DRAFT
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
July 8th, 2004
MINUTES
CALL
TO ORDER: Robert
Bender, Chairman
ROLL
CALL: James
Rinehart, Cherry Linder, William Heckman, Brian Leary, and Alternate James
Klatte were present. (Robert Bender was absent with notice.) Also present was
Rob Butler, township legal council
There was discussion on who would be
a acting chair person and the previous chair person will lead tonight, Cherry
Linder, who is now the board secretary.
Motion to nominate Vice-chairperson.
Motion There
was a motion by James Rinehart to table the motion to nominate a Vice
–chairperson. There was a 2nd by William Heckman.
Roll Call Cherry Linder-yes, James
Klatte-yes, William Heckman-Yes, James Rinehart-Yes The motion was approved.
Motion There was a motion by James Klatte
to approve the minutes of June 10th, 2004, with a change on Page 2,
under the applicant . In the 7th line “Mr. Leary asks him if
he” should be changed to Mr. Klatte asked him if he” There was a
second by James Rinehart.
Roll
Call James Klatte-yes, William Heckman-Yes, James Rinehart-Yes Cherry
Linder-yes The motion was approved.
Cherry Linder did a swearing in of those who
will be giving testimony. James Rinehart explained the process of the meeting.
CASE 2004-415 9755
Barnswood Drive, Garage in Side Yard Variance
Staff
Presentation
Mayank Kumar explained the request to build a 2 car garage in the side yard at
9755 Barnswood Drive. The Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution (Code) requires
any accessory structure to be an “integral” part of the main structure if built
in the side yard. Otherwise, a detached accessory structure is allowed only
in the rear yard. Mr. Kumar showed the location of the property on
the map on the powerpoint. He showed an aerial photograph and pointed out the
house on the photo and the location for the proposed structure. The detached
garage size is 26 x 30 feet. Mr. Hartsig owns 2 lots, Lot #38 and Lot #39 and
the existing house is sitting on the property line of those 2 lots. The
property owner is requesting to widen the driveway. The setback of the proposed
garage from the main building is approximately 21 feet. The neighbors have
indicated that they are in support of the requested variance, and Mr. Klaber,
property owner to the immediate south, 9771 Barnswood Lane, has submitted a
letter in support of the proposed variance.
Mr. Kumar said there is
another option if this is not approved, to build it in the rear yard. The
applicant had a drawing showing how many trees would have to be removed if the
garage would be put in the rear yard. Mr. Kumar showed several photos to the
board. The proposed garage is 12 feet high for the garage and an 8 feet high
loft, a total height of 22’-6”. The roof would be shingle roofing and the
exterior would be brick to match the existing residence. One of the conditions
of any variance is that the property owner must show an unnecessary hardship.
Mr. Kumar said since the property owner himself has indicated that he could
build the garage in the rear, it is not an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Hartsig
wants to preserve the area for the park like setting for the benefit of
community which staff supports. Mr. Kumar said the garage in the side could be
placed there in a way that it would look like it is a continuation of the main
structure. The staff has 3 suggestions to make this look like an integral part
of the main structures as follows:
1. The proposed garage
shall be moved closer to the main residential structure (approximately 10 feet)
so that the southern edge of the existing drive aligns with the southern edge of
the proposed garage. This would still leave about twelve (12) feet distance
between the proposed garage and the main residential structure and would allow
all the pedestrian movement between the rear and the side of the house.
2. Connect the main residential structure and
proposed garage with some architectural elements for example, trellis, faux
wall, or breezeway, etc. The color, material, roof line, and the architectural
elements of the proposed garage shall be similar to that of the main residential
structure.
3. Provide landscaping along the southern
property line consisting of trees and bushes. A row of deciduous bushes (i.e.
leatherleaf viburnum) shall be planted to provide an effective hedge row screen
of six (6) feet in height within 3 years of occupancy.
Mr. Kumar said that staff
has shared these 3 suggestions with the property owner and Mr. Hartsig agreed to
look into option of integrating the garage into the main structure but declined
to move the garage any closer to the house because of a gas line and French
drain. Mr. Kumar said that the gas lines and French drain are not shown on any
drawing and such drawing is required to make an informed decision. Staff has
requested the applicant to provide such drawing. On the plat there is no
easement on this property. If the easement is in place you cannot move those
utilities, but since this is not reflected on the plat it could possibly be
moved. The staff acknowledges that it would be in the best interest of the
community to maintain the rear yard in a park line manner. In the event of
approval the staff recommends the following:
1, The proposed
garage shall be moved as close to the main residential structure as possible.
Relocation of the proposed garage shall consider any impact on the
existing “gas line” and “French drain” in the side yard. Engineered design for
the foundation of the proposed garage shall be required, if necessary, in order
to mitigate any conflict between the proposed garage structure and the existing
“gas line” and “French drain.”
