BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

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:             Fred Borden, Robert Emerson, Marjorie Pollitt

                                             James Squires, Bob Weidlich, Jane Huber

                                             and Chairman Okum

 

Others Present:                  Richard Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

 

III.                  ELECTION OF OFFICERS

 

A.          Chairman

 

Mrs. Huber nominated Mr. Okum.  There were no other nominations, and Mr. Okum was elected by acclamation.

 

B.          Vice Chairman

 

Mrs. Huber nominated Fred Borden.  Mr. Squires seconded

nomination.  There were no other nominations, and Mr. Borden

was elected by acclamation.

 

C.     Secretary

 

Mr. Squires nominated Mrs. Huber and Mr. Borden seconded the nomination.  There were no other nominations, and Mrs. Huber

was elected by acclamation.

 

IV.               PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

V.                 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 16 NOVEMBER 2004

 

Mr. Borden said on page 6 the C should be B and page 7 the D should B.   Under C on Page 9, 217 should be 27.  All voted for the corrected Minutes and they were approved with seven votes.

 

VI.               CORRESPONDENCE

 

A.          Zoning Bulletin – November 10, 2004

B.          Zoning Bulletin – November 25, 2004

C.          Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2004

 

VII.              REPORTS

 

A.          Report on Council Activities – James Squires

 

Mr. Squires reviewed the City budget.  

 

B.          Report on Planning Commission – David Okum

 

Mr. Okum said the landscaping plan for Staples was tabled to the January meeting.  Development plan for the new Springdale elementary school was approved, contingent on their receiving variances this evening.  Planning recommended to Council the Transitional Overlay District for West Kemper Road. 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE TWO

 

VIII.            CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS

 

IX.               OLD BUSINESS

 

X.                 NEW BUSINESS

 

A.          Mr. and Mrs. Lee Grant, 789 Clearfield Lane request a variance to allow the construction of a 6’ x 12’ kitchen addition and screen room 21 feet from the rear lot line.  Said variance is requested from Section 153.072 “..minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet.”

 

Attilio Marconi reported that they have a corner lot.  The house was built in 1974 and Mr. and Mrs. Grant have lived there since 1976.  They are planning to retire and stay in the community and they are asking for a variance to construct a 6’ x 12’ addition to their kitchen. 

The house is now 21’ from one side and 23’ from the other because of the odd-shaped lot.   They have considered this investment to their property for a while, and chose to stay in Springdale.

 

Mr. Lohbeck reported the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.072 of the Zoning Code to allow an addition and screen room to be constructed on the rear of the house at 21 feet from the rear property line.  The Zoning Code requires a 40 foot rear yard. 

 

The proposed improvements consist of a 6’ x 12’ kitchen addition and constructing a projection 18” out from the existing deck, constructing a roof and enclosing it with screen material.  Both the kitchen addition and screen enclosure are required to meet the required rear yard setbacks.  The existing residence is non-conforming in that the southwest corner of the house is 23 feet from the rear lot line. 

 

The only location where an addition could be built and comply with Code would be the north side of the house.

 

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. Squires said for the record that is the only place it could be built.  You won’t build it on the north side since there is no kitchen there.  So there are extremely exceptional circumstances, since this is the only place it can be built and make use of the existing kitchen.

 

Mr. Weidlich asked if he were putting the addition up on piers and posts as in the rear elevation drawing.  Mr. Atillio said Mrs. Grant said that wasn’t good enough, and wants it enhanced a bit, so there probably will be a little angle there.   Instead of one post, there probably will be a post in the front and a post on the side

 

Mr. Weidlich added I notice they have vertical wood siding on the house.  Will that be continued across the addition to blend in?  Mr. Attillio confirmed that it would be. 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE THREE

 

X A  KITCHEN ADDITION & SCREEN ROOM – 789 CLEARFIELD LANE

 

On the motion to grant the variance, all voted aye and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes. 

 

B.          Dana M. Pace, 11690 Lawnview Avenue requests a variance to allow a privacy fence to remain as constructed with the finished side to the inside.  Said variance is requested from Section 153.482( C ) (4) “All structural supports..on the inside of the area to be enclosed…”

 

Ms. Pace said I want to determine if I need this variance.  The verbiage indicates enclosures, and I didn’t enclose anything.  The original enclosure is the chain link fence, which is correctly done.  There is also verbiage indicating that a fence visible from a public right of way, which is designed to have a finished appearance on one side shall be oriented so that the finished side faces such right of way.  The fence clearly can be viewed, and does face Lawnview Avenue, which is a public right of way. When I read that, I wonder if need the variance. It also can be viewed from Mr. Berger’s property, who is here tonight.  I also have a letter from another resident.  

