BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

7:00 P.M.

 

 

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. By Chairman James Squires.

     

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Frederick Borden, Barbara Ewing, Councilwoman Kathy McNear, David Okum, Thomas Schecker, Councilman

    Robert Wilson and Chairman James Squires

    Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

  5. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1999
  6. Mr. Okum moved for adoption and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote all present, except Mrs. McNear who abstained, voted aye and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

  7. REPORTS.
    1. Report on Council Activities Ė Kathy McNear
    2. No Report

    3. Report on Planning Commission Ė David Okum

Mr. Okum said Sports Therapy was in for approval for a tree removal plan. They are working with our City Plannerís architect to resolve the issue. White Castle request for approval of the parking lot at corner of West Kemper Road was tabled to November 9th. Gold Star Chili requested approval of their revised building colors. The color pallet submitted to Planning earlier was different than what the building was painted, and Planning directed the owner to change the color to the approved color. Bahama Breeze Restaurant final approval was requested. There was a lot of discussion since the applicant ha made a lot of the changes discussed at the preliminary plan approval but there were a number that still needed to be addressed. Some of the items will be implemented on this building at the agreement of the applicant and the approval was granted.

Springdale Ice Cream and Beverage (Kroger Plant) on Chesterdale Road requests approval of the construction of a training facility and a revamping of their entrance drive separating the commercial truck traffic from the employee entry area. The training facility will be a modular unit on the northwest corner of the site, about nine feet high and a flat roof, with similar materials to the brick on the plans. The entrance drive also was approved.

Princeton Property requested final approval of their three-story addition at 100 Merchant St. They are here this evening requesting two variances, one for the numbmer of parking spaces and the other for their dumpster location.

The other items were replatting the Northwest Business Center Subdivision (Pictoria Island) to allow for the development and the vacation plot part of Century Circle East which is for the Vineyard project.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE TWO

 

  1. STATEMENTS CONCERNING VARIANCES
    1. A variance once granted will be referred back to the Board of Zoning Appeals if after the expiration of six months no construction is done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the variance.

If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after the denial.

B. Chairmanís Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board is to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this board is directed to sign in, take his place at the podium, and state his name, address and the nature of the variances. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said variance is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.

  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. David E. H Houston, 11917 Lawnview Avenue requests variance to allow him to place a shed 3í6" from the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(C) "..must not be less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot lines." (tabled 9/21/99)
    2. Mr. Houston said this has been going on since about June. It is a shed I put in the back yard. I was replacing an old shed, and I wasnít aware that you needed a permit for this. I tried to get a permit, and the shed is located 3 Ĺ feet from the fence, and it is supposed to be 5 feet. I have a couple of mature apple trees in the back yard, and if the shed were moved out to the five feet required, the apple trees would have to go. The shed is pretty close to them right now, and even if I moved it six inches, one of the apple trees would have to come down. The two apple trees are on each side of the shed. Mr. Wilson asked if he could move the shed down a bit and then up. Mr. Houston answered the fence runs at an angle, and it would have to go a almost five feet to the right which would put it to the right side of the property. Also it would interfere with my garden.

      Mr. .Schecker said your neighbor behind you has another shed and on the right side there also is a shed. I personally do not have any objection to the location..

      Mrs. McNear asked what the shed was placed on and Mr. Houston answered 4í x 4í treated lumber.

      Mr. Squires said item (E) on your previous agenda, was a citizen who wanted to place a shed three feet from the property line under basically the same conditions and we did approve that.

      Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded t he motion.

      Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one came forward.

      Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Borden, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance as granted with seven affirmative votes.

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      19 OCTOBER 1999

      PAGE THREE

    3. Glen R. Bauman, Jr., 260 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 224 square foot pole barn. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 ".shall not exceed 120 square feet in area." (request for 384 square foot pole barn tabled 9/21/99)

Mr. Bauman said at the last meeting I had requested a 16í x 24í pole barn. We discussed that and agreed to downsize it around 120 to 124 square feet. I am now looking for a variance for a 14í x 16í pole barn.

Mr. Wilson commented we had talked about all the items that would be placed in your barn; will the 224 square feet handle all the items? Mr. Bauman answered yes. In view of the size lot you have, the depth you have and the location of this structure Ė will it be a pole barn? Mr. Bauman answered the inside structure will be based on a pole barn to make it more solid, but the exterior will be the T111 wood so it will look more like a wood shed you get at 84 Lumber. Mr. Wilson said you didnít want to put cement down because of the trucks having to go across the lot. Mr. Bauman added and it would be cost prohibitive, but with the pole barn construction every two feet will have a 4 x 4 into the ground 30 inches with eight inches of cement, and that will be the foundation.

Mr. Squires asked the type of siding to be used, and Mr. Bauman answered it is a wood siding, T111. Mr. Squires asked if it would have a shingled roof and Mr. Bauman indicated that it would be. The adjustment I made to make it look a little better from the street is it was 24 feet visible from the street, and it is now 16 feet.

Mr. Okum said you indicated on your drawings that you will have overhangs on your pole barn. Mr. Bauman answered on the two ends just because of the size. I will either overhang it one foot or possibly cutting it back if I go flush. Mr. Okum asked the type of doors and Mr. Bauman answered the T111 matching to the siding. Mr. Okum wondered if he were talking about swing doors and Mr. .Bauman said that he was, and Mr. Okum asked how they would be held up. Mr. Bauman answered the 4í x 4í framing and metal wiring with eye screws. Mr. Okum commented typically when you use two six-foot doors, we will have a maintenance issue. After a couple of years it will look pretty bad across the front. I would like to see something more substantial and stable. I would not be in favor of two 6-foot wide swing doors. If there were a sliding barn door system, I wouldnít have a problem with that and you could do it with T111. Mr. Bauman commented that would work; I donít have a problem with the sliding hanging system. Mr. Okum continued and the overhang on the roof system will be to the front and rear, based on the drawing. Mr. Bauman added based on the drawing, it is going to overhang a foot on the sides. Mr. Okum said so we will change the drawings to indicate the side as the front. Mr. Okum asked if the material would be stained or painted, and Mr. Bauman answered I would like to stain it for a more natural look.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Okum asked if the T111 is required to be maintained and stained, and Mr. McErlane responded typically it is, but because a lot of that is treated wood, there is not a requirement for it. It definitely would look bad after a few years. Mr. Bauman added I would at least stain it.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the following conditions:

    1. Structure be constructed with T111 siding;
    2. Doors to be sliding doors on barn hangers;
    3. Unit be stained and maintained;
    4. Dimensions provided to us shall be altered to reflect that the gable will be on the side and the slope of shingles will be on the front.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE FOUR

VII B GLEN BAUMAN 260 WEST KEMPER Ė 224 S.F. POLE BARN

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane asked the minimum size opening he needed on the door. Mr. Bauman answered probably 10 to 12 feet. Mr. McErlane commented then a sliding door will not work because the building is only 14 feet.

Mr. Okum said I will alter my motion to reflect an overhead garage door.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak.

