the street would be the fact
that the curb appeal on the property would be even better than if it was set back even
with the rest of the house. According to the drawing that was submitted back to us to have
the setback in back of the house instead of in front of the house, the curb appeal would
be a whole lot less appealing because the whole front of the house would just go
completely straight across and there would be no offset or anything like that. On one of
the pictures that was submitted, there was one that had two cones setting in front of the
house that actually showed where the 7 would come to and you will see that the
next-door neighbors house protrudes even closer.
Chairman Okum: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this
variance request?
Mr. Faught: If you look at the drawing that we submitted and the drawing that we received
in return; if you look at the walk-in closet, part of the intent of that closet would be
to have a changing table and a pocket door on one wall and then on the back larger wall
would be storage space and on the design that we received back we wont be able to
have that changing table on the one side, as well as that outer portion of that closet by
the hallway; there will be a block of wasted space that we wont be able to use.
Mr. Ken Shroyer: I live at 538 Smiley; I live next door to the property and I have lived
there for 35 years. The majority of that time it has been a rental property and since they
have moved in they have done enormous things with the house to bring it back up to Code.
They have done extensive landscaping work. I believe that the addition that they are
requesting would do nothing but enhance their property and mine as well. I would like to
see the variance permitted and construction to begin.
(No other audience members came forward to speak and this portion of the hearing was
closed.)
Chairman Okum: It is physically possible for you to do this addition as Staff has
indicated. The comment that was made, as far as street appeal, is certainly an important
factor. Is there a compromise that you could come up with where you could have some bump
out in the front and some bump out in the back?
Mr. Faught: I cant say that there would be a compromise where we can bump out in the
back because it does change our usage of our backyard property. We use our backyard for
recreation; we use firewood to do a lot of our heating so we often move a trailer into the
backyard and that would limit our ability to get that trailer around with our fire wood. I
cant say there is a compromise; it does not suit the outcome of what we need to have
for our house. Right now, it is a two-bedroom house and there are five of us living there.
Mr. Tillery: In order for us to compromise and move part of that back it would add
additional cost to the project because of an extra corner that would have to be put in
place in the back of the house. That would also diminish the size of the master bedroom;
it is only 12 X 15.
Mr. Reichert: I notice the pictures submitted, if you look across the front you have a
porch there and at the bottom you have a sidewalk area coming up with landscaping. It is
not going to protrude out with a big eyesore; it is almost an extension of the sidewalk.
Seven feet, I think, is a reasonable request. I am going to speak in favor of that and I
think it will look attractive.
Mr. Squires: If I understand correctly, you would lose that offset if you went straight
across?
Mr. Faught: Yes.
Mr. Hawkins: With regard to that small evergreen tree that in shown in the middle of the
two cones, would you end up taking that out?
Mr. Faught: That would still be there.
Chairman Okum: I feel in this particular situation that the 19.32 home next to this
is still a lot closer to the street and if you were going for a visual effect, that
obstructs whatever visual effect occurs. I will be supporting the setback of 25.
Mr. Reichert: I would like to make a motion to grant a variance of 25 setback on the
residence at 534 Smiley Avenue, for the purpose of constructing a 12 X 32
addition.
(The motion was seconded by Mr. Weidlich and with a unanimous affirmative vote from all of
the Board of Zoning Appeals Members, the variance was granted.)
B. Chairman Okum: The next item on the agenda is the owner of 260 Northland Boulevard has
applied for a variance to allow them to install additional flag poles and international
flags on the property. Said variance is from Section 153.523(I)
flags other
than those exempted by Section 153.520(C) are prohibited.
Mr. Bill Schrock: I am the manager for the property. This request is to make the front of
the building a little bit more attractive and to add a little international flavor to the
whole project. We have an international group of tenants at this point and we are trying
to attract more tenants all the time. We have three flagpoles right now with the American
flag, the state flag and the company flag; we think these additional flags would add a
little bit more character to the property.
Chairman Okum: I dont believe that 153.520 is specific about international flags, so
what would be an international flag in your determination?
Mr. Schrock: A flag from another country.
Chairman Okum: That would be a national flag from another country?
Mr. Schrock: Right.
Chairman Okum: And how many of these additional flags?
Mr. Schrock: Four.
