BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 NOVEMBER 1996

7:30 P.M.

 

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman William Mitchell.

II. ROLL CALL

Mr. Mitchell stated that in the absence of Mrs. Ewing, Mrs. McNear would be

acting secretary this evening.

Members Present: Councilwoman Marge Boice, David Okum, Tom Schecker,

James Squires, Councilwoman Kathy McNear and

Chairman William Mitchell.

Members Absent: Barbara Ewing

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 15 OCTOBER 1996

Mr. Squires moved for adoption and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative

votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 8 October 1996

B. Amended Section 153.005 "Definitions-Household Domesticated Pet"

V. REPORTS

A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated there will be a tree lighting ceremony at 7:30 p.m. on December 1st. In your Springdale Newsletter are details about the Christmas decorating judging which will be taking place on two nights. The city will be split in seven sections and there will be first, second and third and honorable mentions in each section. Tomorrow night there is an ordinance to buy new patrol cars and we will be adding another police officer, specifically a youth officer.

B. Report on Planning Commission - David Okum

Mr. Okum reported at our meeting on November 12, we had five items, three of which were tabled. Community Management Corporation requested approval of additional parking for the Wimbledons Plaza; they were not in attendance and were tabled. Kerry Fordís proposed signage; instead of sending a representative of the company, Kerry Ford sent a sign company representative. They did not make any changes to the pole signs along Northland Boulevard, nor did they consider any of Planning Commissionís requests. They said here it is and sent this gentleman off to slaughter. That was also tabled. Final plan approval for Sterling House was on the agenda, Sterling House had made no changes to their preliminary plan and had added an additional area, Confusion Management Area, which is for Alzheimerís patients. Mrs. Boice added it is 12 Alzheimer units. Mr. Okum stated they had not made any adjustments to their plan from their original presentation. No one was present, and this also was tabled. Lanco Development requested rezoning of the property on the northeast corner of Kenn Road and I-275 from PF-1 (Public Facility) to R-1-D, residential zoning which are 60 x 120 foot sites. Their presentation incorporated 5.8 units per acre, had a blend of housing between $125,000 and $300,000 which is a very unusual mix, especially for those size lots.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 November 1996

Page Two

V B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - continued

Mr. Okum reported that there was much discussion regarding value and even being able to put the number of sites on that parcel. They wanted to put 67 units on that property all the way along I-275, indicating they felt that was a reasonable use. They also tried to discuss the possibility of going to R-1-C zoning. The adjacent properties are R-1-B, and Planning felt that the applicant had not shown any reason why PF-1 was not appropriate for the site. Some 20 years ago it was residential, and since that time it has been zoned for public facility. There was mention of other churches and public facilities that have been built in the area currently, and the fact that there seems to be an increased interest in public facility locations. We werenít quite sure why that applicant wanted to change it to R-1-D. That was tabled at the request of the applicant. Roberds Grand requested resizing of their directional signs. They are the same sign but a little larger so people donít get confused going into the facility. Approval was granted.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Robert A. Kraft, 655 Glensprings Drive requests variance to allow the construction of a 14í x 16í patio enclosure to project to 27 feet from the rear property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(D)(4)(c) "Rear yards must be at least 40 feet deep."

Mrs. Kraft stated we are requesting a variance because our back yards is only 41 feet deep. To build anything, we would need a variance, and we want to get a patio enclosure.

Mr. Mitchell wondered if this will be in the same location as your existing porch and Mrs. Kraft indicated that it would be, adding that there is an awning there right now. I talked to Mr. McErlane and he instructed me who needed to sign the paper and I went around and talked to the neighbors; all signed.

Mr. Okum wondered if porches were allowed to go into that setback area. Mr. Gordon King, sitting in for Mr. McErlane, reported that porches are allowed to project back a certain number of feet. This lady has a 41 foot rear yard now, so anything she wants to do would require a variance. Mr. Mitchell added the issue is she wants to do an enclosure for the porch.

Mrs. Boice said I have people behind me who added on a permanent structure that extends into the backyard putting it closer to mine, and there has been no problem at all, and I see no problem with this addition.

Mr. Squires commented I would concur with that. We have dealt with .things similar to this quite often, and we have approved some that have gone much further than that.

Mrs. Boice asked if they would be using this year round and Mrs. Kraft said probably not. We will have a glass enclosure, but it will not be heated.

Mr. Okum wondered if it were an aluminum enclosure and Mrs. Kraft indicated that it was. Mr. Schecker added we donít see the floor plan and its actual size and location relative to the building. We presume it is identical to the current cover you have as far as its size and location.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 November 1996

Page Three

VII A - ROBERT KRAFT 655 GLENSPRINGS 14í X 16í PATIO ENCLOSURE-cont.