Pam Poindexter said about the sliding doors, to get a proper sliding door he needs to go to one of the specialty builders; you can get any color you want and a good slider that wonít buckle on you. Mr. Squires thanked her, adding that the doors wonít be sliding, but overhead garage door.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Borden, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

VIII. NEW BUSINESS

    1. Otis Poindexter, 563 Lafayette Avenue requests variances to enclose his existing front porch. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(4)(a) "Front yards must be at least 30 feet deep."

Pam Poindexter or 563 Lafayette Avenue said we are trying to get a variance to glass in our existing front porch. We would like to turn the gable towards the road. We have an existing roof there, and instead of having a flat roof, have a little shaping to it. It would not change any of the setback at all. It would add on to our solid well-built front porch. We want to change the entryway and make it look nice and extend the roof above the west end of the house so we can drive the car a little under it. It would just cover the door area and be even with the front porch instead of being set back.

Mr. Squires said you say you need to expand to make more room in your house. Will that area be heated? Ms. Poindexter answered we want it as an entryway for a sitting area out there. We sold my house and I moved in and I would like to keep a lot of my things and make it nicer for us.

Mr. Wilson asked about the back of the house, and Ms. Poindexter answered the back is being done; we have permits for that. Mr. Wilson asked about the flat roof over the driveway area; arenít you concerned about the weight of ice or snow? Ms. Poindexter answered not really because the weight of the house is done with a hip roof and it will have enough of a slope that the water will run off the end into a gutter. Mr. Wilson asked about the snow and ice that would accumulate on the roof itself. We will have a post, and when the porch is extended out it would be attached to the edge of the gabled roof and then to the front of the house, so it will be well supported.

Mr. Wilson commented I can appreciate your wanting to have an enclosed porch, but you have trees all around your property in front of your house. Ms., Poindexter answered one tree in the middle and they vary out by the road and setting over by the driveway where you go back to the garage there is a maple tree. The only thing that is where that will be are flowers and a light post. There is nothing that would interfere right against it.

Mr. Wilson said so it will come out from the house six feet, and M s. Poindexter answered yes, the porch is there already and there is a roof over that porch. We just want to make it a regular shingled roof instead of an awning and make it a nice entrance into the living room area.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE FIVE

VIII A OTIS POINDEXTER 563 LAFAYETTE ENCLOSE FRONT PORCH

Mr. Okum asked how much the existing awning projects in front of the house. Ms. Poindexter said it would be about six feet; it doesnít extend much over the edge of the porch. Mr. Okum continued so currently your home is 34 feet from the right of way line. Will the materials be similar to the new addition? Ms. Poindexter answered yes, we have a red brick home and we were going to offset it with gray brick, which looks like a rock. Mr. Okum asked if they would alter the existing roof over the home and Ms. Poindexter answered no. The only thing we would do is put a dormer effect on top of the porch. Mr. Okum said so the porch area would be cathedral but the existing ceiling stays flat, and the wall between the porch area and your home would not be removed. Ms. Poindexter answered yes, it is just a glassed in room.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Okum said it appears to me that the setback on the house two from the applicantís is significantly closer to the right of way. Mr. McErlane responded it is possible; this other was built prior to the Zoning Code. Mr. Okum commented usually I check if someone is looking out their front door, what they will see, and looking at this, the only person truly affected probably will be this house and they would see the flat roof area. Further down, that same person looks angularly at the structure if that drawing is right.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak.

Mr. Otis Poindexter said I wasnít allowed to extend the porch more than what it is because of looking up west on Lafayette. There already are glassed in porches on Lafayette, and if you get down to the street and see the porches, this porch is not blocking anyone looking up the street. It will be built according to Code. We are closing it in because it will help the neighborhood, make the house more attractive and update Lafayette, and I think that is what Springdale is interested in, updating some of the older buildings.

Ms. Poindexter added we set back far enough that our porch is exactly even with our neighborsí porch, so the neighbors would be looking up at the roof instead of over at it. We really are in line and in terms of setback, nothing would change except we would have a glassed porch.

Mr. Wilson wondered the type of material that would be used to support that porch over what used to be your garage. Mr. Poindexter answered what ever the city would require. Ms. Poindexter added it probably would be 2 x 6ís 24 inches apart, fastened to the gable. We can make it any size you feel we need to support it, but there is a 36-inch overhang there already, so all we would be adding would be five feet to it. Mr. Wilson asked what they would use to hold up that part of the roof furthest from the house and Ms. Poindexter answered cedar, or something heavy like that. Mr. Wilson wondered if that would be the only wood in front of the house, and Ms. Poindexter responded yes, everything would be brick or glass or whatever it takes, and we will have gutters to drain off everything.

Mr. Okum wondered if the concrete slab on the front porch is 32 feet wide. Ms. Poindexter answered it is 28 feet. Mr. Okum continued so the request is for a structure to extend from the brick facing of your home and project out six feet with a 60 inch window and 28 feet wide excluding the shed roof of the garage area. Ms. Poindexter confirmed this.

Mr. Okum commented I donít have any real problem with any one upgrading their home and putting a gable on the front, but I do have some concerns with the shed roof because I think it will look awkward in front of the house.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE SIX

VIII A OTIS POINDEXTER 563 LAFAYETTE ENCLOSE FRONT PORCH

Mr. Okum continued in order to carry the water, the shed roof would have to slope to the side pretty dramatically and would look a little tacky and be almost as bad as having an awning over the top of that area. I think the enclosure area, considering the variable and setbacks on Lafayette and adding the enhancement of the gable in front of your home would be a true asset and upgrade, but I would not be in favor of what I would call a carport. Ms. Poindexter commented the idea was going in and out of the rain. Mr. Okum added that is what I am not comfortable with and that is closer to your neighbor than the gable. Additionally you will have all the water from the upper roof going into the valley that you are creating, which will shed on that flat roof area.

Ms. Poindexter commented the only other thing we could do is go up onto the roof and slope it toward the road with the slope of our house which would be an angle. That would be like an offset in the roof. If we came up with a design you felt more suitable, would it be a problem? Mr. Okum answered as long as it is architecturally solid. I think the shed roof takes away from what you are doing here.

Ms. Poindexter said we have a fairly wide concrete area on that side. Would there be a problem with extending a small short area for entry to the door to walk in out of the rain? Mr. Okum answered I donít have as much trouble with that. You might even be able to carry your gable a little further.

Mr. McErlane reported that probably the only way to accomplish this is to get trusses with larger soffits, because you will run into a problem with working a valley in. Ms. Poindexter agreed that a valley wouldnít look as good.

Mr. Okum said if you are allowed a 36-inch overhang on the right side of the enclosure to cover your step, which would give you 36 inches on each side of the gable. Ms. Poindexter answered I donít have a problem with that; we want it to look good.

Mrs. McNear said I think the enclosed patio would look very nice, and the yard is nice. Your neighbors were concerned about what I was doing; it is nice to think they are looking out for you. I donít have any problem with the enclosed patio and I appreciate Daveís pointing out the issues of the overhang for the garage.