 

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck if the Building Department had determined that the variance was needed, and Mr. Lohbeck confirmed this. 

 

Ms. Pace said I will then request the variance at this time.  The first issue is that I would have had to have trespassed onto the bordering property to erect the fence.  I did hire a contractor and there was supposed to have been a building permit taken out, but the contractor failed to do that.  I understand that is my responsibility, and when Gordon King came to my home and alerted me, I said I would pay for the permit; I wasn’t aware. 

 

When attempting to pay for the permit and do the right thing, I found that we had issues with the fence that required a variance. 

 

The fence is inside the property line.  There is a property directly behind mine that has erected their fence exactly the same way.  In my opinion it probably is not grandfathered as Gordon said, because I have a copy of the date that this was passed and a photo of the home without the fence, so it was erected after the fence requirement was passed. 

 

If I would have taken down the existing chain link fence, the person who is using the property behind me and who have dogs wouldn’t have the use of the fence. 

 

Ms. Pace said the fence had to be constructed quickly as a protection issue.  I was having problems with a small child in the property behind me throwing things at my pets.  I tried to talk to the owner several times, and it wasn’t happening, so it had to be done fairly quickly for protection and other issues.  Mr. Okum said for the record, we have photographs in color 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE FOUR

 

X B PRIVACY FENCE – 11690 LAWNVIEW AVENUE

 

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.482( C ) from the Zoning Code to allow a privacy fence to remain with the supporting posts on the outside of the fence.  The Zoning Code section requires the post to be on the inside of the area enclosed. 

 

The same section does permit the property owner to place the supports on the outside, if the owner obtains a notarized letter from the adjoining property owners attesting to their approval of the installation.

 

The applicant has provided a letter from one of the adjoining property owners (although not notarized), but has not provided any information regarding an attempt to attain a letter from the other adjoining owners.

 

The applicant has already installed the six-foot privacy fence along the rear lot line without a permit.  The owner was advised by Gordon King the Building Inspector to obtain a permit in his letter dated November 5, 2004. 

 

The Board needs to sort through the myriad of arguments presented by the applicant for leaving the fence as it currently is constructed and concentrate on any that would show a practical difficulty in complying with the code.  This means characteristics about the property that make it impractical to construct it as required.

 

Mr. Okum commented staff has indicated that they did not see any practical difficulty in your being able to comply with the Zoning Code.

 

Ms. Pace responded the person who lives behind me is present this evening, and  we had an issue that became a volatile situation with her grandson on the property.  The last time I tried to talk to her about her son, she threw her hands up in the air, said that she couldn’t talk about it right now and walked back in the house.  So I did attempt to have several civil conversations with her.

 

Mr. Okum said we are more interested in the issue of practical application.  I will open the public hearing.

 

Glendora Coven of 11691 Van Camp Lane approached the board and Mr. Okum swore her in.  Mrs. Coven reported I had a great grandson who moved up from Florida and he was learning how to play in the back yard by himself.   Ms. Pace had him come in the house to get me, and when I went out, she was very very angry.  I will not discuss things with someone who is very angry, because of the confrontations you can get into.  At that time, I was also traveling back and forth from Indianapolis with a grandson who was in the hospital up there.

 

We had been watching this child.  She mentioned about marking pens being in the yard, and then she told me that he had “voided” in the yard.  I am sure any of you parents have had this type of thing with a three-year old. 

 

 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE FIVE

 

X B PRIVACY FENCE – 11690 LAWNVIEW AVENUE

 

Mrs. Coven said we were watching this child and he was being disciplined for this sort of action, and within a week’s time, that fence went up.  That is my side of the story.

 

Mr. Okum asked if she owned the chain link fence.  Ms. Coven answered that the chain link fence was put up by the people who lived on her property.  When I moved there, all the chain link fence was up.  The only chain link fence that I own is between my house and the fences around me. 

 

Ms. Pace said the existing chain link fence is on my property, and she is using it, and I have no problem with her using it. The privacy fence was put up for protection because with a small child, I didn’t want my dogs upset and hurt. 

 

She has never indicated to me that there is any issue, but she is using the existing chain link and I wouldn’t want to take it down so she would have to erect another fence.

