BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

20 NOVEMBER 2001

7:00 P.M.

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

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Councilman Robert Wilson, Bob Weidlich, Bob Apke, Councilman James Squires, Fred Borden, Chairman Okum and Jane Huber

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6.  

  7. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 16 OCTOBER 2001
  8. Mr. Wilson pointed out three typos and by voice vote, all voted aye and the corrected Minutes were adopted unanimously.

  9. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9 October 2001
    2. Zoning Bulletin – October 10, 2001
    3. Zoning Bulletin – October 25, 2001
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities – Jim Squires
    2. Ordinance 43-2001 will amend the Zoning Code, Article 2. It was tabled at the last meeting and we will act upon it tomorrow night should you wish to attend. Mr. Okum asked if there were any changes to it from the draft, and there weren’t.

    3. Report on Planning Commission – Dave Okum

Mr. Okum reported on the meeting November 13th. Karlo’s Bistro Italia received their final approval; the applicant had made a major effort to resolve all the critical comments and with some fine-tuning, it will be a fine project. Hobby Lobby, at the former HQ, did not have a thorough presentation and this was tabled until December. Springdale Church of the Nazarene wanted concept approval for their building addition. There wasn’t a lot of comment and there were questions; they are here this evening for variances. Exterior building elevation changes were considered for Variety Wireless. He wanted to put a yellow canopy awning with printing to identify the business – this was tabled for more specific information on the actual color yellow. The amended covenants for Northwest Business Center/Pictoria Island was approval of the change from 1.5-acre requirement to a 1.4-acre requirement and was granted. Old Town Springdale Land Use Study – the city planner gave a preview of our town meeting on Thursday. It looks like a positive project.

  1. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  2. OLD BUSINESS
  3.  

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWO

  4. NEW BUSINESS
  5. A. Howard Johnson, Inc., 400 Glensprings Drive requests variance to allow the placement of a temporary banner for the period of November 2001 to March 2002. Said variances is requested from Section 153.533(D) "..shall in no event exceed two consecutive weeks in duration..or four occasions of usage during any calendar year…" There was no one present to represent the applicant, and this item was moved to the end of the agenda.

    B. George & Iva Pocisk, 760 Yorkhaven Road requests variance to allow a second utility building on their property. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(B)(1) "There shall be no more than one detached accessory building..on a lot in a Residential Zoning District.

    Mr. and Mrs. Pocisk approached the board. Mr. Pocisk reported that they have two buildings on one lot. One is a playhouse and the other is a utility building. The playhouse is 48 s.f. and the utility building is 80 s.f., and they want us to remove the playhouse because only one building is allowed. Mr. Pocisk showed photographs of the playhouse. We have had it there for 10 years, and now they decided we have to remove it. Mrs. Pocisk added it is not a utility building; it is a playhouse for our grandchildren. We would like to keep it for our grandchildren when they come to visit and play in it. Mr. Okum said for the record the applicant has presented to the board two photos of the playhouse.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that they are requesting a variance for two accessory buildings. The site plan was not submitted indicating sizes or locations of the structures. However the storage appears to be 8’ x 10’, and the playhouse appears to be 6’ x 10’ We have asked the applicant to provide a site plan with sizes and locations of the accessory buildings, and they should be bringing this in to the meeting.

    Addressing the applicants, Mr. Okum asked if they would like to see the staff report.

    Mrs. Pocisk said the playhouse is 6’ x 8’, and it has a door 4’ high and 1 ½’ wide, big enough for children to get in and out..

    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.

    Al Hamilton, of 12090 Brookston just north of their property. The buildings have been there for a number of years, and I have never found them offensive. They have been well kept and are only adjacent to my property, so I don’t see how they would be even visible to anyone else. I would certainly speak in favor of this variance.

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

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE THREE

    IX B GEORGE & IVA POCISK - 760 YORKHAVEN – TWO UTILITY BUILDINGS

    Mr. Squires asked Mr. Pocisk the lot size. Mr. Pocisk answered that it is about ¼ of an acre. Mr. Squires wondered if he had anything stored in the playhouse, and Mr. Pocisk answered that he did not.

    Mrs. Huber asked the age of the utility building, and Mr. Pocisk answered it is 14 years old. Mrs. Huber asked the ages of the grandchildren. Mr. Pocisk answered there are some two to three years old, five, six and one is 16 years old.

    Mr. Wilson said I drove by your site and when you drive up Brookston, you can clearly see both buildings. I assume when you put this up you didn’t know a permit was required. Your youngest grandchild being two years old, I suspect you would want to keep that building another six or seven years. Mr. Pocisk answered yes, it is possible that even my great grandchild will be coming one of these days. Mr. Wilson asked if the playhouse had a wooden floor and Mr. Pocisk indicated that it did.

    Mr. Borden asked the condition of the playhouse, and Mr. Pocisk answered very good.

    Mr. Okum asked how long they have lived in their home, and Mr. Pocisk answered 16 years. Mr. Okum commented if the board were to approve a variance, it would go to all future owners. The board also could grant a limited time variance, which would mean that if you sold your home, that variance might have exhausted itself, and you would have one utility building.

    Mr. Pocisk said so I would have to get rid of the playhouse? Mr. Okum answered no, what I am saying is that the board has three options. One is to tell you to remove one of the buildings. Another is that a variance would be granted to allow the two buildings to be there, or another would be a conditional variance for a period of time and then at that time if you are still in that home, you might have to come back and present your case again.

    Mr. Okum said as a member of this board, I probably would support a period of time, let’s say five years, and after five years you would have to come back to the board and request a continuation of that variance. Would five years be okay for you? Mr. Pocisk answered probably yes.

    Mr. Squires commented that nobody wants to tear a children’s playhouse down. Right now you are illegal with two sheds, and we have to act on that fact. If we would allow a permanent variance, we might be opening Pandora’s box. After five years they might grow out of it and it might be of no use to you and we would require that it be taken down.

    Mr. Pocisk said if my property were sold, would it diminish its value? Mr. Squires answered I don’t think so. Mr. Pocisk commented if I don’t have a choice, I’ll go with it.

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE FOUR

    IX B GEORGE & IVA POCISK - 760 YORKHAVEN – TWO UTILITY BUILDINGS

    Mr. Squires said you have a choice. We are not dictating; we are trying to work with you, and I have a feeling from some of my colleagues that we are willing to work with a time variance. None of us want to tear a child’s playhouse down, and a time variance may be the best way out of this dilemma.

    Mr. Wilson moved to allow Mr. and Mrs. Pocisk to maintain the playhouse and the shed for a period of up to five years. The playhouse must be kept in good condition and if within that five-year period you sell the house, the playhouse must be removed prior to the sale. The variance would go with you in that if you sell the house within five years, the playhouse goes down. If you keep it and come back in five years and it still looks good, we’ll talk about an extension. Mr. Pocisk said it sounds fair enough. Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

    Mr. Lohbeck said we need a site plan with the locations and sizes of the buildings. Mr. Wilson amended his motion to include the requirement that the applicant will provide a site plan. Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck to assist them with the site plan. All voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    C. Carolyn Peters, 690 Allen Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a front porch 11’ –1 ½" from the right of way and a one-car garage on the property. Said variances are requested from Section 153.580(D) and 153.151(F) "..porch may project six feet into a required front yard…" and "A..two car garage..is required.."

