BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
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, Building Inspection Supervisor

   
III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE


IV MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 21 SEPTEMBER 2010

Mr. Squires moved for acceptance the September 21, 2010 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting minutes, Mr. Reichert seconded the motion and with a unanimous “aye” vote from the Board of Zoning Appeals Members, the minutes were adopted.


V CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman Okum: We have one item of correspondence on our desk; I believe it says Heritage Hill resident and I believe Mr. Campion received this letter and he will give information regarding this when that case comes before the Board.


VI REPORT ON COUNCIL

Mr. Hawkins gave a summary report of the City Council November 3rd, 2010 meeting.


VII REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION

    Chairman Okum gave a summary report of the November 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.


VIII CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS


IX OLD BUSINESS

A.    Chairman Okum: The first item on the agenda is for Old Business, tabled from
June 2010; the owner of 1205 Wainwright Drive requests a variance to store a recreational vehicle in the driveway on the property. Said variance is from Section 153.480(D)(1) “One recreational vehicle, one boat on a trailer or one trailer used for recreational purposes may be stored in an unenclosed area of the property…”; 153.480(D)(1)(b) “When stored in the front yard or in the side yard on a side street of corner lots 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…”

    (The representative for 1205 Wainwright Drive was not present.)

Chairman Okum: For the record, Mr. Campion, has notice been given to the applicant?

Mr. Campion: Yes, it has.

Chairman Okum: Have we received any correspondence from the applicant?

Mr. Campion: No, we have not.

Chairman Okum: This did have discussion, did receive a table for consideration and action was deferred to this time. It is at the pleasure of this Board if we want to hear it without the applicant here, or we can continue until the next meeting.

Mr. Squires: I would prefer not to continue it. The applicant is not here at the meeting. We do have a letter from a resident but it is not signed; and normally we don’t enter those if they are not signed.

(At this time Mr. Campion read the Staff report.)

Chairman Okum: You stated earlier that there had been no communication from the applicant; you did receive a letter from a resident and as an Official of the City would you like to comment on that so it will be nothing more than information, since it is not signed?

Mr. Campion: On November 15th, the person who wrote this letter asked me to come to his house and he handed me this letter, he is a neighbor of the applicant and he wished his thoughts be known but he wanted to remain anonymous. I can attest that he handed me this letter and you have it in your packet.

Chairman Okum: At this time we will open the floor to anyone that would like to address the Board.

(No one came forward from the audience to speak and this portion of the hearing was closed.)

Mr. Squires: I would like to make a motion to approve the request from the resident at 1205 Wainwright Drive to allow parking of a recreational vehicle in the driveway.
Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Mr. Emerson: I notice his driveway has been expanded, has the City issued him a building permit to expand his driveway?

Mr. Campion: I believe we issued him a building permit for the fence but I don’t know if we issued him a permit for the drive; I don’t think we did.

Mr. Emerson: I noticed his driveway has been expanded, made wider and I was curious if it met the guidelines of his two extra parking spaces with his camper in there now, to where he wouldn’t need a variance.

Mr. Campion: There is a question that has been raised as to whether the concrete that he poured on the right-hand side of the driveway is actually on his property.

Mr. Emerson: This is to the left.

Mr. Campion: I believe what I saw, as you face the house, is on the right side.

Mr. Emerson: I thought it was on the left. I noticed there was a huge pile of dirt.

Mr. Campion: There is a photo in your packet that shows the trailer.

Chairman Okum: When was this photo taken?

Mr. Campion: This is the original photo; it doesn’t show the new driveway. As I describe it, it is from the street and it would be the area to the right of the existing driveway where he has poured a ribbon up towards the fence and he has cut into the hillside; so from that photo you can see how the land goes up about 1’ or 1-1/2’. We don’t normally survey things and if it becomes a question as to whether or not that is on his property then we would have to determine that. The same person that wrote the letter thinks, in his opinion that it is not on his property. According to the ordinance, you have to have 2- 9’ X 19’ spaces, in addition to where the trailer was.

Mr. Hawkins: I am of the opinion that the applicant could solve his problems through means other than having a variance granted and also I am of the opinion through the material that the Board has been granted that granting a variance would have substantial detrimental impact on neighbors and would impact the essential character of the neighborhood.

Chairman Okum: The Staff also provided to us conditions and findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals with comments for our information; I cannot find anything in Staff’s comments that I disagree with in regards to rights and use and I agree with you one hundred percent, Mr. Hawkins, on your interpretation. I will be voting “No” in regards to this request.

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with a unanimous negative vote the request for variance was denied.