Mr. Schecker said you are talking about either brick or vinyl. I have a hard time with the vinyl because of the change in appearance to your brick house. Ms. Poindexter said we would go with the gray brick similar to gray rock finish; we donít like vinyl either. Mr. Okum said so if we use the term masonry instead of vinyl, it will give you the flexibility you need.

Mr. Wilson said I had a concern about the flat roof, but I think we have it resolved. As an insurance agent, I am concerned about the drainage. At this point will you have an overhang rather than a flat roof? Ms. Poindexter said I like Mr. Okumís suggestion; we probably will go with that and extend the gable; I think that will look much nicer.

Ms. Poindexter added we would like to go with a gray roof and offset the red brick with the gray and put some gray limestone in the corners to make it look nice.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak, and no one came forward.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE SEVEN

VIII A OTIS POINDEXTER 563 LAFAYETTE ENCLOSE FRONT PORCH

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the following conditions:

    1. That the shed or flat roof over the right side be eliminated;
    2. That the gable roof over the extension on the front of the building not to exceed 6 feet from the masonry facing on the front of the building and not any wider than the existing porch slab;
    3. That it will only have a 36 inch overhang on the right and left side of the addition;
    4. All other items submitted by the applicant shall be included;
    5. The material will be masonry, except for the gable.

Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

B. Catherine Kauffman, 11831 Ramsdale Court requests extension of Variance 34-1997 to permit a dog grooming business in her residence. Said variance is requested from Section 153.029 "..home occupations shall not include barber shops, beauty shopsÖ"

Ms Kauffman stated I am the owner of the dog grooming business at my fatherís house. It has been in operation since 1992 and I am here to renew the variance.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. McErlane if there have been any complaints and Mr. McErlane stated our department has not received any complaints. Mrs. McNear added I have no problem with granting this for another two years. This will be the fifth time we have done this, and I recommend that we continue with the two years.

Mr. Wilson wondered the maximum number of years we can grant a `variance. Mr. McErlane answered there is no particular maximum limitation on how long you can grant a continuing variance or limited variance. The point of bringing it up every two years allows you to evaluate complaints as well as any change in the operation of the business. It makes sense to continue to evaluate it on some time period, but there is no specific one.

Mr. Wilson said I went out to their house and had no problems, but my concern would be traffic noise, and sanitary problems. I saw none of these, and they were kind enough to invite me into the area where they did the dog grooming and it was immaculate. My concern is do we need to hassle our resident to have them come before us every two years? Could someone go out from the board and inspect it and report back and we could automatically renew for another period of years or extend it for five years and check on it annually. Something like this where we have no complaints makes me question if we need to set a two-year period?

Mr. Squires said it is possible that we could increase that time; I have no problem with that.

Mr. Schecker said the operation has been admirable and there is no signage around to detract from the neighborhood. On the other hand, two years seems a reasonable period to me considering that the variance is granted for the property and not necessarily for Ms. Kauffman and if in two years she would pack up and leave, we would want that variance to cease and if we had it for an extended period of time, we would not have any control over that.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE EIGHT

VIII B CATHERINE KAUFFMAN 11831 RAMSDALE Ė DOG GROOMING BUSINESS

Mr. Okum wondered if the Health Department does an inspection, and Ms. Kauffman answered nobody from the city has ever been out there. Mr. Kauffman added Mr. Wilson is the first person from the city that has ever come out there and looked at the space, other than the inspector before we opened, and that was from the Building Department.

Mr. Okum said I believe that this is an extremely clean facility, but variances do go with the land and not you, and I think two years is a very reasonable period of time. How many dogs do you groom and Ms. Kauffman answered I have 150 steady clients and do four to five dogs a day, depending on the size of the dog. Mr. Okum asked if this has increased over the years and Ms. Kauffman answered yes. Mr. Okum wondered if in the future she would want a small space and increase the number of dogs, and Ms. Kauffman answered not that I can afford. I have checked out the rent in the area and it is like $1,000 a month. If I moved out, I would have to jack up my prices; probably about 50% of my clientele are senior citizens and I would lose them and have to close down anyway.

Mr. Okum commented if I am still seated on this board, I would wish that the City would have one health inspection period, some type of report to this board which would be helpful in making this decision. Based on Mr. Wilsonís comments, I am in favor of granting the two-year variance.

Ms. Kauffman said as far as packing up and leaving in two years, he has lived there for 40 years and he is not planning on going anywhere. Mr. Kauffman added the house goes to my kids when I die, so sheíll still be there. Having to come back every two years puts a little feeling in our minds that you could pull this away from us any time you want to. Somebody could get mad about something and take it away from us, and we couldnít do anything about it supposedly.

Mr. Okum said that is the reason I suggested that an inspection by a city person would be to your advantage more than anyone. I would still want to stay with the two-year variance. Remember there are seven independent votes on this board, not one individual with an attitude.

Mr. Borden stated I agree with all the comments and do not have any problem with this variance.

Mrs. McNear said I did drive by your house today; I didnít think to knock and go in and look. I was looking at it from the standpoint of how it affects your neighbors and the neighborhood. I drive by every two years, and it is always neat and clean. We have never had any complaints in all the years we have done this. Part of the reason that we do this every two years is not because we donít think you would maintain the business in an appropriate manner as you have had, but if someone else came to the city and wanted to have a business in their home, if we gave you a five or 10 year limited variance, and someone else came in and we had a lot of problems, it would be a problem trying to be fair to everyone. You say the rent is very high, but you never know and something might happen and you might decide to move to a storefront and when this variance comes up again, you decide you wonít need it and we can remove it from the property. Also when it comes to inspection, we do have a full time inspector and he doesnít miss very much. I want to question our hassling our citizens; we are not doing this to hassle, we are doing it to protect the integrity of our neighborhood and I think we should extend this for another two y ears.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone in attendance wished to speak and no one did.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE NINE

VIII B CATHERINE KAUFFMAN 11831 RAMSDALE Ė DOG GROOMING BUSINESS

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance for two years and Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson said hassle probably wasnít the proper word, but perhaps in the future we would like to look at situations like this where we have inspectors or one of us go out ahead of time, and perhaps we would not need the residents to come to the board. This is something to think about in the future.

Mrs. McNear said I didnít mean to hassle you about hassling our residents, but if this came up in two years and everybody who is seated here was still here, that might be a situation where we already were familiar with the situation. Because the members of the board change every so often, two years from now probably everybody here will not still be on this board. I think we should have further discussion on how to handle something like this in the future. I do like the idea that you went into the facility where the dogs are groomed; I wouldnít have thought to do that.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Borden, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Board of Zoning Appeals took a five-minute recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.

C. Rosemary Chandler, 11657 Van Cleve Avenue requests variance to allow the placement of an air conditioning unit closer than 7 feet from the side lot line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.052 "..if located in the side yard, they must be7 feet minimum from the side lot line and screened from the front lot line by landscaping, fencing or a similar means."