 

Mr. Okum asked how the fence was constructed, and Ms. Pace reported that it is a scalloped fence and the fence on her side is exactly like it is on mine.  The only difference is the structural boards on her side.  It looks good.  Addressing Mrs. Coven, Ms. Pace asked if she was happy with the way it looks, as long as it is maintained.   Mrs. Coven answered we haven’t had any problem with it.  Ms. Pace went through the photographs of the fences, explaining them to the board members.

 

Mr. Okum said so Ms. Pace’s fence is Photo 1 and 2 from your back porch.  Photo 3 is a close up to see the scallop and the way the wood is treated.  Photo 14 and 15 show the view from Lawnview Avenue.   Mr. Okum asked if there were any photos showing the post construction on your neighbor’s side.  Ms. Pace responded they look very similar to what you see in Photo 13. It is not like there is a bad side for her.  It is scalloped in and out so she has complete privacy as well.   The contractor told me that it would have to be erected that way because they weren’t pre made panels.   At the time when I was trying to talk to her, there was no way to ask if she wanted me to take down the chain link and erect the fence post side in. 

 

Mr. Okum commented it appears that you have two fences and both are on your property..  Ms. Pace said it is a fence inside a fence,  The chain link facing her property was in place before I moved there and the structural supports are facing inside.  That is on her property line in clear view. 

 

Mr. Borden asked if the structural posts were visible from the neighbor’s yard.  Ms. Pace responded that they are not the structural posts shown in Photo 13, but they are very similar.  I didn’t want to go on her property to take pictures from the other side.

 

Mr. Okum closed the public hearing, and Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE SIX

 

X B PRIVACY FENCE – 11690 LAWNVIEW AVENUE

 

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said is there any reason that you couldn’t have the neighbor give you permission to go back in and do the opposite side of the fence?

Ms. Pace answered first I would have to take down the chain link fence that she is using which might cause a problem.  When I do that, I would have to access her property and I would have to hire a contractor to erect the fence.  The original reason we didn’t do it was because I didn’t want to trespass on her property or remove the fence she was using because she has dogs as well.  In the Edmison’s letter, they indicated that they left theirs up as well when they erected their privacy fence because we knew that she was tying in and using it for her dogs. 

 

Mr. Borden asked the applicant if she would say that her fence has two finished sides and Ms. Pace responded essentially, yes. 

 

Mr. Okum said the difficulty is I am trying to ascertain if there are horizontal boards visible from the neighbor’s property.  Ms. Pace answered there are two, one at the top and one at the bottom.  She can see them, but the wood is the exact same pressure treated used for the fence, a good quality.  I chose the scallops so she would see the good side as well. 

 

Mr. Okum said I guess when staff refers to practical difficulty, they must mean that had it been done when it was built, there should have been no practical difficulty.  But I see some practical difficulty if you have an existing chain link fence and you are on someone else’s property without a right of access.   Mr. Lohbeck stated that could have been pointed out if a permit had been taken out.  If it was a difficulty, they would have had to get permission from the neighbors.

 

Mr. Okum said because of the way this fence is constructed, it would have to be totally dismantled in order to be changed, or a finished side would have to be placed on the other side.  Mr. Borden suggested adding additional boards to cover up the cross members.     Mr. Okum said somehow a finished side needs to be accomplished somehow.

 

Ms. Pace answered if I did that, I would have to take down my existing chain link that she is using.  That would be an inconvenience to her as well as to me. If she is okay with the upkeep and the view, I am appealing to the board.  I would have to go on her property and take down the chain link fence to get to the back.  So essentially I would have to tear it down and start over. 

 

Mr. Okum asked how she would be able to maintain the fence on her side.  Ms. Pace answered with the dogs there, there is no grass.   On the other side, I have spoken to my lawn service, and they will weed in between.  Mr. Okum asked how they would get there and Ms. Pace answered he stands on a ladder.  We could do it chemically, but I choose not to do that for the dogs’ safety. 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE SEVEN

 

X B PRIVACY FENCE – 11690 LAWNVIEW AVENUE

 

Mr. Okum said the problem that the board faces with any variance is that it stays with the land.  What is okay for you and your neighbor today may not be okay five or 10 years from now.  The person you sell the home to may not agree to take care of that grassy space between the two fences.  So what happens today is a permanent thing, and although the fence is very attractive looking on your side, that space between the two fences will be difficult to maintain over a period of time.  So, I am not comfortable with supporting the motion to grant the variance because of the practical difficulty of maintaining the space between the two fences.