(Mr. Campion read the Staff comments concerning this request.)
Mr. Reichert: You indicated four additional flags; you indicated four different countries,
how do you go about choosing four?
Mr. Schrock: Probably some of them that are in our building currently. We would probably
do something like a Mexican flag and maybe a European flag; maybe one from each continent
would be a good thing to do.
Mr. Reichert: So, you really havent established which four at this point; you just
want to have four more flag poles but you have stated that they are going to be for a
country; and that is the only thing that is going to be up there is a country?
Mr. Schrock: Correct. We would take suggestions, of course.
Mr. Reichert: I like the Army, Navy, Marine Corp.
Chairman Okum: I believe they could put those up without a variance.
Mr. Emerson: If one of your tenants moves out, that you are representing on the flag, does
the flag come down?
Mr. Schrock: I doubt it; not until the flag wears out.
Mr. Hawkins: How high would you fly these flags in comparison to the American flag?
Mr. Schrock: Probably just slightly below.
Mr. Weidlich: If you pick four country flags and you have seven countries listed on your
application, are they your tenants?
Mr. Schrock: We may not even choose any of these flags, to be honest.
Mr. Weidlich: Oh, I thought you would be picking those to try to appease your current
tenants.
Mr. Schrock: The idea is to give it a little international flair, because we do have an
international mix of tenants.
Mrs. Huber: Sir, it is well and good that you want to represent the people in your
building but I think the only flag in the United States should be the United States flag
and not all of these other countries.
Mr. Hawkins: Have we had a similar variance granted before?
Mr. Campion: No, we havent; not to my knowledge.
Mr. Squires: I think that you stated earlier that if a tenant, say for instance from
Mexico, would leave the building you have no intention of taking that flag down?
Mr. Schrock: We may not even put a Mexican flag up. The idea would not be to have it
represent actual tenants that are in the building.
Mr. Squires: In your application you state that you currently have tenants with
connections to Mexico, Puerto Rico; etc.
Mr. Schrock: Correct; these are legal citizens doing business in America; they are the new
entrepreneurs of America.
Mr. Squires: Are you saying that you are going to honor other countries other than these
listed?
Mr. Schrock: Yes.
Chairman Okum: The request is specifically for international flags. I think to be more
specific if a motion is brought that it state for specific countries; because
international could be international flavors, it could be international foods or any other
kind of international designation. My concern is that it is more signage than it is
representation of tenants or representation of countries and for that purpose it is
basically a sign. I understand the necessity of keeping your buildings rented but the
other thing is that if a building down the street wants to do the same thing to attract
more business by flags to generate signage; then it is the same principle.
We ought to call it what it is; it is flags for signage for identifying your building as
being a building that leases to international companies. We are speaking of a signage
issue in my opinion.
Mr. Hawkins: I agree with what the Chairman has indicated. In Springdale we
are fortunate to have a great deal of diverse community and diverse folks doing business.
One of our City grocery stores is your neighbor but if you go around the corner onto Route
4 there are some other different ethnic restaurants up there. As the Chairman has pointed
out, it is signage and it does become an issue of, if this get a variance then a number of
other folks could and would like to come in and ask for variances to do the same thing and
so there is some concern as well, in terms of setting a precedent that is likely to create
several other business owners to come in asking for a variance to do something similar.
That is where my primary concern is.
Chairman Okum: We need to have a motion brought to the floor.
Mr. Hawkins: For the purpose of bringing the motion to the floor, not necessarily
indicating that I am in support of it, but to bring it to the floor; I move to grant a
variance to the owner of 260 Northland Boulevard to allow the owner to install four
additional flag poles and international country flags on the property in variance of
Section 153.523 of our Code.
(Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.)
Chairman Okum: The Chair has pretty much expressed himself and I will not be supporting
this. I feel that it does set a precedent and would establish the opportunity for other
international businesses to create other signage opportunities for their businesses
throughout the community. I will not be supporting it.
(Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with a unanimous negative vote
the variance request was denied.)
XI DISCUSSION
(No items of discussion were presented at this meeting.)
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Hawkins moved to adjourn, Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion and the Board of Zoning
Appeals meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________,2011 ___________________________________
Chairman Dave Okum
________________________,2011 ___________________________________
Secretary Jane Huber