Mrs. Chandler said I have some additional pictures (showed the board the pictures). In the back of my property I have an in ground swimming pool, and if I were to put the air conditioner in the back, it would be three feet from the swimming pool where I feel it would be unsafe.

Mrs. McNear asked if she had an air conditioning unit at her home, and Mrs. Chandler answered that she did not; this would be an addition.

Mr. Okum commented on that side of your home, does your neighbor have a family room? Mrs. Chandler answered there is a family room in the back, and across from the air conditioner is their garage. That corner backs up against the walking track and the baseball diamond, and when the wind blows it is very dusty.

Mr. Borden wondered if she could locate that air conditioner anywhere else. Mrs. Chandler answered it is possible in the back, but it is still really closed to the swimming pool and I would prefer not to. Mr. Borden commented the side probably is the best position for that unit.

Mr. Schecker wondered why she thought she could not locate the unit in the rear to the left and adjacent to the side of the garage. Mrs. Chandler answered in the back of the house I am thinking about putting an addition there. It is possible, but if I decide to make the addiltion, it might be a problem.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE TEN

VIII C ROSEMARY CHANDLER 11657 VAN CLEVE AC UNIT IN SIDE YARD

Mrs. McNear said if this variance would be granted, would you be willing to put some screening so you cannot see it from the street, something like evergreens?

Mrs. .Chandler answered I could put some shrubs up. We were talking about a low fence around the front of it, but yes I could do that. Mrs. McNear added I would prefer greenery to a fence.

Mr. Wilson said I walked around your house; would you consider putting it in the front yard with proper landscaping? Mrs. Chandler answered no, I didnít think you could do that. Mr. Wilson said I have seen them in other areas. Mr. McErlane reported that it is not allowed in Springdale.

Mr. Okum asked the size of the unit and Mrs. Chandler reported that it is 24 x 24. Mr. Okum wondered if that were properly sized for her home, and Mrs. Chandler reported that she had received quite a few estimates. Some say 2 Ĺ feet and some say 2, and I am going with 2. Mr. Okum commented if you were to build an addition there probably would be a need to air-condition that as well. Mrs. Chandler answered I questioned the people who suggested the two-ton and they all have said it would be okay. Mr. Okum said I would suggest that you place that unit closer to where you would build that addition, but based on what is there now, where you are placing it is probably the best choice. I have some concern on how it will affect your neighbors and the family room. Mrs. Chandler responded it is not right across from it, it is behind.

Mr. Schecker asked if the next door neighbor had any concerns about this, and Mrs. Chandler answered they have just built a new house and moved so I do not know the new neighbors yet. Mr. Schecker said since that is the only neighbor you have, I feel you should keep it away from them. The new units can be quite loud. Mrs. Chandler answered if you put it behind the house, it would be in direct line with their window.

Mr. Borden commented given the fact that she will have an addition, there would not be room on the left side for the unit.

Mr. Okum said if she would need to change the unit from 2 ton to 4 Ĺ to 5, she could upgrade it or purchase a new one. My suggestion would be that it be placed at the rear left corner of the property and behind the house. That way if there were an addition it could nestle into that corner, instead of close to the neighboring property.

Mrs. Chandler said then I would need to dig up all my flowers, and there is a gutter draining. Also where you are suggesting it go is where the dust from the ball field barrels down Harter and there will be a dust problem.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak and no one did.

Mr. Wilson said if the new neighbor comes to complain about the noise, would you be receptive to moving the unit to the area we are talking about? Mrs. Chandler answered by that time I should know more about the size of the addition. Mr. Wilson asked when she would be putting the air conditioning unit in and Mrs. Chandler answered October 28th for the new furnace and air conditioning unit. They will come to the city for a permit.

Mr. Squires asked if she had talked to the contractor about locating it on the west side and Mrs. Chandler answered one said it was possible but they all said it should be closer to the fireplace. In either cases they will have to run lines through the attic.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE ELEVEN

VIII C ROSEMARY CHANDLER 11657 VAN CLEVE AC UNIT IN SIDE YARD

Mr. Wilson asked why she would not consider putting it by the garage? Mrs. Chandler responded I would not want to tear up my flowers. Mr. Wilson responded you would have to do something with the flowers at some time. The advantage of putting it there would be your neighbor would not be disturbed and you might not have to have that $500 expenditure should the neighbor complain and you have to move it. Mrs. Chandler said that is true; I just donít feel I have the energy right now to try to clean that out. If thatís what the City recommends, Iíll go with it, but I would prefer not to. My neighbor on the other side of Harter has her air conditioning unit on the side of her house between the two houses and even though it is protected by the houses, it gets a lot of dust.

Mr. Squires said unless I read this wrong, I cannot see how we can approve a variance to locate an air conditioner where a neighbor may or may not approve of it. Mr. McErlane reported it would be difficult from an enforcement standpoint, not to mention the expense involved in doing it, because we are talking about running new electrical lines and rerunning refrigerant lines.

Mrs. McNear commented this is a tough one; you could put this in the back yard but it will be more of a disturbance to your neighbor than where it is because of the garage situation. There are a lot of yards in Springdale that have the air conditioning unit in the side and some in the back, and in a lot of cases the ones in the back are more annoying than the ones on the side. I personally donít have a problem with this if it is screened, and I donít want to consider neighborsí complaints in connection with this. That is too difficult to enforce, and I wouldn't want to have you install that and then have to come up with $500 to move it. I would not have much of a problem if it were screened with some kind of evergreen material which help block the noise and some of the dust.

Mr. Okum said as much as I would like to see this moved to the other side of the house, you have the right to place it wherever you want, and I will support it on the right side of your home and second the motion.

Mrs. Chandler asked if it had to be evergreen or just some type of shrub and Mr. Okum answered I would encourage evergreen because of it staying green all year.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone in attendance cared to speak and no one did.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance to allow the air conditioning unit to be in the side yard less than 7 feet from the property line with the addition of evergreen shrubbery to be placed with the intent of covering up the unit from the street side of the property.

Mrs. Chandler asked how much time she had to do this; do I need to plant it this fall and Mrs. McNear answered fall is the best time to plant, and I would suggest that. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Mr. Schecker voted no, and the variance was granted with six affirmative and one negative vote.

D. Thomas Heckman, 11551 Madison Avenue requests variance to allow a 6í x 16í addition to a 10í x 16íutlity building. Said variance is requested from Section153.036 "A separate accessory building or structure..shall not exceed 120 s.f."

Mr. Heckman stated I want a variance to add a 6í x 16í addition to my 10í x 16í building.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE TWELVE

VIII D THOMAS HECKMAN 11551 MADISON - 6í X 16í ADDITION TO UTILITY BLDG.

Mr. Squires asked how long it has been built, and Mr. Heckman answered six weeks.

Mr. Wilson asked the total square footage for the building, and Mr. Heckman answered 256 square feet. Mr. McErlane reported there was an earlier variance allowing the larger building and we suggest that the projection into the side yard be included with this variance. It apparently was overlooked in the previous variance.