    Gary Smith, President of Christian Contractors, representing Carolyn Peters, said we would like to build a porch over her existing concrete porch in the front. It is a flat roof with a rubber roof so there is no gable involved. I think it will be very attractive.

    Also in the rear, there is a garage underneath the home and it is very dangerous for a lady of her age (76) to try to get in and out of the garage; she has not used it for years. We would like to close it off and put a door to the exterior.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the porch addition would be 8’-10 ½" x 28’. The existing residence is located 29’ from the street right of way line, not the 20’ shown on the site plan, and is legal non-conforming. Current front yard must be 35’. There is a raised 9.5’ x 18.5’ slab in front of the house. Section 153.580(D) allows porches to project 6 feet into a required front yard. If the entire structure were constructed under today’s code, the front porch would be required to be a minimum of 29’ from the street right of way line. The applicant is proposing a 20’-1 ½" addition.

    A rear addition is also proposed for the structure. The existing residence has a one-car garage located on the basement level at the rear of the house, with a driveway that slopes down to the garage. A part of the proposed addition would span over the existing driveway. Because of the slope of the driveway, there will not be proper clearance between the bottom of the proposed addition and the driveway slab to accommodate a vehicle. So the garage would not be used for the storage of vehicles.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE FIVE

    IX C CAROLYN PETERS 690 ALLEN AVENUE –FRONT PORCH ADDITION

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

    Mr. Squires asked if she couldn’t use the present garage, and Mr. Smith answered she considers it unsafe. Mr. Squires said that is to be closed off. What will she do with it? Mr. Smith said use it for storage. Mr. Squires said then the porch would extend over that slanted driveway in the rear. Mr. Smith answered it is not a porch; it is a closet in the rear.

    Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mr. Okum said if the applicant wanted to convert the canopy space into a garage, could it be done without a variance? Mr. Lohbeck indicated that she could without a variance.

    Mr. Wilson commented that it appears you want to do three things to this house. You want to do the front porch, something on the side, and an addition on the rear. The current front porch is 9’-5" x 18’. You want to make it 8’-10 ½" x 28’ so it would be bigger than the slab. Then you want to add a room onto the back in the area above the garage. Where would she park her car? Mr. Smith said she would park her car under the awning on the side.

    Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mr. Squires said if we close off this present garage, would she be required to have a two-car garage? Mr. Lohbeck indicated that she would. Mr. Squires wondered if there were many two car garages on that street and Mr. Borden answered not very many. Mr. Squires added I would find it difficult to require a two-car garage when most residents only have a one-car garage. I think we have a situation there, which might be a little out of character, but I need input from the rest of you. Mr. Okum the request is to eliminate a one-car garage and allow them to place a one-car canopy. The canopy doesn’t require a variance but a variance is needed to eliminate the garage. Mr. Lohbeck read from the sections of the code on this: Section 153.580(D) concerns the front porch and 153.151 is to eliminate the two-car garage.

    Mr. Weidlich said a 9 ½ x 18 ½ slab is there now. So you are not going to extend the new structure to the street; you are going sideways. Mr. Smith said we are moving the existing overhead door and put an exterior door there. Mr. Weidlich said with that a closet extending out over that, if there is not headroom to get a car in there, would there be sufficient room for a person to walk under that and get under there? Mr. Smith indicated that there would be.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Borden said you commented that the existing garage is unsafe. How is it unsafe? Mr. Smith answered for this lady it is very narrow and is a steep slope down the hill, especially in the wintertime with inclement weather.

    Mr. Wilson said we can’t disallow the carport in terms of the variance, but if she opts to enclose it and make it a garage, we will have a challenge, because any time you make a change like this on a house, you have to comply with the current code. The applicant must understand that if she chooses to enclose that carport, it will require a variance. That is one item.

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE SIX

    IX C CAROLYN PETERS 690 ALLEN AVENUE –FRONT PORCH ADDITION

    Mr. Wilson said secondly, you are using the slab and adding an additional 8 feet onto it, so you would be covering almost the whole front of the house with a porch. Mr. Smith responded pretty close to it. The architect drew that to keep the symmetry; the left side would be the same as the right side.

    Mr. Wilson said I have a safety concern. When I walked back and saw the slope, I couldn’t see how a person could walk down that little driveway area into the garage. You might want to keep the garage door there and cover it off. I would not think anyone would want to enter the storage area from the back. If you extend that porch out, I don’t think it would be high enough, especially when you talk about her age.

    You are almost redesigning the whole house. It is going to be tough for me to approve all of this without some concessions or something.

    Mr. Borden said I do not have a problem with the front porch addition or the side carport. I do have a question about the slope. It seems to be a safety issue. .Have you considered filling that in?

    Mr. Smith said no. We know we have to have 6’-8" clearance, enough headroom for a person to walk underneath that. Mr. Borden asked if he had considered taking it all the way down, and Mr. Smith said no.

    Mr. Borden said you indicated you are going to convert the overhead door to a single door. Would there be steps leading down to the door, besides the slope? Mr. Smith said no.

    Mr. Okum asked if there was a storm water catch basin at the bottom of the driveway slope and Mr. Smith indicated that there was. Mr. Okum asked if the property tended to flood, and Mr. Smith answered not to his knowledge. Mr. Okum said you are not sure you will be able to reach the 6’8", and Mr. Smith said yes, we believe that we can. Mr. Okum said if you can reach the 6’8" why can’t you get a car there, and Mr. Smith said because of her age and the slope. She has not used it in years because of that.

    Mr. Okum said of all the parcels on Allen Avenue, this is probably the largest parcel that could accommodate a two-car garage without any problem, and we ended up with a canopy.

    On the other hand, there is the turn around in the back yard and the opportunity for her to turn the vehicle around without backing it out onto the street. If there were a garage there, she would be backing out onto Allen Avenue.

    I’m not overly comfortable with a structure being 10’6" from the street. The porch slab is one thing, but when you put a structure there, it becomes a building, whether it is a railing or whatever.

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE SEVEN

    IX C CAROLYN PETERS 690 ALLEN AVENUE –FRONT PORCH ADDITION

    Mr. Okum asked how deep the right of way is on that street, adding that from the photo, it must be 20-25 feet. Currently the house sets 29 feet from the curb. Mr. Borden said it appears to be the same as the other residents. Mr. Okum asked if he had multiple plans for the applicant showing what he could do. Mr. Smith answered no, the applicant met with an architect and he designed it. I am only the construction end of it.