2. There shall be some
architectural elements (e.g. faux wall, wooden or concrete trellis, or a
breezeway) designed to achieve “integration” between the proposed garage
and the main residential structure. The color, material, and the roof line of
the proposed garage and the architectural elements shall replicate the main
residential structure.
3. The landscaping along
the southern property line shall include “A:” type trees planted at thirty (30)
feet center-to-center. A row of bushes shall be planted to effectively screen
the view of garage from Barnswood Lane and adjacent property to the south, 9771
Barnswood Lane. The landscaping shall also take into consideration the
integration of the main structure and the proposed garage. All landscaping
shall be in compliance with Chapter 21, Bufferyard and Landscaping, of Deerfield
Township Zoning Resolution and shall be planted outside of any drainage
easement.
4. Prior to the approval of the zoning permit for the proposed garage,
location of the proposed garage, design of the
architectural elements, and landscaping plan as described in Conditions
#1, #2, and #3 respectively shall require
review and approval from the Deerfield Township Zoning Administrator.
5. No detached accessory structure shall be allowed in the rear yard.
Mr. Kumar referred to 3
previous cases which were similar to this case in which the board approved the
detached accessory structure in the side yard. They are on page 4 of the staff
report. Mr. Kumar asked for questions. Jim Klatte asked him if the new
condition #5, excludes playhouses? Mr. Kumar said no. The idea is to maintain
the rear yard in a park like setting and under the current zoning allowance, the
property owner could building another accessory structure in rear yard and so
condition #5 would restrict such allowance. Cherry Linder asked her if there
are any actual letters from any property owners. Mr. Kumar said there is a
letter from the property owner to the south which was submitted along with
application and also staff has received some e-mails from other neighbors, all
of which are included in the packet. Cherry said only 1 or 2 people sent the
e-mails. Cherry said the listing implied that everyone approves of this
proposal but we received 2 e-mails. Ms. Linder asked for the applicant to come
forward.
Johanna
Hutchins, Attorney, 8050 Hans Road, Suite 200, Cincinnati, OH 45236,
introduced the builder who was in
attendance, Dan Jenkins, 3030 Knightwind Drive, Maineville, OH 45039.
Ms. Hutchins said Mr. Hartsig was out of town and could not be at the meeting.
She confirmed with the board that they had all received Mr. Hartsig’s packet
with the information and photos. Ms. Hutchins had a correction that it is 22
feet from the neighbor to the south, not 21 feet. Ms. Hutchins said if the
garage would be put in the backyard, 6 trees would have to be removed. Ms.
Hutchins said the integrity of the backyard would be destroyed if the garage
were put in the backyard. Ms. Hutchins referred to Ms. Linder’s comments about
the number of property owners and said she could get letters from all the
adjoining property owners if that were truly a concern. Ms. Hutchins said Mr.
Hartsig spoke to all 11 of the homeowners and they were all in support of his
position. Ms. Hutchins said the person who would be most adversely affected if
the garage were sitting in the backyard due to the fact he would have to look at
it. Cherry Linder said the reason she commented about the letters because she
usually gets them in her packet. Jim Rinehart asked Ms. Hutchins to explain
what she just said about the neighbor viewing the garage. Ms. Hutchins said
that even the neighbor who would be most affected whether the garage was in the
side or the back yard, approved it. Ms. Hutchins said the gas line and French
drain is not in an easement because it is on his own property. Ms. Hutchins
pointed out on the photo the location of the gas meter and said that is where
the gas line is located. Mr. Kumar said we need to see lines on the drawing
showing where the gas line and the French drain are located. Ms. Hutchins said
setting it back 12 feet from the main structure is still not in compliance. She
said the landscaping, the patio, and the turn around space will be affected.
Jim Rinehart asked him what “turn around” area are you talking about. Mr.
Rinehart said the turn will be the same and the turn around will not have any
impact. Ms. Hutchins said because there will be a whole other structure there,
it will cause a problem. Mayank asked the builder if he has designed any
structures with gas lines or French drains. Mr. Jenkins said the water in the
French drain will cause erosion under the slab. Mr. Jenkins said it would have
to be designed to go around the slab. Mayank said the French drain could be
left in place but design the foundation in such a manner that there would be
space for the French drain. Mr. Jenkins said that would be very expensive.
Cherry Linder asked about the size of the lot where the garage is. She was told
it is almost an acre. Ms. Linder said she regrets that Mr. Hartsig is not
here. She asked what the garage would be used for. Mr. Jenkins said it would
be for storage of extra cars and a small utility trailer. Ms. Linder asked if
the entire garage would be brick and they said yes. Ms. Linder asked for other
public comment. There was none. Ms. Linder closed the public discussion and
asked for board comments.