Mrs. McNear said looking at the configuration of the lot and where the shed is, there really isnít a back yard; there is only a side yard. When you look at what variances are all about, it is hardship, and there is no way that shed can go into that back yard. It is not large enough to accommodate that. When I drove by the property, it looks very nice; it doesnít look too large for the lot and the property and yard are nice. I would be in favor of the variance for both the size and the side setback.

Mr. Schecker said I would agree and the fact that the property has no garage really leaves you high and dry in terms of storing equipment and for that reason I would support this variance.

Mr. Okum said considering you already have constructed the unit and the first unit was already on the variance, would you have any objections to planting a couple of decent sized (8-9 foot) evergreens towards the street side of that unit?

Mr. Heckman answered there are already two trees there, but I have no problem with that, but I think it makes a pretty good appearance. Mr. Okum answered there is no doubt about that but we have to consider the situation of other people in this community that are limited in the size of their sheds. I think a few evergreens in front of it, possibly a blue spruce of adequate size that will grow up and be healthy and an asset to your property. Mr. Heckman responded I had one planned, not for that location, but I will put it there. Mr. Okum said let the record show that the applicant has offered to plant an 8-foot evergreen.

Mr. Squires asked for comments from the audience.

Mr. Poindexter said I think this gentleman has been a good citizen of Springdale. He has built this shed on the side of the building better than a lot of houses in Springdale. I have been around here a long time, and I know what has been built in Springdale. He has nothing to be ashamed of; when you drive in front of his house, it looks as good as anything that is in Springdale. I donít think the gentleman should have to put any shrubs in front of it. It looks real good t he way it is and I think that is putting more of a burden on him. He is my neighbor; he decorates his house and put an American flag in front of his house. His boy is in the Navy protecting his country; give the man a break, please.

Ms. Poindexter said he is a great neighbor. Isnít a nine-foot tree going to be a lot of money? Should he have to buy one? Mr. Okum said we try to treat everyone fairly. This gentleman is requesting a 240 square foot shed; our code allows 120 and we could require him to remove this and we are being flexible with that. A few minutes ago we required hedges around an air conditioning unit. I think we are treating him fairly understanding the hardship he would have in tearing down the utility building. We have to weigh the balances and try to be fair. We are not aiming at him as a person; we are looking at the properties and the issues.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE THIRTEEN

VIII D THOMAS HECKMAN 11551 MADISON - 6í X 16í ADDITION TO UTILITY BLDG.

Ms. Poindexter responded what I am looking at is are you requiring him to put the tree right in front of it? He has another big tree there, and I could see the conflict with the tree. Since he has one tree there, it might be more appropriate to put a couple of little ones. Mr. Okum added he might want to put a couple of small evergreens in there and have them grow up and fill in the area.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Wilson said so you have agreed that you will put some type of greenery in there to break it up and you feel comfortable with that. Mr. Heckman said I will put something there to break up the view, no problem.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the condition that an evergreen be planted to break the frontage of the shed from the right of way, and that the side yard setback be included as part of the variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify it is not a side yard setback issue; it is the fact that it projects into the side yard.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Calvary Pentecostal Church, 11970 Kenn Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 125 s.f. ground sign facing Interstate 275 and a 40 s.f. sign at Kenn Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.066(A) "One..identification sign not exceeding 50 square feet in area..may be permitted.."
    2. Pastor Norman Paslay said Mike Johnson is with me, and we have come to request a variance for signage. According to code, we are allowed one sign, and we are asking for two, one on Kenn Road and one facing I-275.

      Mr. Johnson said the sign will be aesthetically correct for the building. The same materials that are on the building will be used and the same color scheme. The sign will be externally illuminated so it wonít be a fluorescent color, and we think it matches the lighting around the building. Also, the lighting on the sign will be obscured from any of the residences around it. It will be on the interstate side, and the building will block any light to any residences.

      There are almost 20 acres there and the frontage on the interstate is about 1600 feet. The sign on Kenn Road will be 40 s.f. below the code and we feel that since there is such a huge frontage on the interstate that we would like to take advantage of that. The way the building is associated with the lot, the additional land that we have not developed is landlocked and cannot be sold to a separate business. Therefore we feel the 1600 feet on the interstate will remain the churchís. Technically we have two businesses taking place, an educational wing where school takes place during the weekdays and at night and on the weekends the church has their services. The education has a separate name, Calvary Christian Academy.

      Finally, we feel like the church by the nature of being a church, the more visible it is to a community the better the community becomes. Weíre not trying to put up something commercial looking or with loud colors that would distract from the interstate. In fact, we feel like it would add to the view from the interstate.

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      19 OCTOBER 1999

      PAGE FOURTEEN

      VIII E CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 11970 KENN ROAD Ė 2 SIGNS

      Reverend Paslay added we are going to use the same brick and stone combination that we have on the building currently. The colors of the face will probably be like the color of the stone or a soft gray and the lettering itself will either be a burgundy or plum, which we have used throughout the building. Youíll also notice that neither has any kind of marquee feature to it so there would be nothing to try to read on the way by.

      Mr. Squires commented I certainly agree with you about the difficulty of finding your entrance on Kenn Road without a sign.

      Mr. Wilson said relative to the sign facing 275, your comment was that you didnít want it to appear commercial. Donít you feel that by having the internal lighting it might give the impression of being commercial in that the other signage that faces 275 are lit up for commercial reasons. Do you anticipate a lot of evening activities where someone would have to see that sign in the evening, or is it just because it is there you want it lit?

      Reverend Paslay answered our intent was just to spot the sign. Mr. Johnson added it would not be internally illuminated; it will be externally lit. Reverend Paslay added we want it like a university or city hall, just put a spot on that sign. Mr. Wilson asked if the backlight from the church would help that at all, and Mr. Johnson responded we wouldnít have any lights on that side of the building. There are just parking lights, which are probably 100 feet away. The parking lot is on the other side of the building. Reverend Paslay added there are in the education wing but none on the sanctuary. Mr. Johnson added that might be deceiving; that is just the sanctuary drawing of the building. There is an education wing that goes way down this way and there is lighting on there. Reverend Paslay added we certainly donít want to hide the fact that we are there; we are available 24 hours but we try to be very careful to not have it visible to the neighbors on the north property line. Mr. Wilson asked the wattage which will be used, and if it would bounce back. Mr. Johnson answered it will be a gray color with a maroon lettering, nothing bright. The molding on top may be white, but the sign itself will be gray with maroon.

      Mrs. McNear said we have to be careful when it comes to signage, but I think this is a really unique piece of property; it is 20 acres. Look at Tri-County Mall and how many square feet of signage do we have there as compared to something that looks as tasteful as this. It is also very unique in that you can see it from 275 but the entrance is off Kenn Road. You canít even get off the expressway at that point so I donít think it is easily identifiable. I think the signs look really nice. I donít have a problem with the 40 s.f. sign on Kenn Road. The sign on I-275 might be a tad large. There is a sign for the Glenmary properties that we gave a variance for, and the frontage is not nearly the size that we are talking about here. Mr. McErlane added one thing you have to keep in mind is that their property line is a little further back from the travel lanes on 275. On this map, you can see that at some point of time ODOT must have planned a ramp at that location.

