BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10,
2007
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Alex Kessler, Barbara Timmons,
Kelly Thornton, Nevin Taylor, Greg Faulkner, Harry McMannis, Richard Mickley
OTHERS
PRESENT: City Planner DeLong, Zoning Inspector McCoy, Clerk Patterson, Jeff
Sackenheim, Robert Hembree, Mike White, Larry Zimmerman
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: There being no additions or
corrections, the minutes for the meeting on August 13, 2007
were approved as distributed.
AENDA
ITEMS:
OLD
BUSINESS:
1) To hear a request
for a variance for 3 signs in addition to 6 signs permitted - two business
signs 29 sq. ft. and one business sign 19.2 sq. ft. for signage of 318.85 sq.
ft. vs. maximum signage 300 sq. ft. permitted.
To be located at the proposed Walgreens located at 180 Coleman’s
Crossing Blvd. TOC zoning district. Filed by Meadowood Development, Inc., for Walgreens, 4043 N.
Ravenswood,
The
Board received a letter from the applicant withdrawing this Request for
Variance.
NEW
BUSINESS:
2) Requesting a variance for a fence to be
located 5.7’ from the City right of way on
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE:
City Planner DeLong stated this variance request does not meet any of
the Facts of Findings as noted in Section 1129.13. Therefore, staff recommendation is to
disapprove this variance. Mr. DeLong also suggested that the Board ask
the applicant what type of fence he plans to put up as it was not written on
the application.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Brooks Heminger
addressed the board. He moved into the
residence on July 13th. He is
requesting a fence extension to the north side of the property. His lot is a corner lot. Purpose of the fence is for the safety of the
kids and a dog. His wife also provides
daycare for other children. The new
middle school will cause more traffic in the area. Applicant would like a 6’ privacy fence. He doesn’t feel the fence will obstruct
anyone’s view except for the house located to the east of his property in the
back. There may be slight obstruction
for them. There is a 4-way stop at his
property, so traffic is stopped at his house, so if they are forced to back out
of their driveway or traffic is coming in and out, he feels it would give them
ample time to have the on-coming car stop.
Ms.
McCoy said that Mrs. Heminger called and said she thought they didn’t want to
go as close as was requested. She
thought they wanted to go 11’ from the sidewalk, not 5’. Mr. Heminger said his wife had switched what
he had originally written in the proposal.
He had put 10’ from the sidewalk and she switched it to 5’. He felt 5’ may be pushing the bounds a little
bit, so he backed it off to 10’, not knowing what was allowed in the
neighborhood. Their ultimate goal is to
get as much yard as possible to be fenced in for the kids and dog.
Mr.
Mickley said his copy states 20’ from the right-of-way. Ms. McCoy said she wrote that. It’s 20’ from the house.
Since
there seemed to be some confusion, Mr. Taylor asked for clarification of the
numbers. Ms. McCoy said from their
house, they have 27.5’ to the right-of-way.
After her conversation with Mrs. Heminger, she understood her to say
they wanted to go 5.7’ from the right-of-way, which would be 6.7’ from the
sidewalk, which would be 20’ from the house.
The minimum setback is 25’; they want to go 5.7’. The agenda is correctly stated.
Mrs.
Timmons drove by the property. She is
concerned about the residents on Fawn Meadow backing out of their driveway, if
the applicant were to put the fence out as far as he is requesting, toward Fawn
Meadow to 1’ from the sidewalk. She
feels that would be dangerous. She asked
if the applicant would be willing to go 11’ from the sidewalk. Mrs. Timmons suggested amending the request
to go 10’ from the easement. She also
would prefer to see a 4’ fence in that neighborhood.
Mr.
Faulkner said there are design standards in that neighborhood. Anything over 3’ would require approval from
the Homeowner’s Association.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: Mr. Robert Hembree
addressed the Board. He lives directly
behind the applicant. His main concern
is backing out of their driveway. Any
kind of privacy fence that would be placed in the proposed location would prevent
him from being able to see, especially the sidewalk, as they back out of their
drive. Even at 10’, they’d be at the
sidewalk before you could see children on bikes, etc. Major concern is safety. Mr. Hembree checked with the Woods of Mill
Valley Homeowner’s Association and they expressed that they wouldn’t approve
the location of the proposed fence, and had a letter to that affect. He had not shared the letter with Mr.
Heminger.
Mr.
Kessler asked if the neighborhood covenants could overrule the decisions by the
Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Taylor
believes the Board can give a variance for the location of the fence, but
cannot tell them what type of fence they have to have. The Board can request or suggest the type of
fence. Ms. McCoy said she thought the
covenants overrule the Board but it’s up to the homeowner’s association to
enforce them. Mr. Mickley said the more
restrictive would apply as a tone of law.
Mr.
Heminger stated there are utility boxes that border Mr. Hembree’s
property.
Mr.
Heminger stated that he is not trying to obstruct vision. He added that there are utilities in the back
yard. He would be glad to build the
fence out around those boxes. He’s not
out to cause problems as a new resident in the neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: The Board suggested
tabling the request for variance and let the neighbors meet and try to work out
something agreeable to both parties.
Also, check with the Homeowner’s Association to see what their restrictions
are. Mr. Heminger agreed to table. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. McCoy to talk to the
Homeowner’s Association to find out what the Board needs to know also.