    Mr. Okum asked the construction of the canopy, and Mr. Smith indicated that it is 2 ‘ x 10’s. Mr. Okum said the canopy probably would be 20’-3" feet wide and about 24 feet deep. Mr. Okum said basically we are talking about an open bay garage in lieu of the old single car garage. So we would have a canopy in lieu of the garage. I’m still not overly excited about putting a structure that close to the right of way line, but the right of way line appears to be further back on the property than you would assume the curb line to be.

    Mr. Weidlich asked about the dimension between the walls for the driveway and the back of the garage, and Mr. Smith answered it is a little over 9 feet. Mr. Weidlich commented that is pretty tight. Mr. Okum added you wouldn’t be able to open your car door very easily.

    Mr. Squires wondered if the commission could meet with the architect, and Mr. Smith indicated he thought it would be possible. Mr. Squires added we have an excellent building department, and I am beginning to think that consultation with the architect and our building representatives might be in order, rather than just acting on this. This is a very major piece of construction we have here.

    Mr. Wilson said I would recommend that this be tabled to give the architect and our building department an opportunity to review this in detail and make some suggestions. As my fellow councilmember indicated, this is a major departure from that house in terms of additions. We as a board feel a little uncomfortable about all of this being done and perhaps not meeting the codes. I feel uncomfortable about a carport possibly being turned into a garage. We also have another issue from an aesthetic standpoint, the porch being the whole width of the house. If these were brought up as separate issues months or years apart, maybe, but when you put all of this in front of us, I don’t think any of us feel comfortable. You are doing almost a total renovation of this house, and we have to be concerned that we are setting a precedent for other houses in the neighborhood this size and smaller may want to double their size and make changes that may or may not meet our codes. So, I would suggest you table this and meet with the building department to review it and see what can be done to be in more compliance with our code. You are representing the owner, and you must speak in her behalf.

    Mr. Smith said I would say that if we shelve that and it carries us into the next zoning meeting, then this project would be scrapped until spring because of the weather.

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE EIGHT

    IX C CAROLYN PETERS 690 ALLEN AVENUE –FRONT PORCH ADDITION

    Mr. Wilson said I understand that, but if you suggest that we vote on this and it is a negative vote, short of your changing your design, it would be six months before you could come back with the same plan.

    Mr. Smith asked if we would be tabling both variances or one variance. Mr. Wilson said I would say you are asking for variances for the entire package, and I don’t think we would vote on one package and then next month another package. We would look at it as one package.

    Mr. Okum said for your information, it could be separated out by the board into two variance requests and voted on individually but based on the comments that we have heard, I don’t think it would be a good idea to do that.

    Mr. Okum said you mentioned that the owner is 76 years old, and I see a lot of stairs, barriers that don’t make this house user friendly to the owner. I think the architect should take the owner’s age into consideration, considering the amount of investment going on here. I would like you to take those comments back to the architect as well.

    The item was tabled to the December 18th meeting.

    D. Joan D. Ruskaup, 156 Ruskin Drive requests variance to allow the construction of a patio enclosure to be six feet from the rear yard setback. Said variance is requested from Section 153.087(A) "…minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet.".

    Jack Penson of C& D Screen & Glass said I submitted a picture of the existing patio room that shows how damaged it is. The owner bought the home in 1976 with an existing patio room there. It is a safety issue and an eyesore. We looked at trying to remodel what was existing versus tearing it down and rebuilding a complete patio room. It will be the same size. The variance is needed because the back yard is six-foot and she is on a corner lot (Ruskin and Mangrove), so she has two big side yards and very little back yard with a privacy fence. The neighbor behind her is five-foot lower than her yard. We want to level that and put in a new patio room, a seasonal room. Mr. Okum asked if he intended to heat it, and Mr. Penson said no. It would have glass windows and screens.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that they are proposing to demolish the existing patio enclosure and construct a new 9 ½’ x 18 ½’ patio enclosure in its place. The residence was constructed in 1963 at approximately 16 feet from the rear property line. The residence is legal non-conforming, because the current rear yard setback is 40 feet. In 1965 an aluminum awning with a screened enclosure was constructed. At some point in time the screened enclosure was replaced with glazing and sliding without a permit. It is likely that the existing slab supporting these walls have no foundations. If a legal non-conforming structure is removed, it may not be reconstructed unless it is made to conform with today’s Zoning Code.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE NINE

    IX D JOAN RUSKAUP 156 RUSKIN DRIVE – PATIO ENCLOSURE

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

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the proposed patio enclosure will have a perimeter foundation around the slab. There is one existing variance on this property granted 5/21/74 for a garage conversion.

    Mr. Squires said due to the fact that I live directly across the street and have known Ms. Ruskaup for years, and for the fair play item we have on the board, I will withdraw from any discussion or vote on this matter.

    Mr. Okum said in 1965 they got a permit from the City to construct a screened enclosure. Our current Zoning Code makes it legal non-conforming, and they now must get a variance. Mr. Okum commented that makes it a very unique situation.

    Mr. Okum commented that considering that the existing enclosure was approved and it was a legal entity, and it has been there since 1965, I would have a hard time not granting this variance. It is a situation where the property owner has enjoyed this and it would be an injustice if we would take it away from her.

    Mr. Borden asked if the existing property line was where the fence is. Mr. Penson said that the property line is behind the fence. Mr. Borden asked the size. Mr. Penson answered that it is 6 ½’ x 18 ½’ now. I would like to put a perimeter footer around the existing slab to bring it up to code, 30 inches deep, which will enlarge the slab a little bit.

    Mr. Wilson said there is a privacy fence between this resident and her neighbor. The structure is in bad condition, so we are looking at deteriorating property values. This will definitely be an improvement and will allow her to have the maximum use of her space without imposing on anyone else, since between her and the neighbor to the west she has a swimming pool and an average size lot. To the east is a street and another neighbor. You almost have to walk out there to see it, because there is a shed that partially blocks it from the street side. I personally would not have a problem approving this.

    Mr. Borden asked if they were planning on keeping the privacy fence, and Mr. Penson indicated that they were.

    Mr. Okum wondered if he could cut the slab and pour the foundation and keep it the same size. Mr. Penson responded that he could saw cut the existing slab back six inches and get it back to the 8 ½’ x 18’. I can do that. Mr. Okum said I don’t have any problem with it being the same size it was originally, but I would have some difficulty with increasing the size.

    Mr. Wilson moved to approve the demolition and rebuilding of the patio enclosure using the same dimensions. Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All voted aye, except Mr. Squires who abstained, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TEN

    E. Christi Rose, 309 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow a goat to reside in her back yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.496A) "no more than 2 dogs, 2 cats or 1 dog and 1 cat shall be kept per dwelling unit."

    Berkley Rose, 309 West Kemper Road said Christi is my wife, and there are some serious reasons for our request. We have two sons, four and eight weeks old. My wife is only able to nurse our infant for 30% of his food needs, and she has had to compensate with bottled formula and milk. We have found that Samuel is highly allergic to cow’s milk. He had some severe gastrointestinal problems and our doctor recommended soy. He also had problems with the soy.