      Mr. Johnson added one of our concerns is if the sign is too small it becomes insignificant. If the letters canít be large enough to be read from the interstate, it becomes worthless. Mrs. McNear commented this sign is much more tastefully done than the sign at Glenmary or Hunters Glen or even some of the neon signs up and down 275. The only thing I would be a little concerned about is the 125 s.f.; you are in the business of God, and you need to advertise your business just like any of the others, but I would like to see it closer to 100 s.f. on the expressway side of it. Also, I just love that your sign has your internet address. Reverend Paslay said we will put a spotlight on it, and it is one sided; it will run parallel to Kenn; it is offset quite a bit from Kenn to the drive area itself.

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      19 OCTOBER 1999

      PAGE FIFTEEN

      VIII E CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 11970 KENN ROAD Ė 2 SIGNS

      Mr. Johnson added we really wanted whatever square footage we could get on the variance from the interstate. About the internet lettering, with 100 s.f. sign, it could not be read from the interstate, and we would have to sacrifice and go back to the church name, so that is why we were concerned about the size of that sign..

      Mrs. McNear added I love the fact that your internet address is on there, but I donít think I want anybody writing those down at 60 m.p.h. If you have to cut it down, thatís where I suggest you do it.

      Mr. McErlane said I would like to clarify the difference between what was submitted tonight and what was submitted previously. The Kenn Road sign is slightly over 45 1/3 s.f. and the height has been increased to 7í-8". Both area and height are in conformance. The I-275 sign, based on the way we calculate square footage, is now 233 s.f. and 9í-10" high.

      Mr. Schecker said as far as the sign on I-275 is concerned, I feel it is too much verbiage with the phone number and addresses and K through 4. Perhaps you can make the sign smaller without some of that. It seems like it should be cut down; it seems way way too big.

      Reverend Paslay said if youíll tell us the parameters we can make it work. Mr. Schecker responded I donít see how the phone numbers and K thru 4 and the web site numbers are appropriate on a sign by the highway. Mr. Johnson responded my major concern is the size of the lettering, and it is probably 200 feet off the interstate. The perspective you have with this drawing is not the perspective you will see from the interstate. We didnít want to put up just a square sign for the sake of wording; we wanted to have something that would add to the building. Weíll sacrifice looks for square footage if we have to, but itís a long way from the interstate.

      Mr. Squires commented there is no problem with the design of the sign. What Mr. McErlane was alluding to was how we calculate the square footage. Mr. Johnson added the design of the sign looks good because of the size but if we have to shrink it down, weíll probably have to redesign it.

      Reverend Paslay commented Mr. Scheckerís point is well taken. On the sign we have on Kemper, we listed the services and times and we are in complete agreement, we donít want to make it like a resume or summary. I was excited about the web site, but we would be happy to delete that.

      Mr. Wilson said I can appreciate your wanting to put signage on the interstate for people who are looking for the church, even though they have to get off either before they see your sign or after and figure out how to get back. I have a concern that at 60 m.p.h. and sometimes faster than that they will not have time to look for a phone number or web site. I would rather you have Apostolic Pentecostal Calvary Church, just that. It is putting something there that they wonít have time to read, and by eliminating that, you can cut the size down. I like the overall design because it blends in with the church and is part of the architecture.

      Mrs. McNear said I think that on Princeton Pike there is a BP Gas Station and a Shell Gas Station and we have issued quite a few variances on signage for them. I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of an excess of 400 s.f. To put that in perspective, you are looking at a space the size of this room right on the street, where this property is quite a distance away. Even if it is 250 s.f., put that in comparison with the size of this property and where it will be placed. I think the sign is a little too busy; at that speed you wonít be able to read it, but I think it is really nice.

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      19 OCTOBER 1999

      PAGE SIXTEEN

      VIII E CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 11970 KENN ROAD Ė 2 SIGNS

      Mr. Paslay responded we havenít done this a lot so we have to learn. Your point is a good one; we are trying to context it proportionately to the entire property; there are about nine acres right there.

      Mr. Johnson added I think we fully agree that it has too many words there. If you approve the size and we increase the size of Calvary Church, I donít think it will be huge from the interstate. I think it still will be a proportional sign.

      Mrs. McNear commented I think some of the other signs we have approved on the expressway have been about 100 s.f. We approved the real estate sign for Extended Stay at 100 s.f. because of where it was located. It was down in the valley and some distance off the expressway. This is something we need to take into consideration. You know I am not one for giving large variances for signage, but this is a special situation, and is what variances are all about. If you look at 278 square feet, that is not a huge amount for that sign, but I still would rather see the large sign cut down to about 100 square feet,

      Mrs. Ewing asked about putting on the steeple and Mr. Johnson answered it has been purchased and we are waiting for the truss calculations to be approved. Mrs. Ewing continued when you were in before you were requesting the steeple so it could be seen from the expressway and identify where your church is. I do think your sign is nicely done and I do like your attitude of giving the campus flair in terms of the spotlight on it. However, I am concerned because the last time in you were talking about a larger steeple to be seen from 275, and now you are saying you also want the steeple plus the sign.

      Reverend Paslay responded I didnít context the steeple in terms of signage, just as an aesthetic point on the building itself. Mr. Okum wondered if the steeple would be lighted, and Mr. Johnson answered I donít think it will be. and we are wailing for the trusses to be approved before we install it. Reverend Paslay added the steeple probably would say we were a church, but wouldnít say who we were, so I didnít think it was overkill.

      Mr. Squires added the steeple wasnít so much to identify the church as it was more of an architectural item.

      Mr. Okum said in this case the way you have handled the architectural features on the signage, I would like to set that aside from the measurement and calculations because I think it sets the tone and is not really signage.

      The sign is too busy. If you eliminate some of the verbiage, you can bring the sign down, but I do not think you need to bring it down a whole lot;. I think it needs more balance.

      Reverend Paslay wondered if they could delete the verbiage below Calvary Church (number of the web site and the academy), and you tell us the dimension we need to go with. Mr. Okum answered as long as it doesnít exceed 32 feet . Reverend Paslay wondered if it would be acceptable to reduce the sign by the amount of square footage deleted from these words. Mr. Okum commented I think they need some mass there. I would not like to see that squatted down; it would look tacky.

      Mr. McErlane reported the real issue is the square footage of the sign. I would hate to see us get in a position where we are dictating the message. Obviously it makes sense to eliminate some of the smaller verbiage to make the other part work, but I would hate to see a motion that says delete these words and put these words in.

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      19 OCTOBER 1999

      PAGE SEVENTEEN

      VIII E CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 11970 KENN ROAD Ė 2 SIGNS

      Mr. Wilson said I think this sign is 175 s.f. with all the verbiage. If you use those type of dimensions, the 175 versus the 232, could you use this type lettering and get it down to 175? Mr. McErlane stated that if you donít use the 2-foot pedestals you would have 125 s.f.