Chairman Okum: Please give notice to Mr. Arroyo.

   

X NEW BUSINESS

A.    Chairman Okum: The next item on the agenda under New Business, The owner of 1 – 65 East Kemper Road requests a variance to reduce the required green space from 25% to 18%. Said variance is from Section 153.224 “ Minimum Green Space shall be 25% of the lot area.”; to allow 51 parking spaces (57 spaces required) Said variance is from Section 153.504 “…the following table outlines the minimum number of parking spaces for each use.”, 0’ rear (south) pavement setback, 0’ pavement setback east drive, Said variances are from Section 153.502(C) “In no case, however, shall the parking area or access drives be located closer than…10 feet from any non-residential property line…” 20.47’ setback for the rear of the expansion building, Said variance is from Section 153.222 “The minimum rear yard setback shall be 30 feet when abutting a non-residential district or uses.”; location of dumpster in a side yard. Said variance is from Section 153.489(A)”It shall not project into or be located on a front or side yard.”
   
Mr. Hake: I wanted to start out by outlining where we are at and how we have gotten to today. Approximately ten months ago we appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals for final approval for Phase I for our Springdale Pointe project. Phase I is the Vitamin Shoppe building and is 3500 s.f. on the former B.P parcel; .67 acres, with an expansion pad next to it. The Vitamin Shoppe has now opened on October 10th, 2010 and we are very excited that in less than a year we are seeking approval for Phase II of this project. Phase II would be expanding the building by 7700 s.f. to a total of 11,202 s.f. and will be located on a parcel which is known as the Tiffany Glass parcel and would be incorporated into the B.P. parcel for the whole parcel size of .94 acres. We are seeking six variances tonight from the Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals. The architectural aesthetics of the expanded building will be the same as you see on the Phase I project. One of the concerns from Staff is having this parcel become one, which we will do. The overall expansion plan fits nicely into our overall redevelopment plan which will include Ponderosa and the Skyline building. The best part for us is the project is 100% pre-leased right now; we have national credit tenants who want to be here. On day one, we hope to have a national cell phone user, a national dental user in addition to Vitamin Shoppe.

Chairman Okum: Planning Commission did approve this with seven affirmative votes, with two conditions on Staff report and the deed restrictions or covenants applied to the property in regards to tree replacement and the green space; those are deed restrictions that would apply and carry into the overall development.

Mr. Hawkins: That goes to this entire parcel, or are we talking about even looking forward into the future of the Ponderosa site?

Mr. Hake: The green space requirements that Chairman Okum mentioned would be for the overall redevelopment of the Ponderosa and Skyline.

Mr. Hawkins: What is your estimation of when you think the Ponderosa and Skyline area would get redeveloped?

Mr. Hake: Currently both of those tenants have around seven years of term remaining on their lease; so that is the maximum amount of time that they could be there. We hope to begin working on Phase III of this project, which would be the redevelopment of the Ponderosa building, sooner than later. Skyline is a staple of the community and we feel that the building looks good. If the operator of that wants to be there long term, we would be open to talking with him about that; but as of right now the maximum length that each of those tenants could be on site is right around seven years.

    (At this time Mr. Randy Campion read the Staff comments.)


Chairman Okum: At this time we are going to open up to communication from the audience.

(No one came forward from the audience to speak and this portion of the hearing was closed.)

Chairman Okum: Can we have a motion on the six variances?

Mr. Squires: I would like to make a motion to grant the six variances requested for
1 – 65 East Kemper Road to include all of the variances as well as the 25% green space that is required on the overall parcel of 2.207 acres.
Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.

Chairman Okum: Just one comment, and I voted in favor and knew this would be coming before this Board, should the Ponderosa building be taken down then the only reason for the zero setback in the 20.47 setback is because of the Ponderosa building. If the Ponderosa building were redeveloped, does that totally go away?

Mr. Hake: Potentially, it could. We have several different plans expanding the building that way, so we would essentially attach to the Vitamin Shoppe building and expand it south; so that is one option. The other option would be a free standing or a two-tenant building on the similar footprint for where Ponderosa is now. At that point we would have the flexibility where most likely we could work with it a little bit and clean up some of that setback that we are currently asking the variance for.

Mrs. Huber poled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with 1 negative vote and 6 affirmative votes, the request was approved.


XI DISCUSSION

No items of discussion were presented at this meeting.


XII ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn, and with a unanimous “aye” vote from all of the
Board of Zoning Appeals Members the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2010 ___________________________________
            Chairman Dave Okum



________________________,2010 ___________________________________
            Secretary Jane Huber