    We talked to as many other parents as we could who have dealt with this problem, and many recommended goats’ milk. You can buy pasteurized goat’s milk at Jungle Jim’s at $20 per gallon. Since it is our son and his health, cost isn’t a factor as long as that is our only and best option. That is the sole reason that we are here tonight, the sole reason that we would like to be able to have a goat on our property. We would know the goat, would know it is clean and always accessible. If nothing else, I would request a period of time up to 12 months or 16 months when being bottle-fed or nursed is his primary source of food. We would like to be able to do that, cut down on the expense, and provide a healthy source of food for our infant.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that they are requesting to keep a goat in a pen. The Zoning Code only permits domesticated household pets in residential districts. Prior to the Zoning Code change in March of 2000, domesticated farm animals, including goats, could be kept in a residential district but only on lots not less than 5 acres, and animals must be kept not less than 250 feet from adjoining residential lot lines. The property in question does not meet either of these requirements. Contrary to the applicant’s statement, the property is only 1.1 acre in area and only 165 feet wide. Contrary to statement #4 in the description of request, the alternative would be to purchase goat’s milk.

    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.

    Alice Todd, owner of the property at 309 West Kemper said I also own the adjoining property at 311 West Kemper, and together that is two acres.

    Mr. Okum responded the variance would be germane to the parcel it is attached to.

    Ms. Todd added that pasteurized goat’s milk, even though it is highly expensive, kills the enzymes that the baby’s gastrointestinal system and body functions need.

    Tina Grieshop, 299 West Kemper Road said my property line is adjacent and attached to their property line. I feel for their child’s allergy. I have a five-year-old son who had the exact same problem. He was on a formula that was only in a small ready to feed can that cost $12 per can.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE ELEVEN

    IX E CHRISTI ROSE 309 WEST KEMPER ROAD – GOAT ON PROPERTY

    Ms. Grieshop added I feel for the expense for that, but I have to look out for the safety of my children now, who are five years old and 17 months.

    We have had issues in the past when they had a dog who would get free and run into my yard, and my son was very little at the time. The only type of fencing between our yard and theirs is a very thin wire type fence that is very old and not strong enough to hold an animal. The dog would dig underneath it and get into our yard.

    My concern is the animal getting loose and the feces in the yard. My son’s sandbox is almost at that tree line and fence line, and my kids play in the yard 365 days a year. I have family who has small children that come over and play. I feel for them, but I don’t feel like they have an adequate way of keeping the goat off my property.

    My other issue is the cleanliness of that sort of animal. My father in law has a farm with cows and chickens. He owns 25 acres and is in the country, and I know the smell from his home to the barn can be overwhelming, especially in the summer. I do feel for them, and I don’t want to seem like the bad neighbor, but for the safety and well being of my own family I am against this.

    Jim Knollman, 305 West Kemper Road said my property abuts to theirs on the back and side. When I found out about the goat my concern was the cleanliness, the feces, and also how it would be kept. Living on Kemper Road as busy as it is, if the animal would get loose and run out on the road, there could be an accident. I feel for them and their child, but I do not think a goat in the city is the proper thing to have.

    Berkley Rose said everything both of you said made absolute sense. Tina commented about the dog. We have no pets and have no intention of getting another, especially if we were allowed to have a goat. If we were permitted to have a goat, we would not have one unless we purchased a confining fenced area. If we could not provide for a fenced in area that would prohibit the animal from getting loose, we would not want to have the animal.

    It is my understanding that it is the male goats that are dirtier. We would have the cleaner female. In terms of feces, they would be contained within its confined area, and that would be cleaned up just as it would for a pet dog.

    As far as appearance, my line of work is real estate, so I do have a mind frame and respect for a property’s appearance and upkeep. It would not be visible from Kemper Road. We do have a tree and bush buffer that runs along every side of our property to keep it from being an eyesore to the neighbors. I did bring photographs of our property. He passed them out to the board members. Mr. Okum said let the record show that the applicant has shown photographs of trees and bushes that run on the perimeter of the property.

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWELVE

    IX E CHRISTI ROSE 309 WEST KEMPER ROAD – GOAT ON PROPERTY

    Alice Todd said if the board does approve a goat, it should be two goats, because we have been told that goats cry if they are by themselves. I know how annoying it is to have a dog bark and w wouldn’t want the noise of the animal to be a disturbing factor to the neighbors. Two goats are very happy and contented and don’t even tend to want to get out of the pen if they have a companion.

    Mr. Oakum asked about the age of the goat. Mr. Rose said approximately six months to one year old.

    Mr. Borden said it doesn’t appear that your property is large enough to allow the goat. If you were allowed to have the goat, would it roam both properties, 309 and 311? Mr. Rose responded I rent, and my mother in law owns both properties, and it would be her that would be allowing the animal to use both lots.

    Mr. Wilson said Mrs. Todd is the one that should be making the variance request. My grandson was allergic to soy and milk and they went through many changes getting him squared away. Their physician gave my grandson different prescriptions. Have you talked with your doctor to see if he can prescribe goat’s milk, and in doing so save you dollars? Has that been looked at?

    Mr. Rose said we have not asked our doctor if that is something available in the form of a prescription. Our concern has been that it comes pasteurized for public health reasons. The pasteurization process removes the enzymes and a lot of things that are given with the mother’s milk, and that is the reason why we would like to have our own. We would know the goat and all the nutrients would be there.

    Mr. Wilson said I have a lot of concern about farm animals in the city, and now we are talking about two. I personally can’t vote for it. There is no guarantee that the goats won’t get out; there is no guarantee that you won’t smell them. I can empathize with you; it is your son, but I would ask that you look at other alternatives. I have to look at the rest of the residents and the impact it could have, and that risk is too great for me to vote in the affirmative at this time.

    Mr. Squires asked if a pediatrician had recommended this, and Mr. Rose answered our family physician did. Originally he recommended soy and that didn’t work. Friends of ours with similar circumstances suggested goat’s milk. We tried it, and we could see the change in the baby’s health within 24-48 hours. Mr. Squires asked if the pediatrician recommended it, and Mr. Rose answered the doctor has not recommended the goat’s milk. He recommended the soy. Mr. Squires asked if the child has gone to an allergy specialist, and Mr. Rose answered no, but we have seen the results with the goat’s milk.

     

     

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE THIRTEEN

    IX E CHRISTI ROSE 309 WEST KEMPER ROAD – GOAT ON PROPERTY

    Mr. Apke wondered how much milk the baby needs daily and Mr. Rose answered one gallon per week. Mr. Apke asked the cost of two goats, and Mr. Rose answered approximately $150 per goat. Mr. Apke asked about the cost of fencing, penning, building a shelter, feed and supplies?

    Mr. Rose answered we know the cost of feed. We have not looked into the fencing and what would outweigh the cost of fencing versus seeking local farms that may have it available, is the fact that since it is raw, we would know first hand the goat and the cleanliness and its milking habits and what it is being fed. So there would be no question with purchasing it from a farm.

