BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
19 DECEMBER 2006
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Robert Weidlich, William
Reichert, James
Squires,
Jane Huber, Marjorie Harlow,
Robert
Emerson and Chairman Okum.
Others Present: Jeff Tulloch, Economic
Development Director
Bill
McErlane, Building Official
Randy
Campion, Inspection Supervisor
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. Chairman
Mr. Squires nominated Marjorie Harlow. Mr. Weidlich nominated David Okum. Ballots were
passed out and Mr. Okum was elected with four affirmative votes.
B. Vice Chairman
Mrs. Huber nominated Marjorie Harlow and Mr. Okum nominated Bob Weidlich. Mrs. Harlow was
elected with four affirmative votes.
C. Secretary
Mr. Squires nominated Jane Huber. Nominations were closed, and Mrs. Huber was elected by
acclamation.
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
V. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 21 NOVEMBER 2006
Mr. Weidlich moved to approve and Mr. Reichert seconded the motion. All voted aye except
Mrs. Huber and Mr. Squires who abstained, and the Minutes were approved with five
affirmative votes.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Zoning Bulletin – November 10, 2006
B. Zoning Bulletin – November 25, 2006
C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – November 14, 2006
D. 11/24/06 Letter to Joseph Wellman re variance request for oversize garage, 514
Lafayette Avenue
VII. REPORTS
A. Report on Council – No Report
B. Report on Planning Commission
Mr. Okum reported on the December 12th meeting. The tree removal and landscape plan for
Sweeney was tabled to the January meeting.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE TWO
VII B – REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION – continued
Mr. Okum stated that the T-District Zoning on West Sharon Road next to the Springdale
Family Medicine was considered. This consists of four properties up to the church driveway
entrance and the zoning was recommended to City Council.
The landscape plan for Kemper Square was approved. The concept plan for the Lakeview
project was approved and referred here for the setback variance needed. Planning also
approved the Pictoria Plaza conditional on a final review by staff. The electronic sign
discussion was moved to the January meeting.
VIII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
IX. OLD BUSINESS
A. Approval of variance to allow the construction of a 24’ x 40’ detached garage
at 514 Lafayette Avenue. Said variance is requested from Section 153.105(B) “The
garage shall have..a maximum floor area of 600 s.f. – tabled November 21, 2006
Joe Wellman said I have owned this property for 15 to 20 years and have improved it over
the years. The existing garage is getting to the point that it is inadequate and needing
repair. Instead of putting a lot of money into that, I would appreciate approval for this
new garage.
Staff provided photographs of the driveway and existing garage. Mr. Wellman said this new
larger garage would cut down on the number of vehicles and would replace the existing
garage you see in the photo.
Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is requesting approval to construct a 24’ x
40’ garage to replace the existing 14’ x 21’ garage. The maximum garage
floor area is 600 s.f. so this is a 60% increase over what is permitted.
The property lot size is 70’ x 156’ (10,920 s.f.). His residence has 1,296 s.f.
of habitable area and the total lot coverage of structures with the proposed garage will
be 22.3%.
The applicant has not indicated what unusual circumstances or practical difficulties
concerning the property warrant this oversized garage.
Mr. Wellman commented that I would remove the shed with the construction of the new
garage.
Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.
Roland Fries of 11502 Rose Lane said I am a friend of Mr. Wellman and I have advised him
on his construction needs over the last years. In the case of the garage, he asked my
advice on the present garage. I told him it would be difficult to repair and should be
torn down.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE THREE
IX A 24’ X 40’ DETACHED GARAGE – 514 LAFAYETTE AVENUE
Mr. Fries sand from a square footage point of view, the larger garage the garage the more
benefit he would get from a dollar point of view. I know he owns a vehicle and trailer
that is relatively new, and he would be able to move them into the new facility.
No one else came forward, and Mr. Okum closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Harlow moved to grant the variance for a 24’ x 40’ detached garage at 514
Lafayette Avenue to replace the existing garage and shed. Mrs. Huber Seconded the motion.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires said your home is 1,299 s.f. and a 960 s.f. garage
is 70% of the area of your house. Why so big? Mr. Wellman responded I need it for what I
have in my shed and what I have on the driveway. The shed will come down, and I would
appreciate it if you would approve it and help me. Mr. Squires asked if he had considered
a smaller garage, and Mr. Wellman answered with all the materials I need to put in there,
a smaller one would not be adequate.