Mrs. Kraft explained that right now she has a patio. The patio is larger than the awning, which extends 14í x 12í, something like that. This is a little bit larger and will be enclosed by glass. Mr. Schecker responded by larger you mean along the length of the house; itís not extending any further into the back yard than the current awning, right? Mrs. Kraft answered as far as I know , it will be bigger than the awning I have, but only by a foot or two. Itís not that much bigger than what I have.

Mr. Schecker commented when I looked at the house, and visualized a room out there instead of just a shed, looking both ways at the other properties, this will look rather imposing out there, very close to the back property line and the line of view of the back yards would be quite interrupted by this building.

Mrs. Kraft stated the neighbor right behind me has nothing but honeysuckle bushes that seem 20 feet high. I am very close to my neighbors and talked to them and showed them a picture of the enclosure, and none had a problem with it. They signed it and I told them if they had a problem with it they could come to this meeting. I did all that personally.

Mr. Squires commented as I understand it the structure is already there and you want to enclose it, is that correct? Mrs. Kraft answered no, all I have is an awning with a cement patio. I want a patio enclosure with glass. I would consider it like a room addition, although we will not be able to use it year round. Mr. Squires wondered if the existing patio would be the foundation, or would you redo the patio. Mrs. Kraft answered the patio will stay, but right now two steps come out of the house and they will build a deck so you can walk out on the same level. Mr. Squires asked if it would be larger than the existing patio, and Mrs. Kraft answered my patio is even bigger than that, so there will be concrete around the enclosure. There is probably another 10 feet of concrete from the enclosure out.

Mr. King said in response to Mr. Okumís earlier question, Section 153.037 Projections into Yards, she is talking about an awning that is an unenclosed shelter and it is allowed to project 50% into the required rear yard. Since she will do away with that and build an enclosed room, according to Section C, it shall not project at all into a rear yard, so they need a variance from the 40 foot rear yard requirement.

Mr. Okum said I guess this will be white aluminum type trim. Mrs. Kraft answered it is white and mostly glass. It has a gable ceiling with glass at the top and glass and screen around it. Mr. Okum confirmed that the accent color on her home was white.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Boice and Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Schecker voted no, and the variance was granted with five affirmative and one negative vote.

B. William Feese, 870 Clearfield Lane requests variance to allow him to park his utility trailer on the driveway lentil December 31, 1996. Said variance is requested from Section 153.044(C)(2) "but not closer than 5 feet to the nearest lot line," and (2)(b) "..must still leave 2 additional spaces..Each such space shall not be less than 9 feet by 20 feet."

Mr. Feese stated we are building a chuck wagon for a non-profit organization, Royal Rangers which is like the Boys Scouts. My house is the central location. We will be done no later than the end of this year and this trailer will be permanently removed and put on church property.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 November 1996

Page Four

VII B WILLIAM FEESE 870 CLEARFIELD LE. PARK UTILITY TRAILER - continued

Mr. Squires said I see no problem with this. This is going to the end of December, and it is a very small trailer as we can see from the photograph. Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance until December 31, 1996 and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Mitchell. A temporary variance was granted until December 31, 1996 with six affirmative votes.

C. David and Melody Langford, 11673 Harmony Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of an 8í x 16í barn. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 "...shall not exceed 120 s.f. in area."

Mrs. Langford stated the limit is 8í x 15í and we want to build an 8í x 16í shed. The work was already in progress and we had a letter from Mr. King that we needed a permit. Before that we received a letter to clean up the back yard. We only have a one-car garage, and we canít put everything into the garage with our vehicle, so we need an 8í x 16í. We do have everything in the shed; the only thing we have to do is put the back part on the shed. Mr. Mitchell commented as she said, the shed is under construction, probably 85% complete.

Mrs. Boice said basically we allow a 10í x 12í, which is 120 square feet, and this totals 128 square feet so we are looking at eight square feet over. Eyeing it, I had no problem with it, and I would move to grant the variance. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Mr.Squires added I was going to point out to the board that we have approved barns larger than that.

Mr. Okum asked if it meets all the setback requirements. The reason I am asking is to make sure this lady doesnít have to come in next month because the barn was too close. Mrs. Langford added we checked and it is within the allowed footage from the back yard and the property line and the neighbors on all sides.