      Reverend Paslay commented you are right; all we want is the name recognition. Mr. Johnson added I agree that two feet is not much in height. If we shrunk the sign could we increase the height to three feet? Mr. Wilson responded I donít think the issue is height; the total square footage is the issue. Reverend Paslay added we can accomplish it because of what we are deleting. Itíll work fine for us.

      Mr. Johnson commented twenty-five feet sounds like a lot, but it is not. Thirty-two feet would be nice, with the name only, if you are in agreement. If we stayed at 32 feet, what is the square footage?

      Mr. Okum said if you stay at 32 feet x 5 feet that totals 160 s.f. Mr. Johnson said we would still end up three feet below the maximum height.

      Mr. Schecker said if you get rid of all the verbiage, you would center the Calvary Church proportionately, but let me ask one other thing. How important is the word academy? Reverend Paslay answered it is not essential. Mr. Schecker continued I would like to see a sign that read "Apostolic Pentecostal Calvary Church" centered. I think it would be a very nice looking sign. Reverend Paslay agreed, and Mr. Johnson said we will do that.

      Mr. Okum said I think Mr. McErlane said that we should not be worrying about the wording. Our issue is the visibility and hardship. I agree with the comments and I think it should be 32í x 5í and seven feet high.

      Mr. Schecker wondered if the sign on Kenn Road would be pretty apparent in line of sight, and Mr. Johnson answered not really. We are just worrying about the one on the interstate. Mr. Schecker asked if there were any way to have it more prominent on Kenn Road. Reverend Paslay answered I do not know how to make it more prominent. There is such a steep grade with lots of trees that line the sidewalk. It seemed like the logistics prohibited it. If you look through the driveway you can see it as you go by. If you donít you wonít.

      Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak, and no one came forward.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the request for variance to allow one sign at I-275 which is not to exceed 160 s.f., pediments excluded from that calculation and a second sign as presented on Kenn Road, and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Borden, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    3. Tri-County Furniture, 11101 Springfield Pike requests variance to allow outside storage of 55-gallon drums. Said variance is requested from Section 153.093 "..the open storage of products is prohibited in all commercial districts."

Jerry Ash said I am the owner of Tri-County Furniture Refinishing as well as the property at 11101, 11107 and 11113 Springfield Pike. We want a variance to allow storage of 55-gallon containers to use in our stripping operation that we have had on this same property and location since 1981.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE EIGHTEEN

VIII F TRI-COUNTY FURNITURE 11101 SPRINGFIELD PK Ė BARREL STORAGE

Mr. Ash said have brought several photos to give you different perspectives as to where it is from Route 4 to where the barrels actually are. It is probably at least 400 feet back. There used to be a very nice hedgerow, which was a barrier for my one and only neighbor. I tried to show how the hedge looked prior to, how it looks now and why the barrels have become an issue and let you judge for yourselves. He showed the photographs.

Mr. Squires asked what chemicals are stored in the barrels, and Mr. Ash answered that they are for the stripping operation. They are 55 gallon drums; very few are totally full. There are some flammables and some caustics. Everything is listed with the fire department. We have given them all hazardous waste manifests, longitude, latitude and where they are located.

Mr. Squires wondered what the fire department says about the storage. Mr. Ash answered the fire department visits us twice a year and gives us guidance and tells us what is safe or unsafe. The fire department requests that the barrels be stored outside of the building due to their contents. I think there is a number of flammable gallons that may be stored inside. Mr. Squires said so you are saying that it is the recommendation of our fire department that you are storing these barrels correctly. Mr. Ash added they have been stored that way for the last 19 years and we have had no problems whatsoever.

Mr. Squires wondered if he could build a fence of some type around the barrels and still store them outside. Mr. Ash answered you could do that, but access would be a problem. They are something that we get to at least several times a week. Also if you look at the property line, I think a fence means you have to be 10 feet away, which would bring them probably within four feet of the building. Also I know that since we are on over an acre of lane we are not allowed to add onto the building without putting in a fire retention pond.

Mr. Wilson said when we got within 5 feet of the drums, you could clearly smell them. Mr. Ash commented they are steel drums; I am surprised you stated that, but some people are more susceptible to the fumes than others.

Mr. Wilson added first we talked about some type of shelter alongside the house and making it out of wood, and then we talked about screening it. My concern is that there either be some kind of screening or shelter, having it be accessible to your two wheelers or forklifts. Do you bring those barrels inside to refill them? Mr. Ash indicated he does. We do not have a forklift, but it is a drum handler. Where you were suggesting that we put those barrels is an unapproved site. There is no asphalt or concrete; it would be on top of dirt or rock. It could be done; would it be a hindrance Ė yes. Would it be approved by the fire department or the building department Ė I donít know that, but I would say it wouldnít be from what I have been told.

Mr. Wilson said you spoke in terms of doing some type of screening. Do you now feel you donít want to do that? Mr. Ash answered I would be willing to do whatever is necessary to be in compliance. My point would be that I donít know that any type of screening would solve the problem. If you look at those photos, we have cleaned up the property considerably over the last nine years. Yes I can do that, and Iím not saying I will not do that. I think you are giving me a hindrance in that we would have to go around those and some of these weigh 600 pounds. Most are in the 350 to 500 pound range, so it is not an easily movable accessible item. Being on asphalt it would be much easier to move.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE NINETEEN

VIII F TRI-COUNTY FURNITURE 11101 SPRINGFIELD PK Ė BARREL STORAGE

Mr. Wilson commented if you had some sort of power lift, weight would not be an issue. Weight is an issue because of the apparatus you are using to transport it. Mr. Ash responded you are limited to what power lifts you can do because of sparks and flammability. You cannot use just any type of thing around a 55-gallon methanol drum. I would think a forklift would be a major concern. I am sure they would have equipment that would not cause sparks or any types of problems causing flammability, but what we use is basic drum moving equipment.

Mr. Okum commented we have heard comments regarding flammable storage outside. For the record, the staff report says "..that the Fire Department did not directly indicate that they be stored outside.." Do we worry about ground infiltration and EPA matters?

Mr. Ash responded we are totally in compliance. If you want to table this, I would be happy to give you a NIOSH report that we are probably the only one in the country that has fulfilled the requirements for methalyne chloride compliance for the year 2,000. I just purchased the property and Provident Bank gave me a loan. I had to do an EPA study, and everything was passed on that.

Mr. Okum commented I would like to get comments from the Fire Department on this. The gentleman is here saying that the Fire Department is saying that they donítí want the drums inside.

Mr. Ash said if you read the Fire Department code, you are only allowed about 500 gallons of material inside unless it is in a concealed unit. Fifty-five gallon drums are not even considered to be inside, so it is impossible to store them inside. They would severely frown upon that.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify, the Fire Department has indicated that the applicant cannot store those inside because the facilities are not constructed according to the fire code requirements. It is not that flammable liquids cannot be stored inside. The facility he has does not meet the fire code requirements for storing them inside. There are other locations within the city that have up to 30,000 gallons of flammable liquid stored inside; it is just that they are in a facility that meets the fire code requirements for that.