    Mr. Apke commented my guess is that it would add up to quite a bit of an expense. I did a little checking on this. I called Jungle Jim’s and they did have goat’s milk for $4.99 per quart and another one available for $4.19 per quart. I understand your wanting to control the feed of the goat, but have you thought about contracting with a farmer? That would save a lot of headaches.

    Mr. Rose answered this isn’t our only approach; we have been trying to pursue other options because the bottom line is the well being of our infant son.

    Mr. Apke asked if there is a fence between 309 and 311?. Mr. Rose answered that there is none. Mr. Apke said if we were to grant this variance, where would the fence be located? Mrs. Todd said in the center of 309 West Kemper behind the garage so it is not visible. Mr. Apke asked how far that would be from the neighbor’s property line and Mrs. Todd answered my guesstimate would be 100-200 feet.

    Mr. Borden asked about the additional liability you might incur in terms of insurance? Mrs. Todd responded I have a good homeowners insurance. It probably would cost no more than a dog; I don’t know.

    Mr. Wilson, an Allstate agent said a homeowner policy restricts dogs, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and sometimes German Shepherds, Dobermans – from a liability standpoint, your insurance will not cover them. The deluxe plus policies do not cover farm animals. There is a deluxe country policy you can buy for people who live in farming areas where they are restricted in terms of acreage, and it restricts how many farm animals they can have. Perhaps your insurance company might have a country policy that would allow for farm animals, but I think the zoning would prohibit the agent from selling you that policy. So, if you were to have those goats, there would be no liability. If something would happen and you were sued, your insurance company would not defend you.

    Mr. Borden said I brought that up because the cost of owning the goat might outweigh the cost of buying the milk. Mr. Rose answered I understand that. It boils down to the issue of nonpasteurized milk and our own clean animals.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE FOURTEEN

    IX E CHRISTI ROSE 309 WEST KEMPER ROAD – GOAT ON PROPERTY

    Mr. Squires said you would have these goats enclosed in a pen, but wouldn’t there have to be a shelter in that pen to protect the goats from the elements? Mr. Rose responded we would make whatever arrangements that are necessary. Mr. Squires commented that they would need a variance for that; you are only allowed one 120 s.f. shed. Mr. Squires asked if they had consulted a veterinarian about any shots they might need and Mr. Rose answered no.

    Mr. Weidlich asked if there were outbuildings on the property, and Mr. Rose answered there is one garage and one shed. Mr. Weidlich continued for you to construct a shelter for the goats would mean another variance. Mr. Rose responded my assumption would be that based on their size and having had dogs, they would require not much more than a large dog would need.

    Mr. Weidlich said I am concerned about the disposal of the waste, the bedding material and the health issue for the surrounding area. Mr. Rose said what do you see as cleaning after a goat as opposed to a large dog? Many references have been made to cleanliness, but my assumption is that it would apply to having a large do also. Mr. Weidlich said I don’ t know, but I was having problems with one goat and now we are talking about two goats so that doubles my hesitation.

    Mr. Okum said our previous code addressed that domesticated farm animals, including goats, could be kept on residential districts, but on lots not less than five acres. I think there was a reason for that. We have a heard a lot of good dialogue, but not a lot of positive comments. Alternative methods have been discussed this evening, and we have to consider, whether it is one goat or two goats, it would be a variance to the Zoning Code.

    The reason I questioned the noise issue is because I have heard goats, and they can be quite noisy. We have enough trouble dealing with noise from dogs, and creates a lot of hostility between neighbors. I don’t see goats as much different.

    I can ‘t find a lot of reasons why the variance would be necessary. I think there are alternatives. When you weigh all the negatives, they outweigh the positives. This is not the answer, and I can’t support this variance.

    Mr. Weidlich moved to deny the variance and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the variance was denied with seven affirmative votes.

    Mr. Rose thanked the board for the time and the knowledgeable input.

    Board of Zoning Appeals recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:17 p.m.

     

     

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE FIFTEEN

    F. Springdale Church of the Nazarene, 11177 Springfield Pike requests variances for the location of the dumpster, the rear yard, and side yard setback for the parking. Said variances are requested from Section 153.161 "minimum rear yard setback shall be the same as the required rear yard setback for the adjoining district with the most restrictive rear yard setback", Section 153.489(A) "shall not project into or be located on a front or side yard..shall not be less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot lines." and Section 153.502(C) "In no case shall the parking area be located closer than.20 feet from any residential property line."

    Mr. Okum said for the board’s benefit, we need clarify on each of these variance requests before we go into the overall plan and presentation.

    Todd Yoby from the Environ Group Architects, representing the Springdale Church of the Nazarene, showed the existing sanctuary and all of the proposed addition, which is approximately 48,000 s.f.

    The primary uses of the addition are multi purpose gymnasium space, new church offices, adult and teen Sunday School space and nursery space for Sunday School use. Additionally there is a new kitchen, another activity space for the teen use and a small reception room to be utilized by the choir for practice.

    Mr. Wilson said I went to the right on your property and noticed two large buildings. One has three doors and there is another building to the right of that. Are you proposing to eliminate those two buildings?

    Mr. Yoby answered there is an existing gymnasium behind the church that is attached to the church building. That building would be demolished. What you saw was the existing accessory building "the barn" and another building, which would be removed with this addition. The intent is for the barn to stay. It recently has been restored and is used for classroom space. We will demolish one accessory building and the existing gymnasium space.

    The challenge of this project was to design a building that would accommodate the needs of the church and still remain appropriate to the site and the existing buildings. The church has explored numerous design options of where to locate this building and how to relate it to the existing facilities. Most of those solutions created spaces that either overwhelmed the site reducing their greenspace and impacting parking. Parking is a pretty important requirement for the church, especially on Sunday mornings and special events. They are pretty proud of the existing sanctuary and want to maintain its integrity on the site.

    The church was prepared to purchase property along the west side of the site from the City of Springdale. Some negotiations had been undergone and some time in that process, when this concept was proposed to the City of Springdale, the idea of a variance was suggested.

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE SIXTEEN

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Yoby stated that there were a couple of reasons for that. From a Building Code standpoint, the proposed building design met all of the necessary requirements to allow it to set on the property line. That west elevation is solid masonry construction, and was meeting all of the necessary fire code requirements.

    The Fire Marshall, Mike Hoffman also took a look at the project in a preliminary meeting, and he did not have any concerns with access around the perimeter of the property. He felt fairly comfortable that the Fire Department could access the property from either side.

    The result was that the variance option of going to a 0 property line setback would allow the church to exercise the best use of their land and the most efficient use of their space and still respond appropriately to the existing facilities, while the City could maintain control of the park property and not lose any of the functionality of the existing soccer field.