On the motion to grant the variance, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mr.Squires, Mr.Schecker, Mrs. McNear and Mr.Mitchell voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

D. William T. Nolan of Snookers Billiards Sports Cafe, 12119 Princeton Road requests variance to allow an addition to their pole sign for a total area of 62.5 square feet. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(3) "..the maximum size of any face of a pole sign shall not exceed 50 s.f. in area."

Mr. Mitchell stated we received approval from the landlord, Dr. Cecil E. Allf.

Mr. Nolan showed the current sign without the message board. We are changing the face plates on the sign, and we would like to add the message board and we are moving our current sign up about a foot, so the whole thing would be off the ground as far as possible.

Mr. Nolan stated the reason we would like to do this is we want as much exposure on the street as we can. The southbound traffic on 747 as they come down from the Crescentville area do not see our big sign on our building. They go right by it because the building next to us sticks out toward the street 40 feet or so. Unless you absolutely know where we are, you cannot see our major sign.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 November 1996

Page Five

VII D SNOOKERS BILLIARDS 12119 PRINCETON POLE SIGN ADDITION

Mr. Nolan added we have found in talking with a lot of our customers in the last year and a half that the newer ones who come in who work in the community and have driven by the place many times, didnít realize that we were there or what type of a business we had. A lot of them thought it was a little dive bar with a couple of pool tables in it. What we are trying to do is let people know the type of facility we have, which is probably the nicest billiard room in the state.

Mr. Nolan stated if you are in agreement, what we propose to do is add two and one-half feet to our existing sign at the bottom, so we can put messages on there to let people know that we are now open for lunch, and we also would like to flag special events like tournaments. It would be very similar to the boards across from us at G.E. Park. This would put us over by 12 and one-half feet on the sign itself, but our total signage would not be used up ; we would still be below that by seven and one-half feet.

Mr. Squires said I would concur with the owner; it is difficult to see. As a matter of fact, I pulled into the wrong building when I was looking for it.. I have no problem with that, if I may interject something here. It says "full bar" on that, and for some reason I have a little problem with that. If it said Snookers Sports Bar or something like that, I donít think I would have any problem with it. Is there any way that you would consider something else other than full bar?

Mr. Nolan responded we could do that. What we were trying to get across is that we have liquor wine and beer, and we felt that kind of said that. When we originally opened up, we only had a beer license for several months until we could obtain the full liquor license. Iím not saying I would be opposed to not saying this; we just felt that said that very quickly. We could say Sports Bar; in fact that was an option that we considered. Mr. Squires responded I can appreciate that, and I am not opposed to the bar. I wondered if it were agreeable to you and the rest of the committee if we couldnít work on that a little bit. Mr. Nolan said sure, we could say Sports Bar. In fact, it was sort of a flip of a coin because sports bar is what we are; those are the type of people we attract and that might be just as appropriate as what we have here. I would not have a problem with that. Mr. Squires commented the management of the store next to you (furniture store) has the same concern about the sign. You need to cut down some trees or something, it is just not that visible.

Mrs. Boice commented that is a total building there, and the figures we have in front of us do not include that 5í x 13í sign on Naked Furniture. Isnít that all included as one complex? Weíre only considering the 50 foot frontage of Snookers and they are within if there wasnít that signage on the other side. Does that play into our calculations? Mrs. McNear commented the way we calculate the signs we square them off. Did we square off the section that is blank now as part of the square footage? Mrs. Boice added when we consider a building, we consider what is allowed for total building, and each tenant has to go according to that.

Mr. Nolan stated when we first opened, the 150 feet was just for the Snooker half of the building. We didnít realize that there were other regulations that just pertained to the pole sign, which must be limited to 50 square feet. I recall that they took our half of the frontage of the building which is 50 feet, then the formula is one and one-half times that, and there was an arbitrary 40 square feet added to that to come up with the calculation for just Snookers.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 November 1996

Page Six

VII D SNOOKERS BILLIARDS 12119 PRINCETON - POLE SIGN ADDITION

Mr. Okum commented I come up with 190 square feet allowable for the site. If you take the Naked Furniture wall sign, 65 square feet and you take their sign on the pole, 25 square feet, 90 square feet is occupied by Naked Furniture which would allow the applicant 100 square feet total. Mrs. Boice commented so he is seven and one-half feet over with what he is requesting.

Mr. Okum wondered if the applicant considered four inch letters instead of six inch. Mr. Nolan answered we did, but we did not think they would be visible enough. Mr. Okum said I think GE Park has four inch letters. Tri-County Mall and Princeton Plaza both have six inch letters. Mr. Nolan said we looked at the gas station next door and asked the size of those letters. Mr. Okum asked if they needed three lines of copy, and Mr. Nolan indicated that they did.