Mr. Weidlich said this drawing from PDQ shows the height at 12 feet. What would the total
height be to the peak of the garage? Mr. Okum responded I believe it is around 16 feet.
Mr. Weidlich asked if the siding would be vertical and steel and Mr. Wellman answered yes.
Mr. Weidlich wondered if he had considered a different material to match your house and
the rest of the neighborhood, adding that is a big wall to be putting in there.
Mrs. Harlow said when I drove around the block, I was not able to see back into that area
from Kemper Road. What type of trees or shrubs might be there that would break the view
from Kemper Road?
Mr. Wellman answered between my property and Kemper Road there are no fences or trees or
shrubs.
Mrs. Harlow asked if the applicant had calculated what he needed to store his vehicles,
travel trailer, lawnmowers, tools, etc. Mr. Wellman answered I estimated it with the help
of my friend. Mrs. Harlow commented this is a very large building for this type of lot,
and it will be visible up and down the street and from Kemper Road. Mr. Wellman responded
you would see it if you are looking for it.
Mrs. Harlow asked the opening size for a double car garage and Mr. Okum answered 16’
x 8’ is common. Mrs. Harlow commented the opening on this one would be 16’ x
20’.
Mr. McErlane asked the applicant if he intended to park his travel trailer in the garage.
Mr. Wellman answered if possible I want to put the travel trailer and truck if the door is
high enough, and I believe it is. Mr. Okum wondered if it would fit with the air
conditioner on the top, and Mr. Emerson said I have one and it would make it.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE FOUR
IX A 24’ X 40’ DETACHED GARAGE – 514 LAFAYETTE AVENUE
Mr. Okum said the question has come up on the type and size of the building. Under the
code you are permitted 720 s.f. of garage and shed, and you are asking for 960 s.f. for a
garage. That is a pretty significant structure, and the metal commercial look of the
building jumps out at you. Personally I have concerns about that.
Mr. Okum added your garage would be 71% of your house size so unless I hear something
different, I will not be supporting your request. Do you have anything you would like to
add?
Mr. Wellman responded I would rather have it, but if you turn it down, what can I do? I
wanted to use the extra footage to tinker around a work area out there.
Mrs. Harlow said I have a problem with the openness of that area and how visible this will
be. There is no vegetation to shield this, and that is a concern.
Mr. Weidlich suggested including the letter from Susan Roschke in the minutes. Mrs. Huber
read the letter:
“November 20, 2006
Dear Board Members:
I am unable to attend the hearing regarding 514 Lafayette because I have to work. I hope
you will accept my written comments regarding the variance for a 960 square foot garage
requested by the owner of 514 Lafayette.
Based on the information in the file, including the applicant’s comments, there does
not seem to be any hardship that would support this variance request. In my opinion, a 960
square foot garage would seem out of place in this rather densely built neighborhood,
particularly given that the house itself is only about 1,300 square feet. I understand
that the owner may have large storage needs, but this will have a long-term impact on the
neighborhood and our property values.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Roschke
500 West Kemper Road”
On the motion to approve the variance everyone voted no, and the variance was denied with
seven negative votes.
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of variance to allow 39-foot front yard setback for proposed Lakeview Project
(5 buildings with 61 units) at 11174 Springfield Pike. Said variance is requested from
Section 153.424(D) (1) (a) which requires a minimum 100 foot front yard setback.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE FIVE
FRONT YARD SETBACK LAKEVIEW PROJECT 11174 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
The applicant passed out color drawings of the project, and Mr. Okum added an aerial photo
as well.
Kenneth Huff, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Life Sphere said our history
goes back to the 1850’s in services in the human housing and health area. We are
committed to serving seniors and are a not for profit organization. In 1977 Maple Knoll
Village opened, and tonight we are looking at part of the original construction (30
cottages).
Doug Hinger, President of Great Traditions said we were before you to remodel the part of
the campus to the west of Route 4. This project is to the east, and we are requesting a
variance for a 39-foot setback for the Lakeview Project. This is being driven by the aging
population. We are landlocked in our 54 acres and 654 residential units.
This project will be in the $22 million range over a 36-month construction period and will
be done in three phases. We are being very thorough in our planning. We had a needs
assessment done which says that by 2011 there will be a need for 300 additional units. The
age 85 and older is the fastest growing segment of the population, and the average age of
people moving in our complex is 84.