    There is a six-foot chain link fence that runs the length of the property between the park and the church on the west side. The back of the soccer goal is approximately 70 feet off that fence line. Granting a variance at this property line wouldn’t affect that distance at all. The soccer field could remain as is and at the proposal of the city engineer, what I have is a proposed west elevation. What we don’t show on here, but what the church would be willing to do would be to replace the existing fence and extend it from the corners of the building on to keep that fence continual. We would have a situation where we once had all fence and would now have fence, building, fence.

    I don’t have any survey information on the existing trees, but I do have some photo information. There are some existing trees on the park side of that west property. For the purpose of construction, we would like to be able to remove some of those trees and we would replace them. We would like to work with the city and landscape that west side of the building and east side of the park property to the city’s satisfaction. That summarizes the request for the west property variance.

    Mr. Okum said for clarity, you would need to take trees off the park property in order to execute the construction, and then replace those trees? Mr. Yoby said I believe so. I think there are only three or four trees, and then a great deal of underbrush. I didn’t venture into that when I took the photos, so I am not certain at this point where the base of those trees are. My guess would be they are probably pretty close to the fence line, in which case I would like to be able to remove them and then replace them.

    Mr. Borden asked how they would access the back of the proposed building. Mr. Yoby answered that there would have to be an agreement between the city and the church to allow access to the west building for maintenance purposes. In addition, technically the footings of the building on the west side would probably cross the property line of the park by a few inches.

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE SEVENTEEN

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Borden asked if they were considering an access road, and Mr. Yoby answered that there is no need for an access road, other than during the period of construction. The west side of the church is all masonry with brick veneer, and from a maintenance standpoint it is pretty minimal as far as ever needing access. There is some HVAC equipment, but that is all rooftop.

    Mr. Borden wondered how the emergency vehicles would get through if the fence went all the way along that west side. Mr. Yoby answered there is a fence on the west side now, and from our discussion with the fire marshal, the new building is fully sprinklered. The existing basement of the sanctuary is sprinklered, but the rest of the church is not. There is a sprinkler fire department connection at the existing sanctuary. What the fire department is proposing that we do is move that connection out to the street at the existing sprinkler pit. In a fire situation, they would bring an apparatus in here, make their connection, and pressurize the system in an existing fire hydrant down near the sanctuary.

    Mr. Borden said what I am really asking is can you get a vehicle in the back to your building? Mr. Yoby answered you can get a vehicle back to this point and you can get a vehicle back to this point, but there is no vehicular access back here other than what would be from the park. But there is no reason for people to be back here. There is no need for egress or any pedestrian activity on this west side from the churches.

    Mr. Borden asked if the doors on the back would open directly onto the ballfield and Mr. Yoby answered that there are no doors and showed on the elevation the recessed patio area.

    Addressing Mr. Okum, Mr. Borden asked if this goes back to Planning once we make our decision. Mr. Okum said yes, Planning handled it on a concept discussion level. Due to the fact that there are a number of variances, it would have been inappropriate for Planning to get into their role with the project if the variances were not approved. It would not have been to the benefit of the architect or the church.

    Mr. Borden said in your report earlier you mentioned that there was no comment or recommendation from Planning, and Mr. Okum confirmed this.

    Mr. Wilson said I have no personal concerns on most of these issues, but I do have a concern about the dumpster. You are proposing to construct a dumpster enclosure three feet from the property line. Is there a way to make that in compliance (5 feet)? We are talking about two feet, and you haven’t’ even constructed it yet.

    Mr. Yoby answered that we originally were proposing the dumpster to be here, and the staff requested that it be moved further back to the rear of the site. We probably would have room to adjust that location and would be willing to do so. I wasn’t aware that there were two issues at the time.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE EIGHTEEN

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Yoby added I was trying to accommodate the issue of getting it out of the front yard. It is still technically in the side yard, because staff’s assumption was that we would not have a rear yard. I certainly think we would have room to accommodate the 5-foot requirement.

    Mr. Wilson said my concern was that with the building on the property line, the balls would be kicked against the building with some damage. If you’ll note in the staff comments, Mr. Burton said that he has no concerns about the location and size of the addition. If he feels that way, I don’t have a problem with it. This is something I don’t feel uncomfortable about. All we are doing is allowing the variances. We are not allowing the construction. There are still a lot of logistical items that need to be worked out with the city about access for construction and maintenance, and we don’t have to deal with that. One variance is no longer needed, since he will move the dumpster enclosure to five feet from the property line.

    Mr. Weidlich said are you saying that during construction you will be taking construction vehicles through the park to that side of the building? Mr. Yoby responded I wouldn’t necessarily have construction vehicles other than ideally to construct the masonry wall. I would like the masons to have access from the park side. We could gain access from our property onto the park property adjacent to the west side. Mr. Weidlich said my concern was that you would be taking vehicles through the soccer fields. Mr. Yoby answered the only access to that area would be restricted to within a 20-foot area of the fence line and would be accessed from the church property.

    Mr. Okum said I still have a problem with the massive two-story portion of the building being directly behind that soccer field. I know there is 75 feet of somewhat vegetation there. Do you have any ideas as to what kind of relief you can give to that area? You are basically looking at a flat wall from that two-story portion.

    Mr. Yoby answered for the purpose of my elevation, yes, you are looking at the flat wall. But again the church is willing to landscape the area so this flat wall could be conceivably entirely hidden by landscape if you so desire. Also, while you are looking at a flat wall, the elevation is at 19’ at the high point.

    Mr. Okum said you are going to have your gutters draining on the backside, and that means all the mechanical units will be setting on top of that. Mr. Yoby answered yes, there are four units on that roof.

    Looking at the photograph, Mr. Okum said currently the orange brick building that is existing is visible, and that is to the left corner of the soccer field. Now this building will go all the way across the soccer field, and that building in the photograph gets 60 feet closer to you. Take that effect all the way across the property line of our recreation area.

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE NINETEEN

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Okum commented that physically it would not impede on the function of the park. Balls do go over that fence, and they probably will end up on lower roofs on occasion. They probably won’t go over that 19’ high wall, but that is what our community park is going to be looking at when people are there. I know it is a soccer field; that is all it is today, but maybe it won’t be only that in 10 or 15 years. I think we are really really pushing the bubble when we put that vertical element all the way across our city park. I have some problems with that. I certainly understand that you have exercised every possible alternative, except moving that building more forward into the plan.

    Mr. Yoby said that actually has been exercised and it creates several problems. There are grading issues, it starts to eat into an enormous amount of parking from their existing south lot, and it greatly impacts the view of the church from Route 4. The intention with the addition from the perspective of Route 4 is to keep the addition as a background building, respond with matching brick and matching detailing to the sanctuary so that the building looks like it was actually intended to be there originally.

    On the west side of the property, the church will be willing to make any accommodation or request by the city to landscape that west side and try to negate the effect of a brick wall. Additionally the elevation isn’t a straight solid brick wall. There is a little bit of activity going in and out and up and down to alter that appearance a little bit.