Mrs. McNear commented that in this situation, we have to look at what a variance is all about and that is about hardship, and I think we have it in this situation. We have trees, difficulty seeing where it is located on the street, we have multiple lanes of traffic moving faster than they probably should be, and a construction project that will be starting on S.R. 747 to add even more lanes. For seven and one-half feet, I donít think that is much of a problem. We have other businesses on that street that we have given significant increases in the sizes of the signs permitted. Under those circumstances, I would like to make a motion that we grant a variance to allow the increase in size as requested. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum commented I do have one concern because we have another tenant in that building. This gentleman is making application for signage to benefit his business. I do not have a problem with your business; I think you have a very classy looking operation and your signage is good looking and you have done something for that site. We are granting you this opportunity to put the sign up, and Naked Furniture is also a tenant and is being slighted that opportunity. I donít know how you can handle that; I donít know if Naked Furniture knows about your application

Mr. Nolan stated I talked to him a couple of months ago when we thought about doing this, and he did not have a problem with it. Initially we were going to try to outline this total sign with green neon and have pool table pockets. That fell by the wayside. Mr. Okum continued the reason I bring that up is that by attaching this to your sign, you are not giving Naked Furniture the opportunity to utilize it as a business enterprise in that development. Although you are expensing the cost, they have silgnage rights as well as you do. If the sign goes up, I canít see it being a sign strictly for your unit. I would say it would have to be a sign for the development.

Mr. Squires commented the people at Naked Furniture are aware of the application; I personally know this, and I like the sign on page three much better than the present one. I think it is a very attractive design. I really have no problem with it, even with the full bar if you want to go with that. It doesnít make any difference. I can withdraw that comment if necessary.

Mr. Okum wondered if the applicant would be open to doing some slots for Naked Furniture. Mr. Nolan responded I guess if they were willing to share the cost we might consider that. Dave did not mention that. He seemed comfortable with what he already had there. I approached him first because that is the one thing Dr. Allf wanted to make sure about, that he didnít have a problem with it.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 November 1996

Page Seven

VII D SNOOKERS BILLIARDS 12119 PRINCETON - POLE SIGN ADDITION

Mr. Squires said for clarification, this pole sign there will be moved up 3/4 of a foot isnít it? Mr. Nolan answered our portion of it, adding that the other reason that the fellow that owns Naked Furniture doesnít have problems with it is because he is at the top of the sign; he has top billing. The other problem we have is the sign we currently have is not a good sign; we do not have any pictures to say what we are, and we are trying to establish ourselves still. There are 18 professional tables in there. We are trying to establish a lunch business with an extensive menu. The night business is coming along fine, but we need to do all we can to tell people todayís lunch special and things like that.

Mrs. McNear commented it sounds like Snookers and Naked Furniture have a good working relationship. If they were having a sale, you might want to barter off some of your sign time. That might be something you could work out, but I wouldnít want to make that a part of the motion.

On the motion to grant the variance, voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Squires, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Boice and Mt. Mitchell. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

E. Zaring Homes requests variance to allow the construction of a driveway 17.5í wide. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(G) "Driveways in R-1-B Districts shall be a minimum 19 feet wide..."

Eric Maher, Assistant Builder for Zaring stated I am asking for a variance on a side entry at 354 Glensford Court. The reason for the variance is a forced side entry. Actually it is not 17 1/2; I just measured it and it is only 18 feet and six feet back from the actual apron, so there are only four or five feet that are only 18 feet and it widens back out when it gets to the garage area. You can see the picture; I did not want to make it wider at that point because there was already established landscaping and pine trees there and I didnít want to remove that.

Mrs. Boice added this is not the first time Zaring has been in on this. Some time ago, they had known they would be running into this with six or seven of these homes. At the time they wanted carte blanche variance, and I requested and we agreed that we preferred to see them on a one by one basis. The others we have granted certainly have not been as well set up as this one is. We are talking four to five feet of 18 feet and then going into the size. Is this the last one? Are there further ones coming up?

Mr. Maher responded probably Lot 9; it is a side entry also. I know with the side entries we have some problems because of the width of the lot itself. Mrs. Boice commented this is one of the easier ones, compared to some of the ones we have had.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Squires and Mr. Mitchell. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

VIII. DISCUSSION - none

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 November 1996

Page Eight

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Okum moved to adjourn and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________ 1996 _________________________

William Mitchell, Chairman

 

 

______________________ 1996 __________________________

Kathy McNear Acting Secretary