The existing cottages are obsolete, and we are looking to rebuild on those grounds using a
local developer, Great Traditions and a local architect. In our market evaluation to
determine what should be done, we have had meetings with perspective residents and
existing residents.
We have a large project and it is important to us to carry out our mission. We need this
variance to go forward.
Doug Hinger, President of Great Traditions Homes said that the new Lakeview cottages are
architecturally significant and very exciting. They are five buildings which will be
primarily masonry with architectural details for the terraces and a roof design which will
provide breaks in the façade.
We share some of the concerns of the city on how architecturally significant these
buildings are. The new project buildings set seven to five feet below Springfield Pike so
there is a significant tree buffer. The variance we need would be to the edge of the
balcony rather than the building. We build very high end condominiums. The style and
architecture of this project is as luxurious as any we build.
We believe this is a major architectural statement for Maple Knoll and the mission of the
campus, and is a significant improvement over the existing cottages.
Mr. Hinger showed models of the site, adding that there is significant tree cover which
will be retained and there will be additional landscaping. We want to make sure that the
landscaping minimizes the impact of this on Springfield Pike
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE SIX
FRONT YARD SETBACK LAKEVIEW PROJECT 11174 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Mr. McErlane reported that the northernmost of the two buildings is to be 39 feet from the
Springfield Pike right of way to the balconies, and 44 feet from the building wall. The
south building is 49 feet from the right of way to the balconies and 53 feet to the main
building wall.
The current front yard setback to the existing one-story cottages is 24 feet. The set back
was reduced through the City’s acquisition of right of way. It appears originally it
was 50 feet and at the time theses cottages were built the 100 foot setback was not
required.
Since the 100 foot front yard setback has been in the code, only one other project has
obtained a variance to it and that was 50 feet for Maple Knoll’s Westminster Cottages
across Springfield Pike.
Planning Commission looked at the concept plan for this project last week and voted 6-1 to
recommend it to you for consideration of this variance.
Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.
Mr. Weidlich said of the 300 additional units you will need, how many will this add? Mr.
Hinger said the 300 units is needed for the entire market area. Sixty-one units would be
going up, some as small as 980 s.f., but the average is 1,300 s.f.
Mr. Reichert asked about the balconies facing Route 4. Mr. Hinger reported that the
balconies are located on the perimeter. Mr. Reichert wondered if they were on the west and
east sides and Mr. Hinger confirmed that they were.
Mr. Hinger said this is being done in phases. We have all but one of the people in the
initial 12 units that are affected placed in new units. They will either be moved into
Beecher or the apartments on the other side of the assisted living. Some will have the
option of moving into the existing cottages over the three years. We are trying to have
hem move only once.
Mr. Emerson asked if the people have the option to move into the new facility. Mr. Hinger
answered they would have the option three years down the road, but generally we have an
eight-year length of stay and many of those will not be in independent living in three
years but will be in assisted living or skilled nursing care.
Mr. Okum questioned the placement of the two-story buildings. Mr. Hinger responded the
area in here is not conducive to a three-story building. This building is two stories
because it is very close to this building, and part of the design is for a village style
environment with a common area. To do that we have designed it so that the parking on the
community environment is minimized.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE SEVEN
FRONT YARD SETBACK LAKEVIEW PROJECT 11174 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Mr. Okum wondered if they couldn’t put a three-story building there in the rear. It
would be impractical to park here and walk to the residences.
Mr. Hinger reported that the large white building in the lower right hand corner is a
92-unit building. Part of the concern is parking for that building as well. We need
parking close to the apartment building in that corner. Part of the concern is the view
for the people in the apartment building. Mr. Okum commented the people on the second
floor still would be looking at another building, probably a roof element.
Mr. Hinger reported that the balconies come out 10 feet deep, like an outdoor room. Mr.
Okum wondered if people would be able to make it a sunroom, and Mr. Hinger indicated that
they would.
Mr. Squires said I think we are getting away from the crux of the matter. We are dealing
with setbacks, and we need to talk about setback requirements.
Mr. Okum said if approved this evening, the applicant would have the right to build a 60
foot building along Route 4. So without limiting the height, the building could be 60 feet
high at 39’ from the right of way at the closest place. Mr. Squires wondered why
Planning hadn’t considered this. Mr. Okum responded that Planning made this a concept
approval. BZA could put a height restriction on the variance, but Planning could not. If
we are going to approve the setbacks, we should consider how that elevation will impact
Route 4. You have to anticipate what could be done on any variance.