Mrs.
Timmons moved to table the request for variance until the next meeting, which
is October 8, 2007, seconded by Mr. Faulkner and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Mickley YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mr. Faulkner YES
Mr. Taylor YES Mr. Thornton YES Mrs. Timmons YES
Mr. Kessler YES
Request
for Variance tabled.
3) Requesting a
variance to permit 83 sq. ft., 5’4” bulletin board sign vs. 20 sq. ft., 5’ in
height bulletin board sign permitted for quasi-public use in the R-2 zoning
district; located at
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE:
City Planner DeLong stated that after review of the case and Facts of Findings,
staff recommendation is to disapprove the variance. It does not meet the Facts of Findings. The applicant was notified of the above.
Ms.
McCoy stated she could have gone two different ways with this. The school has a
sign permit approved for a wall sign for the one identification sign they’re
allowed to have. They can have one ID
sign, 40 sq. ft, and one bulletin board.
If they didn’t have the wall sign as their ID sign,
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Jeff Sackenheim with
Steed/Hammond/Paul addressed the Board. They
are the architects for the school district.
They have worked on Creekview Intermediate, Northwood Elementary,
construction on the high school and also the intermediate and middle school. He brought additional information to help
clarify one of the issues. The total
height issue of 5’4”, Mr. Sackenheim said he can easily accommodate the height
issue by dropping it down to 5’ by adjusting some of the contours immediately
around the sign. He went around to the
other two schools that are immediately adjacent to the property. He realizes you don’t refer to prior
applications on a variance issue, but in keeping with the general design
standard, general proportions and a masonry backup for the sign, as was already
constructed at Creekview and also
Ms.
McCoy stated she doesn’t know for sure if the previous two signs are within
code because she never saw sign permits for them. She believes they may be within code because
the schools do not have their names on the buildings. They’re allowed 40’ sq. ft. signs. East and
Mr.
Sackenheim said if he understood Ms. McCoy correctly, if he were to eliminate
the 10” tall mounted letters on the brick wall, then he has the directory which
is 24 sq. ft., which the ordinance allows 20 sq. ft. They could modify that and pursue the
variance for the 4 sq. ft. At that
point, he wouldn’t consider the brick wall then to be the sign panel, similar
to
Mrs.
Timmons commented that since this school was close to the other two schools, it
would make sense to make all the signs look similar. Mr. McMannis asked why the design change from
the other two signs. Mr. Sackenheim said
he didn’t feel it is that significant of a change. Mr. Zimmerman commented that Millcreek and
Mr.
Mickley suggested taking the letters off of the building and just do the billboard sign.
Feels it would stand out more to someone passing the building.
Mr.
Larry Zimmerman addressed the Board. His
problem with that is where the sign is located.
It’s located about half way between in the property. You are already to the property and past the
two turn-in lanes before you locate the sign.
He likes the signage on the building because it helps the folks identify
where that building is.
Mr.
Taylor clarified that if the 4” are dropped from the billboard sign, that would take care of the height problem. Secondly, need to take the words off the sign
and just leave bulletin board sign, which means applicant would have to shorten
it proportionate with the balance of the lower
picture. If brick is shortened on both
ends, it will be in compliance with square footage. Ms. McCoy said the bulletin board can be 20
sq. ft. on that whole wall.
Mr.
Sackenheim feels there are two levels to the variance request. A) would be the
design as proposed, with the pin-mounted letters on it, which would require the
variance for the bulletin sign to be increased from an allowable 40 sq. ft. to
76.9 sq. ft. If that is not approved, if
the pin-mounted letters have to come off, then the variance application would
simply be for an additional 4 sq. ft. on the bulletin sign, because that sign
as designed is 24’ sq. ft., an allowable 20 sq. ft. per the ordinance. He originally designed two signs, one at
each of the primary visitor entries, but for budgetary purposes he couldn’t do
it. These signs amount to about $22,000
with all the components of the signs. Thus
the reason it was reduced from two signs to one and centrally located on the
property.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: No comments
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Taylor asked for
guidance from the City Planner and Zoning Inspector. Mr. DeLong stated
his letter still stands. Ms. McCoy said signage
is important for people to know where to go.
Mr.
Mickley stated he didn’t think a sign parallel with the road would be of much
use if you have a sign facing the same way as the bulletin board. He feels just the bulletin board is
sufficient.
Mr.
Sackenheim said he predicts about 70% of the students are going to walk to the
school from the subdivision across the street from the sign, so when parents,
siblings, etc. bring the children, they will be approaching the bulletin sign
in their path of travel.
Mr.
Taylor has a problem with Mr. Sackenheim’s above statement. He sees the driveway coming in and going
behind the sign to start with. He sees it
coming the other way and going behind the sign, and unless you make that loop
and go back around, you are never going to see that sign. He could understand it if it was a one-way
driveway, but it’s not. Mrs. Timmons
agreed.
Mr.
Mickley moved to approve the variance modified to be 5’4” high, 24 sq. ft.
bulletin board, no wording, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put,
stood:
Mr.
McMannis YES Mr. Faulkner
YES Mr. Taylor YES
Mr. Thornton YES Mrs.
Timmons YES Mr. Kessler
YES Mr. Mickley YES
Variance
granted.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m.