As it stands in that facility, the fire code limits 60 gallons to be stored inside one drum. There also are limitations on how you can store them outside. It is a case that the Fire Department says no you canít store more than one drum inside this building because it is not constructed for such storage. It is not that they are insisting that they be stored outside; they are saying they canít store more than 60 gallons inside.

Mr. Okum added it also says that they should be a minimum of 25 feet from the property line, and these arenít. Mr. McErlane responded they would be fairly close. Mr. Ash reported they probably are within 20 feet. Mr. Okum continued so if they are within 25 feet, they are not in conformance with the fire code.

Mr. McErlane reported one of the problems we have with this property altogether is the fact that I donít know how much of this is a legal non-conforming type issue. It is not a zoning issue; it is a fire code issue. The building code is not a retroactive code with respect to flammable liquids. From what I could tell from our records, there has been some type of stripping business down there since at least 1976. Mr. Ash stated I have been there since 1978 and to the best of my knowledge, this business started in 1972.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE TWENTY

VIII F TRI-COUNTY FURNITURE 11101 SPRINGFIELD PK Ė BARREL STORAGE

Mr. McErlane reported in 1972, the State of Ohio wasnít even using national codes to enforce laws; they made up their own, so I couldnít tell you what the code said in 1972. But building codes are not retroactive, so there is no way for the building code to regulate what he is doing.

Mr. Ash said I could move them to the wall, and they would be within 30 feet. Mr. McErlane added and there is a means to store them against the exterior wall of the building with certain limitations.

Mr. Ash said my point is they have been safely there with absolutely no problem for the last 18 years. I have no idea why all of a sudden I am called upon it. Mr. McErlane has been down there; the fire department has been down there twice a year. Why all of a sudden has it become an issue when there has been absolutely no problems? If anything the property has been enhanced by the number of people that I have renting those properties.

Mr. Okum responded if you are in violation of a fire code requirement, how we treat it is going to be impacted by that. If you move the barrels back 25 feet from the property line, how could we handle the issue of outside storage and what are you going to do to make that work?

Mr. Ash responded I wasnít aware of the 25-foot requirement. Look at those photos. There is nowhere to store them if you are asking for 25 feet from the property line, unless we leave them in the middle of the parking lot, which I guess could be done.

Mr. Schecker said apart from the 25-foot requirement, there is no grading. Mr. Ash said there is grading. Mr. Schecker continued other than just shielding, is there any way to hamper trespassers. There is no security of any sort there that we can see. Mr. Ash said no there is not. Mr. Schecker said this section indicates that open storage is prohibited in all commercial districts.

Mr. Ash said I am not even in a commercial district. What I need to know is how you want me to store the barrels. I am asking for a variance because that is the way they have been stored, and it seemed to have worked.

Mr. Schecker commented I think we need someone from the fire department to tell us whether this applicant is in compliance or not. I for one canít say yes or not on this; we need some guidance; I donít know.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is in a General Business District, which is a commercial district. The real issue is outside storage but I would recommend that we table this and get input from the fire department for next month.

Mr. Okum moved to table and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and the matter was tabled to the November 16th meeting.

G. Princeton Properties requests variance for the 435 parking spaces (493 required under Section 153.091(A)) and the setback for the dumpster enclosure at 1í (5í required under Section 153.096(1)) for their three-story addition at 100 Merchant Street (Referred by Planning Commission)

Dan Wheeler, representing Princeton Properties Inc. said last week we were at Planning Commission to get approval of the three-story addition at 100 Merchant Street. It is 25,000 square feet of office space.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

VIII G PRINCETON PROPERTIES 100 MERCHANT ST. Ė PARKING SPACES

Mr. Wheeler stated that Planning referred this to your body for variances. One is for the dumpster enclosure setback requirement, which is five feet, and we have 2 Ĺ feet. The other variance would be for the number of parking spaces. We currently have 435 parking spaces. Initially we proposed 458 parking spaces and at the request of Planning Commission took off parking spaces for landscaped islands and more green area throughout the parking lot.

Over the past year we have leased 125 parking spaces for Sweeney, and we have never had fewer than 50-60 open parking spaces so we never had a problem with the parking spaces. If you take the 25,000 s.f. gross and take 75% of it would be 18 to 19,0000 s.f. or 95 parking spaces. The 95 spaces are 30 less than we had leased to Sweeney. Even with the building addition, we still should have excess parking spaces. We are sure that we have sufficient parking with 435 spaces.

There are some 200 employees now; the primary user is Sheakley, and there are some other smaller users in the building. Two thirds of the building addition will be used by Sheakley, who will be bringing in another 90 employees. So I am here asking for a variance for the number of parking spaces and the dumpster location.

Mrs. McNear on the leasing of 125 spaces to Sweeney, how long will that continue? Mr. Wheeler answered it is completed.

Mr. Okum said I did push for additional green and the vacation of parking spaces, which increased the issue. The gentleman indicated the usage and their counts were pretty accurate. He also commented on how tight the Sheakley group packs their employees into that office space and how they still had surplus parking spaces. I think the giving up of the parking spaces for the green was necessary to break that field, and they are going to handle the water retention for their portion of the building expansion.

On the dumpster setback, it is an appropriate location. There really is no other place to put it. If they put it out further into a parking field it would be a hazard and so it is appropriately located and I would encourage the board to approve the request for the variance. I think they have done a nice job with it and the way they have done it is appropriate.

Addressing Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson said you recommended the elimination of parking spots for greenery. Didnít the Planning Commission consider eliminating some parking spots for the dumpster location. Mr. Okum responded we figured, and our city planner agreed that ideally this is the best location for the dumpster. Mr. Wheeler added we moved it to that location at the request of the city to alleviate an eyesore, and we are going to put screening around it with gates.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance for 435 parking spaces and the dumpster location to be located roughly 1 foot from the property line. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak and no one came forward.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Borden, Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 OCTOBER 1999

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

 

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Wilson said letís look at the variance for the dog grooming. I am not saying we should always have someone come out and tdake alook, but there may be an occasion where a resident might not have to come in and sit through a meeting. We might be able to waive that.

    Mr. Squires said that is a good point, as to whether or not you might want to go a little bit longer wilth the variance and have the Board of H ealth just make a report to the BZA. There is still the aspect of lthis being a public meeting and other neighbors have to be heard if they wish to speak. We canít ignore that.

    Mr. MCErlane said IL would have a concern about the board deliberating n something wilthout the applicant beilng here to answer questions.

    Mr. Squires said next month is the last meeting for some of us. It has been a pleasure as far as I am concerned. It has been a wonderful experience and you people are fantastic to work with. I have learned something every tilme I come.

    Mr. Schecker commented if eel the same way as far as this beilng an education.

  3. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. McNear moved to adjourn and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,1999 _____________________________

James Squires, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,1999 _____________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.