 

From the audience, Mrs. Coven said I have  that problem with the other fence; the green stuff keeps coming up and I don’t know how to get rid of it. 

.

Mr. Okum said the alternative would be to deny or grant the requested variance.  If the denial occurs, what does the applicant have to do?  Mr. Lohbeck reported she would have to take it down and construct it properly. 

 

Mr. Okum commented I can’t see the other side,  but the applicant would be able to buy one of those ugly stockade fences, slip it over the top and meet the criteria of the Zoning Code, giving a finished side to the neighbor which would be an atrocity.  But I have more of a problem with the fence location being one foot off the property line with another fence there because there is no way for that area to be easily maintained. 

 

Mr. Borden asked if there were anything in the code that requires a setback between two fences.  Mr. Lohbeck answered no.  Mr. Borden commented this can’t be maintained the way it is now.

 

Addressing Mrs. Coven, Mr. Squires said your property is directly affected by this fence, and you use the chain link fence which is on Ms. Pace’s property.  Do you have any objections, or would you allow Ms. Pace access to your property to remove that chain link fence? 

 

Mrs. Coven responded we would be very happy if she would like to remove the fence.  Mr. Squires said so you would be happy to give her access to your property to remove that portion of the chain link fence.  Mrs. Coven confirmed this.  Mr. Squires continued if you would do that,  Ms. Pace would have the opportunity to erect some additional boards there to make that fence look finished on Mrs. Coven’s side.  As I understand it, that is an option.

 

Mrs. Coven commented that is what we are dealing with on the Edmison’s side.  We are having these tree-like things coming up between the two fences.  How do you get that out of there?  They are terrible.  If she wants to take that fence down, we would be happy to let her take that fence down. 

 

Mrs. Pollitt said if Ms. Pace removes that section of the chain link fence that runs across the back of her property, does that fence tie into other pieces of chain link fence from other neighbors?

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE EIGHT

 

X B PRIVACY FENCE – 11690 LAWNVIEW AVENUE

 

Mrs. Coven answered yes, on the Edmison’s side and on the side that is next to her.  Mrs. Pollitt asked how that would impact the neighbor’s property.  Mrs. Coven answered there could be some barrier put in.  There is not that much space.  Mrs. Pollitt wondered who would pay for it, and whose property would have the gaps.  .  Mrs. Coven said I would have the gaps.  Mrs. Pollitt commented so it would be up to you to go to the expense of having the barriers put in.

 

Mr. Okum said actually the gap would be on Ms. Pace’s property because you are going back and forth to the fence.  It still is the applicant’s fence.

 

Mrs. Pollitt responded my question is if the applicant has a wooden fence of some type and she does something about the facing, she has a wooden fence that encloses her yard, so she really doesn’t care if taking the fence down will leave an open area for this resident.  Mrs. Coven has animals that have to be contained.  Who is going to bear the expense of fixing those gaps?  Mrs. Coven said the gap is still in her yard.

 

Mrs. Pollitt said if Ms. Pace takes the chain link fence down and there is just a wooden fence there, Ms. Pace still has to maintain that on that side with periodic staining or wood treatment.   

 

Mr. Okum said  the issue is could they get to that space and maintain it by virtue of vacating that fence. 

 

Mrs. Coven said I would not hesitate to maintain that area if the fence was taken down.  I know that foot in there is her property, but I wouldn’t mind taking care of that to eliminate what will take place between the two fences.

 

Mr. Borden asked about the dogs.  Wouldn’t they get out?  Mrs. Coven responded if she would just put something in there at those gaps, that would take care of it, and I would be glad to maintain that so I don’t have that problem.  She wouldn’t have to come on the other side of the fence; I would be glad to maintain it for her.

 

Ms. Pace said financially to get someone on her property to take out the existing chain link fence and then still re-erect the privacy fence would be three times what I originally paid for the fence. 

 

It looks good, and if I do that I still wouldn’t have a protective barrier from the child or digging dogs. I now have a protective barrier and that is the way I prefer it.  That is why I have a fence within a fence, so there is no contact.  It was done intentionally for protection.  Things were being thrown over the fence.