    Mr. Okum commented I personally don’t have a significant problem with the 16’ high wall or the 1 ½ story, but the gymnasium wall is a big problem for me, because that is basically dropping it right on the property line. It makes it awfully commercial. I know you would landscape and I know you want to level your baseball field and you could do some mounding that could possibly soften it. We are not really talking about a buffer yard to a community park. We are talking about putting a commercial building against a park.

    I know it is a church but that part of that building is a commercial wall. Isn’t there anything you can do? We have zero setback. I know the fire department says they can access the property with their boom. If they needed to come in through the park for a major structure fire, they probably could do it, but they don’t think they would need that. As far as affecting the park, it won’t physically at all except for a little disruption to the soil. But, would a resident or business to business property consideration allow that zero setback? Would they be comfortable? Would you be comfortable? A park is a park; it is supposed to be green and natural. Our residents are faced with commercial everywhere and the parks are an advantage to Springdale. The Church of the Nazarene’s whole complex is like a park setting, but this building is pushed back to the point where it is less impact on Route 4 but more impact on our own park.

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWENTY

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Yoby responded in all fairness, the church has exhausted the design options. In the entire process of this project the church was prepared to purchase the necessary property from the City to accommodate the setback. The net effect of that, though, would be physical impact on the park. The intent was not to change the design; it was to purchase the property and move the property line.

    From what I understand, it was really the city manager’s preference to not sell the property if at all possible. It will allow the City of Springdale to maintain control of the park and not have to deal with the fence line or the building line being moved any closer to the soccer field.

    Mr. Okum commented that is putting the responsibility of maintaining that area on the City. On the other hand, the City doesn’t have to sell the property in order for you to be able to build a bigger building. It is not their responsibilitly.

    Mr. Yoby responded I understand that, and I wasn’t involved in the negotiations, but from my understanding, the City was willing to sell the property in order to allow the building to be built. Before negotiations for the sale were finalized, the concept of allowing a variance was introduced. It was expressed to me that it was the preference of the city manager to not sell the property if at al possible and allow the city to maintain that property line.

    Mr. Okum said that would be a decision for the seven council members to make, whether to sell off property to facilitate the Church of the Nazarene ‘s expansion. If I were a councilman, I probably would not be in favor of selling off city land for commercial expansion.

    Mr. Squires said I noticed in the staff comments that Mr. Burton has no concern about the location and size of the addition. That is a rather general statement; has he said anything else at Planning or elsewhere? Mr. Okum responded no, he was not at Planning. Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. McErlane and Ms. McBride made comments. There were no comments from the administration, and I don’t believe the councilmembers made a lot of comments

    Mr. Okum said the dumpster issue has been resolved, so you won’t need a variance. Mr. Yoby said we are certainly willing to relocate the dumpster. That variance request (Section 153.489(A)) was taken off the agenda.

    Mr. Okum said the next variance would be from Section 153.502, which requires the parking area to be at least 20 feet from the residential lot line.

    Mr. Yoby said this is not a variance issue but for point of reference, the south lot is being extended for some new parking. The church’s desire is to maintain their existing softball field, so that is limiting the extent to which the south lot can be extended.

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWENTY-ONE

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Yoby said we are proposing is an extension of the existing north lot by approximately 22 spaces. That is roughly at the east end, roughly 5’-6" off the property line. I don’t have an y photos of that, but I know on this side of the property, Mapleknoll has an existing parking lot that the church has some shared use of. I believe that you have the CAGIS map and Mapleknoll’s nearest building, the senior center, is quite a bit off that line. Mr. Okum commented considering that the use is commercial, I don’t have any problem with that. Other board members agreed.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported on the proposed addition. They are proposing to construct a 48,000 s.f. addition to the rear of the existing building 0 feet from the rear property line. The Zoning Code requires 55 feet. The Church was prepared to purchase property from the City to satisfy zoning requirements, and the city administration has indicated that it would be preferable to recommend a variance rather than selling the property. If the City were to sell property, the physical development would not be different from what is proposed. If the City does not sell the property, the City maintains control of the ground immediately west of the proposed building. Some logistical items need to be worked out about access and for construction and maintenance of the building. There was some concern expressed in the Planning Commission meeting about the impact on the park, and the balls being kicked on the roof. The end line of the soccer field is 70 feet from the property line at its closest point, and the proposed building is 15 feet minimum above grade. Jim Burton, Recreation Director expressed that he has no concerns about the location or size of the addition.

    The applicant proposes to extend the north parking lot further to the east. Currently the parking lot is 5 feet from the north property line adjacent to this location. The applicant proposes to extend the pavement along the same line. The applicant proposes to locate the dumpster enclosure in the northwest corner of the site. Because there is no rear yard, the dumpster is located in the side yard, which is prohibited by the Zoning Code. It also is located 3 feet from the property line instead of the required 5 feet.

    Mr. Okum said so it still would be located in the side yard, which would require a variance.

    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, and asked if anyone from the church had any comments on the project..

    David Ralph, Building Committee Chairman said we have spent considerable time trying to accommodate the building and our needs and meet the aesthetics and requirements of the City. We would very much like to have the consideration of this, rather than the purchase, because the purchase hindered both the City and us.

    We like being in Springdale and what Springdale has and we would want to do what is right for the City. This has been over a year of looking at various designs, so we have exhausted everything we can, and we would like your consideration..

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWENTY-TWO

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    David Wagner, President of Environ Group added that there are several alternatives that could have been pursued, and we looked at a number of them, but the impact was just not as favorable. We have worked very closely with Bill McErlane and the Building Department and I’ll have to say that in 30 years of doing this I have seen nothing but total cooperation and responsiveness from the City. It has been a real pleasure to work with them.

    Addressing Mr. Okum, Mr. Wagner said I understand your concerns but from what I can gather, they are essentially aesthetic issues. What you have there currently is the view of a fairly dilapidated fence, an old chain link fence which is 6 feet high. The potential would be to build the entire face there on the property line, and the city manager has recommended that we go through this variance process. In terms of the aesthetics objection, I think we can work with you to come up with some solution in terms of planting, mounding, trees, something your arborist would recommend to us. I believe we can solve the aesthetic issue.

    Mr. Squires said if you are talking about aesthetics, we are not in the position to judge that. It is my understanding that if these variances are granted, before anything is done in terms of construction, it goes back to Planning.

    Mr. Okum answered not necessarily. We can’t force an applicant to put improvements on property that they don’t own. Mr. Squires said that is true, but they can’t do anything unless they get variances to allow the construction. The building would go on the property line, and that is the big variance that we have to decide right here. We can take care of the dumpster and the other would be the parking lot.