Mr. Squires said Maple Knoll has been here since 1926. This is one of the gems in our
city, and I have faith that they are gong to do exactly what is presented here.
Mrs. Harlow said I agree that it is a gem. I noticed that there are a lot of people in
different parts of the campus gong to other parts of the campus, so the area that will be
a communal village makes sense. If they put that two-story building on Springfield Pike
and not have a communal area, it would be taking away access and a sense of community.
Mrs. Harlow asked the height of the building. Mr. Hinger answered it is 10 feet per floor
or 33-34 feet to the eaves line and roof above.
Mr. McErlane reported we measured it in planning and it is about 42 feet. Mrs. Harlow
commented I don’t feel that the applicant is going to build anything other than what
they are presenting this evening. Mr. Okum added Maple knoll has lived up to every
presentation they have made. On the other hand, I wonder if the applicant would consider
building something of less impact along Route 4.
Planning approved this conceptually, and their presentation was nothing close to what you
are seeing this evening. They wanted to make sure that this board had a clear and honest
representation.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE EIGHT
FRONT YARD SETBACK LAKEVIEW PROJECT 11174 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if he could build the two-story building on Route
4. Mr. Hinger answered yes, but economically it is not viable because we would have more
parking than we would need, and the units on the back side would not have visual access to
this. In the interest of the overall design and to create this overall community, this was
the better choice. I appreciate these concerns, but we believe this design gave us the
best balance. We are not adverse to conditions. We do share your concern about the
building mass along Route 4, and these are a residential style and not institutional.
Mr. Okum said I want to understand the conditions that would be acceptable. Would a
condition that the building height should not exceed what was presented be acceptable?
Mr. McErlane reported that was 52 feet, and I would not want to tie them down so tight
that they would not have the flexibility. Mr. Hinger suggested referencing the drawings.
Mrs. Harlow moved to amend the motion to add that two buildings along Route 4 be
representative of the drawings we have seen here tonight in size and height. Mr. Emerson
seconded the motion.
Voting aye were Mrs. Harlow, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Squires and Mr. Weidlich. Mrs.
Huber and Mr. Okum voted no.
The motion was amended by a vote of five to two.
On the amended motion, voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Emerson, Mr.
Reichert, Mrs. Harlow and Mrs. Huber. Mr. Okum voted no and the amended variance was
granted with six affirmative votes.
B. Approval of variance to allow the existing deck to remain 1 foot from side property
line at 697 Yorkhaven Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.580(D) “An
entrance hood, deck...may project three feet into a required side yard.
Rash Patel owner of the property said I built this deck inside the fence and later when
the property was acquired by the City of Springdale and surveyed, it was determined that
the fence was six to seven feet inside the property at 703 Yorkhaven Road. If I cut back
and made my deck comply with the code, I would have a narrow strip which would be useless,
and I would have to take it all down.
Mr. McErlane reported that Section 153.580(D) allows decks to encroach up to three feet
into a required side yard, and the minimum side yard in this district is 10 feet, so the
requirement is for the deck to be seven feet minimum from the side lot line.
A permit for the deck was issued on June 3, 1986, but the drawings and site plan are no
longer on file. The deck was apparently constructed using the adjacent fence line at 703
Yorkhaven as the property line. However, that fence was six to seven feet inside their lot
line. This was discovered when the property was surveyed and the applicant was advised to
remove the encroachment.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE NINE
DECK ONE FOOT FROM SIDE LOT LINE – 697 YORKHAVEN ROAD
Mr. McErlane said the applicant indicated that compliance with the code would make the
deck unusable. If enough of the deck were to be removed to obtain compliance, the width of
the major portion of the remaining deck would be nine to 10 feet.
Mr. Patel said my neighbor built an in ground pool and then the fence. I suppose he wanted
to keep it as close as possible. Mr. McErlane added there is a little grade difference,
but it is not steep.
Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Harlow moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.
Mrs. Harlow said so you would have to cut off a portion of the deck along the fence line,
wondering how that would affect the support of the deck. Mr. Patel answered it would
affect it some; if I have to tear it back I would give up the deck.
Mr. Okum commented right now the deck is at seven feet, and my feeling is if we give you a
variance to bring the deck back to five feet and require that evergreens be placed along
the fence lines.