 

Mr. Okum said I did not find any practical difficulty in the situation, and my vote to deny your request would force you to change the fence.  We have had some alternatives here, but I’m not sure they are the right ones, but I am not happy with what we have here.   That one-foot gap is a concern, and this might be something we should refer to Council, because I don’t particularly like the idea of two barriers or two enclosures creating that type of situation.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE NINE

 

X B PRIVACY FENCE – 11690 LAWNVIEW AVENUE

 

Ms. Pace said I understand that you are concerned with maintenance, but regardless your regulations define brush and property maintenance.  If I was violating that, it would be an issue, but I have never done that, and as long as I keep it up to code, how am I violating any code?

 

Mr. Squires said you hit upon the central theme.  It is not you we are concerned about but this variance goes with the land.  Who knows if the next homeowner will be as conscientious as you are?

 

Ms. Pace said I would agree, but it is in the ordinance that they are required to keep it up.  Anybody could let any part of their property go; it has nothing to do with this.  In my opinion it is property upkeep. 

 

Mrs. Pollitt said I need clarification on this.  The issue is not the chain link fence.   The issue for us to decide is that the good side of the fence faces her yard and not her neighbor’s.  Is that the only issue we are looking at?

 

Mr. Okum said yes, but the problem is that she has indicated that, with that chain link fence there, it is impossible for her to get to that fence to do that finished side.   The chain link fence is an obstruction to her accessing her fence for maintenance and putting the finished side on that side.

 

Mrs. Pollitt said the issue is that the good side of her fence is facing to the inside of the yard and not facing her neighbor.  So the chain link fence issue is a separate one in a way in that you are looking at maintenance.  Other things could be done with weed control or a mulch to retard growth there.  The other thing she could do is go on that neighbor’s side of the fence and put up some cross members and throw some stockade fencing up.  That would satisfy the code, but it is not what this board would like to see happen. 

 

Mrs. Pace said and you still have not addressed the maintenance issue, which I believe shouldn’t even be addressed, unless I am out of code with the maintenance.  If I do that, I would be up to code. 

 

Mr. Okum added if you do that, you wouldn’t need a variance.  The only reason the issue of the area between the fences came up is because you presented in evidence that it was a practical impossibility for you to finish that side of the fence with that chain link fence there, and not being able to access it through your neighbor’s property.  Please understand.  Had you not brought that up as a practical difficulty for you to access that side of the fence to take care of it and getting that finished side up, then the issue probably would not have come up.

 

Mrs. Pace answered I understand.  I just don’t think she would be happy if I did that.  It would look worse on her side, and the maintenance would be even more difficult.   So I would be up to code, but we still would have a maintenance issue until she decides to call the Building Department to say I am out of code.  It has been like that since April, and clearly there has not been an issue, and I think she would agree to that.  

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE TEN

 

X B PRIVACY FENCE – 11690 LAWNVIEW AVENUE

 

Ms. Pace added even if the property changes hands, it is a maintenance issue, which is an independent issue when it occurs, not now.  Mr. Okum said if you would finish the opposite side of the fence, you wouldn’t be requesting a variance.  Ms. Pace answered and you would be happy with me doing that, even if she is upset.   Mr. Okum responded I can’t consider what it looks like without seeing the other side of the fence, and unfortunately all the evidence presented is one side of the fence.

 

Quoting from the staff report, Mr. Squires read, “The same section does permit the property owner to place the supports on the outside if the owner obtains a notarized letter from adjoining property owners.”  How many owners are we talking about?  Mr. Lohbeck responded there are two.  We have one letter already, but it wasn’t notarized, so we need one additional notarized letter. 

 

Mr. Squires asked Ms. Pace if she had asked these neighbors to send a letter supporting her case.  Ms. Pace answered no, because Glendora and I have not been speaking, but she is here now if you’ll let me speak to her.   Mr. Squires responded we don’t want to get into any personal issues.

 

Mr. Okum said Mr. Squires is right, but I think the alternative would be an ugliness.  If you were to put something there to meet the Code, it doesn’t always mean that it is pretty.  The simplest way would be for you to say I can meet the code or we could go on with the way it is and you could get the signatures from the adjoining property owners.  

 

Ms. Pace asked if the board would be willing to extend this to the next meeting, pending my discussion with them?  Mr. Okum said would you like to request that we table this to the next meeting so you can work this out with your neighbors?  Ms. Pace answered yes.  So if I get the existing letter or another letter from the Edmistons notarized, plus a notarized letter from Glendora, you are okay with that?  Mr. Lohbeck answered that is what we need and you would not need a variance.