    Mr. Okum said Planning can cause screening barriers, cosmetic structures, mounding, etc. all on the site that the applicant has control of. But the applicant doesn’t own the ball fields, the City does. This is a situation where planning could not cause improvements on the park property. By our giving the variances, the applicant will need that park property to get access. They will need a construction easement from the city, but literally the applicant could do it without a construction easement, and not do anything to the park property. We could not hold them responsible to do anything on the park property, and that is why it is a problem for me, being a member of both commissions. I don’t think the City of Springdale needs to sell land in order for a development to occur. I don’t think that is the responsibility of the city, but on the other hand, I don’t see it as a bad project. There is nothing we can hold the applicant to, even by motion, to make and cause improvements on our land when it is their development. If there was an agreement between the applicant and the City for purposes of construction, that they would do mounding, landscaping, buffering, etc. to accommodate those concerns, that would be a different situation. But, we are talking about a 0 setback with no remedy to the property. We can’t sit here and say that the remedy is going to happen. That is where I have difficulty with acting on that portion of the variance.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWENTY-THREE

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Okum added I don’t know how to get past that, because our property line stops there; their property line stops there, and there is no agreement. Planning Commission can’t cause it, and we can’t cause it.

    Mr. Squires responded on the other hand, if we don’t approve the variance, they obviously couldn’t build it. Mr. Yoby said the project certainly relies on the purchase of property or the granting of the variances. Mr. Squires added that as long as the City maintains the park, it would be the green area that we so much covet in this City. I don’t see the City selling off that, and we do control it. The Church is set so far back from Route 4; that is where this problem originated.

    Mr. Wilson said I have been on Council eight years, and I have seen us do a lot of things that would have a positive effect on both the City and a developer. You mentioned removing trees and replacing them. It is 50% of the caliper inches that must be replaced. In some cases the developer has been unable to replace it, and they have made a donation to the Tree Preservation Fund. Perhaps something could be worked out between the City and the Church that monies could be donated sufficient enough to allow us to properly screen our portion of that property and take care of the aesthetic issued that Mr. Okum is concerned about and to an extent I am concerned about it as well. I am not sure of the legalities, but I do know we have made certain concessions in the past. When you donate money to the Tree Preservation Fund it is legal, and the City could use the money in whatever way they wish. The developer could do it with our permission and solve the aesthetic problem.

    Mr. Okum said before we go any further, one thing we want to make sure of is that we are not contract zoning. We have to be very careful about that in regards to variance issues. It would have been better for the concept discussion to occur at Planning Commission and a resolve to that concept discussion in a second meeting with a plan and some form of agreement with the City to deal with the west elevations and that park area, pending a variance agreement. Construction easements are usually contingent upon approval of variances. Get that ironed out, and then bring it to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for the 0 setback with the remedies in place to make sure that the 0 setback can be adhered to and we can make the project work. Right now we are faced with allowing the variance at 0 setback and you are hoping that Planning Commission can swing a deal with the developer to do the improvements on the site. If they take one or two trees out, you are talking 60-70 feet across there and you aren’t going to plant enough trees.

    Mr. Wilson said since this is between the City and the Church, let’s say we are going to charge $100,000 a tree, sufficient enough to do the landscaping. It is like a buyer and seller; we own the trees; what do you want to buy them for?

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWENTY- FOUR

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Wilson said if we tabled that part of the variance to allow the developer and Planning to go back and say the trees are an issue. Table it because of the tree issue. Once the City and the developer agree on the cost of the replacement of the trees, if that is enough to cover the buffer, they can come back and we might be more comfortable about granting that portion of the variance. Everything else has been agreed upon. I am throwing out some suggestions, brainstorming to get some other ideas so that we can give these gentlemen something.

    Mr. Squires said I think we are digressing a little bit here. We have to decide right now on that big variance, and the best way to do that is to make a proposal. I propose that we allow the Church of the Nazarene to construct their 48,340 s.f. addition to the rear of their existing building and to place it 0’ from the rear property line. That is a motion.

    Mr. Okum said we need a second to that motion. There was no second, and the motion died.

    Addressing the applicants, Mr. Okum said I think you are getting the idea that the board doesn’t want to act on that portion of the variance tonight. Do you want to continue with the other two variances, or do you not?.

    Mr. Yoby answered with this portion, our sense is that we hear you, we understand and we want to do exactly what you want to do. My understanding is your comments were because there is not an existing agreement. Mr. McErlane’s report referred to certain details that had to be worked out and that is what that agreement would encompass. If we can in turn incorporate into that agreement all those details, the exact things you are talking about in terms of landscaping screening, if we can execute an agreement to that effect, then at that point of time we can take that to Planning Commission and bring it back here with that signed agreement.

    Mr. Okum responded basically that is pretty close. You will need a construction easement to build, and in the process of that easement on city property, you can work out an arrangement with the City and bring it through Planning Commission. Planning Commission can deal with the aesthetics, which is not a Board of Zoning Appeals issue, and then we have two property owners adjacent to this site that have an agreement that would accommodate a 0’ setback.

    Mr. Yoby answered we are in full agreement; we agree with that 100%.

    Mr. Okum said the other two issues are so insignificant, I don’t think action on them would make any difference, or do you want action on them? Mr. Yoby said it would take five minutes if you want to do that and vote yes.

    Mr. Borden commented I would rather see the whole package. If they can get an agreement with the City, that would be my preference, rather than take it piecemeal.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWENTY- FIVE

    IX E SPRINGDALE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE PROPOSED ADDITION

    Mr. Okum commented I think it can be accomplished; I just don’t think it should be carte blanche, rubber stamping it. Mr. Borden added I don’t want to vote on a variance for parking a dumpster without their variance in the rear. So if the applicant is in agreement, we can table it until they can work something out with the City.

    Mr. Yoby said that has been the understanding all along. We knew about this process, but you may have outlined a preference for another process. We will be following the processes recommended to us.

    Mr. Okum responded it is the normal process, but coming out of Planning Commission with so little comment, it made it very difficult. The only comments were mine about the balls going on the roof, and I really wasn’t going to make that a big issue, because Mr. Burton answered that. On the other hand, I think we have to treat this like two property owners with a 0’ setback. We have two councilmembers here that are decision-makers in our government concerning sale of property and land use. We had two councilmembers on Planning Commission, so you have four councilmembers already involved in the process.

    Mr. Yoby commented we feel very positive. We are pleased with the response we have gotten from the City, and I hope that you understand that we are willing to do whatever is appropriate to do, no matter who gives us permission to do it. We will have the agreement to create the permission to make the appropriate .things happen. We are not going to agree to it, and then because we are not obligated, not do it. We will work out what needs to get done, and we’ll do it.

    Mr. Okum said typically when you buy a piece of property or get a construction easement on a piece of property, there is a condition of that agreement that says this is conditional upon variance being granted. Mr. Yoby responded we knew, and Bill McErlane knew that some form of agreement would need to be worked out

    Mr. Okum said the applicant has requested that we table. Mr. Borden moved to table and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to December 11th.

    Mr. Okum said we need to go back to the request by Howard Johnson for the temporary banner. There was still no representation present, and Mr. Borden moved to table and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to December l8th meeting.

  6. DISCUSSION
  7.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    20 NOVEMBER 2001

    PAGE TWENTY- SIX

  8. ADJOURNMENT

Having completed the business, the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,2001 ____________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,2001 _____________________

Jane Huber, Secretary