Mr. Squires said the applicant was in compliance when he constructed it in 1986. Mr.
McErlane reported at the time it was assumed he was in compliance, but it was not because
he was encroaching on the neighbor’s property.
Mrs. Harlow said the deck needs to be partially removed to be in compliance with the code.
It is an unfortunate situation, but I think we have to respect the rights of the people
who now own 703 Yorkhaven Road and provide them the use of their yard. Mr. Weidlich said I
have to agree. Mrs. Harlow added I also would like to see the edge of the deck finished.
Mrs. Harlow moved to amend the variance to require the deck to be five feet set back from
the property line, provided the sides adjacent to the property are finished. Mr. Reichert
seconded the motion.
All members voted aye on the amendment.
On the amended motion, voting aye were Mrs. Harlow, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Reichert, Mr.
Squires, Mr. Okum and Mr. Weidlich. Mrs. Huber voted no, and the amended variance was
granted.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE TEN
XI. DISCUSSION
Mr. Okum said variances by type and chronologically have been developed by staff. Based on
that, what are the key items that need to be revised in the code? We are looking at 10
shed issues.
Mr. McErlane reported that one is shed setbacks. Another is accessory building size. Fence
setbacks are included, but the ones we have seen have been legitimate because there are
corner lots with no rear yards and a hardship. However, it is something to be considered
on a case by case basis, so it is not necessary to modify the code for that. Another issue
is the dwelling unit size, primarily in the Smiley/Cloverdale area. Garage size is another
issue the board has considered over the past three years.
Mr. Okum asked if there were any other suggestions.
Mrs. Harlow said currently we limit the shed size to 120 s.f. no matter the size of the
property. Is there anything we can do to graduate the size of the shed to the size of the
property? We do have a lot of large lots that 120 s.f. shed would be lost on.
Mr. Okum suggested identifying the types of buildings that would constitute a shed. Mrs.
Harlow asked about gazebos, and Mr. McErlane reported that a gazebo is an accessory
building that you could not have without securing a variance.
Mrs. Harlow commented that corner lot properties are a real problem with setbacks for
accessory structures. Mr. McErlane commented I am not aware of anybody asking for a permit
in the setback. Mrs. Harlow said we had one lady who asked for a shed placed along the
path going into the park and the board recommended that the shed be placed on the back
fence of the property line toward the community center. She did not want it there, and she
moved.
Mr. Okum said what about the rule that you can have a 600 or 700 s.f. garage (depending on
your zoning) plus a 120 s.f. shed? Mr. McErlane reported you do not have an attached
garage, you can have a detached garage and a 120 s.f. shed.
Mr. Okum said I am hearing that we might consider the shed size based on the lot size. We
also discussed the definition of a shed and other accessory structures (gazebos and yard
ornaments).
Mrs. Huber asked why Springdale doesn’t allow fences in front yards. Mr. McErlane
said if Planning wants to consider decorative type fences in front yards that might be
appropriate. Most zoning codes restrict fences in front yards because they do not like the
way they look, i.e. chain link.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
19 DECEMBER 2006
PAGE ELEVEN
XI DISCUSSION – continued
Mrs. Harlow commented if a resident has a chain link fence in place, he is stuck between a
rock and a hard place. Mr. McErlane responded you are saying we should accommodate the
resident even though the city does not want chain link fences. Mr. Okum added codes are
written not to encourage some things.
Mr. Emerson suggested the problem of double fences, privacy fences inside chain link
fences without enough room for maintenance.
House conversions, turning a garage into a living space was considered. Mr. Weidlich
commented I have a problem with people doing that; I think people should have a garage.
Mr. Okum said I went through the requirements. Guidelines 1 through 4 are very specific.
Take a good look at those before the next meeting. If you think the wording is wrong or
unfair or a practical impossibility to answer yes to all of them we need to discuss this.
I have come up with some wording that I will review with Mr. McErlane concerning what we
are expecting the applicants to bring to the meetings. We need them to clearly understand
that we are expecting them to give testimony, a “preponderance of evidence”. I
believe the applicants need to know that.
I also have suggestions on the check list items. Once I go over them with Bill, I will
send them out to the members. I also might get Ms. McBride’s comments on this.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and the Board of Zoning Appeals members voted aye and
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
__________________.2007 _____________________
David
Okum, Chairman
________________, 2007 __________________________
Jane
Huber, Secretary