 

Mr. Borden moved to table and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.  Mrs. Pollitt said I would like for the board to ask Mrs. Coven if she understands the stipulations of the tabling.  Mrs. Coven said not completely, and Mr. Okum explained it to her.  On the motion to table, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to January 18, 2005.

 

C.          Springdale Elementary School, 350 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow one sign on the building and one monument sign.  Said variance is requested from Section 153.530(A) “One ..identification sign not exceeding 50 square feet.”  Another variance is requested to allow 0’ setback in the rear parking lot.  Said variance is requested from Section 153.502( C ) “..in no case..closer than 10 ‘ from any non-residential property line”.

 

Mr. Okum said I was involved in the decision on the architectural and engineering firms for Princeton Schools, but I have had no more communication from the school on this project.  Mr. Pensinger indicated that he did not see any problem.  Board members agreed.        

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE ELEVEN

 

X C SPRINGDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SIGNS AND SETBACK

 

Amanda Baker reported we have two signs on the new design, a monument sign at the intersection of Walnut and West Kemper, and on the building at the main entry along Walnut Street above the portico above the front door.  We would like to have both these signs, and are requesting a variance to allow this. 

 

On the variance for the setback on the rear, Ms. Baker said currently the area is shared between the City and the School District.  The existing parking curb cut is in the same location.  Our new parking lot continues to be a shared entrance with the City’s parking entrance.

 

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting to construct a 3’ x 5’ ground sign, 5’-2” high, and install metal letters over the main entrance.  The sign size and area are unknown.  Section 153.530 (A) permits only one identification sign of 50 s.f.  The applicant needs to clarify the wall sign size.  The location of the ground sign is shown at the proposed right of way line.  The sign needs to set back 10 feet. 

 

The applicant is also requesting a variance for 0’ setback from the north property line, which is the City property for parking and drives aisles.  Section 153.502 (C) requires a 10 foot setback.  This situation currently exists, and there are cross access and parking easements in place. 

 

Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.

 

Elizabeth Felix said I own the property at 302 and 310 West Kemper Road, which is adjoining the school.  My concern is the 0 foot setback.  Since my husband was ill, I haven’t seen any of the plans, so I don’t know where the parking area is, and that is why I am here.

 

Ms. Felix looked at the drawing as Fred Pensinger of the Princeton City School District stated that the parking will be the same as it is now, and there will be no parking or drive along your property.  Planning Commission asked us to reallocate some of the tree plantings for the property.  We have additional trees along this area of the property, and we have agreed to this.  There will be more and faster growing trees along the west property line. 

 

Ms. Felix added when you have a 0’ setback and you have to get rid of the snow, where would it come?  Mr. Okum responded I believe that the setback on the east portion is significant.  Ms. Baker reported it is 150 feet, and they are requesting that we provide significant buffering here to buffer that property.  Ms. Felix responded I did not know where the 0’ setback was going to be, and since it is an entirely different area and not next to our property, I am okay with all this.. 

 

Mr. Okum added they have really worked hard on that eastern side to soften it.  Ms. Felix added there are some very nice trees there.  Mr. Pensinger commented they are making us replace every one we take out. 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 2004

PAGE TWELVE

 

X C SPRINGDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SIGNS AND SETBACK

 

Ms. Felix commented I would assume that they wouldn’t be taking a lot of them out.    Mr. Okum said there is some grading, but there are requirements under our code for replacement, and the vintage trees that are over 24 inches in diameter require a higher value replacement, at a one for one, and a larger dimension tree.

 

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

 

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variances and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Okum suggested that the motion include the size of the sign on the man entryway, 16” x 22’.  Mr. Squires so amended his motion, and Mrs. Huber amended her second.

 

Mr. Okum commented considering the size of this development, I have no objection whatsoever to the additional signage on the building.  I think it would be inappropriate for us not to include the Springdale Elementary name on the main entryway considering the history of the building and the architecture that they have been able to bring into this building.     

 

Mr. Borden asked the applicant if there would be a problem with the 10-foot setback on the ground sign.  Ms. Baker indicated that they were planning to make that adjustment. 

 

On the motion to grant the variances, all voted aye, and the variances were granted with seven affirmative votes.

 

XI.               ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:08 p.m.

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

_______________________,2005          _____________________

                                                                        David Okum, Chairman

 

 

 

_______________________,2005          _____________________

                                                                        Jane Huber, Secretary