Board
Comments Jim
Rinehart said he is a “tree hugger” but he doesn’t really believe that putting
the garage in the back would cause removal of that many trees. Mr. Rinehart
said he doesn’t think they want to move the garage. He believes the property
will still have enough trees from looking at Site Plan A, preferred option. He
said he believes the park like feature will remain. He said the garage location
as suggested by staff would not cause problems for turning around. Mayank said
he believes the problem that the applicant is concerned about is the French
drain and the gas line. Mr. Rinehart said the majority of the trees will be
left. William Heckman said the garage could go 5 feet from the property line.
Cherry Linder said she is
trying to look at the big picture and see the hardship. She said every time the
board approves a variance, it just gets added to the list and we are committed
to treat every case individually. Ms. Linder said this is a large lot and there
are plenty of places in the rear yard where the garage could go. She said this
is large garage and it is 22 feet high, which is the height of a warehouse. Mr.
Kumar said the way the township zoning code reads, he can build his house or
garage with a 5 feet setback. Condition #5 is there so the rear yard will
remain in a park like state. Ms. Linder asked Dan Jenkins, 330 Knightwind,
Maineville, OH, to come forward. She asked him if there is heat or
plumbing planned for the building and Mr. Jenkins said there is not going to be
any heat or plumbing, just minimal electric. There was discussion on the height
of the garage. Mr. Jenkins said the typical garage is 10 feet high but they
want the loft area for storage. There was discussion on removal of the loft but
Mr. Jenkins said the pitch of the roof is to make the garage roof match the
house and that area is wanted for storage. Jim Rinehart said the back yard is
large enough for the garage and he believes there will still be trees left.
Motion
There was a motion by William Heckman to
approve Case 2004-415 with the 5 Conditions from the staff and changing
Condition #1.
1, The proposed garage shall be moved as close to the main residential
structure as possible but in no event
closer
than 12 feet. Relocation of
the proposed garage shall consider any impact on the existing “gas line”
and “French drain” in the side yard. Engineered design for the foundation of
the proposed garage shall be required, if necessary, in order to mitigate
any conflict between the proposed garage structure and the existing “gas
line” and “French drain.”
2. There shall be some
architectural elements (e.g. faux wall, wooden or concrete trellis, or a
breezeway) designed to achieve “integration” between the proposed garage
and the main residential structure. The color, material, and the roof
line of the proposed garage and the architectural elements shall replicate the
main residential structure.
3. The landscaping along
the southern property line shall include “A:” type trees planted at thirty (30)
feet center-to-center. A row of bushes shall be planted to effectively screen
the view of garage from Barnswood Lane and adjacent property to the south, 9771
Barnswood Lane. The landscaping shall also take into consideration the
integration of the main structure and the proposed garage. All landscaping
shall be in compliance with Chapter 21, Bufferyard and Landscaping, of Deerfield
Township Zoning Resolution and shall be planted outside of any drainage
easement.
4. Prior to the approval of the zoning permit for the proposed garage,
location of the proposed garage, design of the
architectural elements, and landscaping plan as described in Conditions
#1, #2, and #3 respectively shall require
review and approval from the Deerfield Township Zoning Administrator.
5. No detached accessory structure shall be allowed in the rear yard.
There
was a 2nd by James Klatte. Roll call: James
Klatte-Yes William Heckman-Yes James Rinehart-No Cherry Linder-No Since there
was a tie vote the motion failed.
There was some discussion
on doing another motion. The attorney, Joanna Hutchins for the proponent said,
“I think you are spinning your wheels because it won’t work and I don’t want you
to go through 15 different motions knowing one of them won’t work. I understand
and he understands.” Rob Butler, township attorney, said, “Just so that goes on
the record, counsel for the proponent was saying that these conditions,
apparently, those conditions in the first motion wouldn’t have worked, and
therefore any subsequent motions which we would anticipate I guess would be
more restrictive rather than less, probably wouldn’t be acceptable.” Attorney
Johanna Hutchins, representing the proponent, said, “I don’t want the BZA to
spend their time trying to work this out when he’ll just put it in his back
yard.”
Old
Business
Mayank Kumar said this Case 2004-190, Shell Oil, 9791 Mason-Montgomery
Road was heard previously. The applicant requested that the board
continue this case in order to get additional information. They requested to
re-face the signs. Mr. Kumar did a comparison of the signs they are requesting
and what the zoning board approved for the BP last year. Ten signs were
approved under Warren County Zoning and Deerfield Township allows 2 signs, one
free standing and one wall sign. He showed 7 violations. Jim Rinehart asked
him if they have corrected the violations and Mayank said no. Mayank said they
have actually added more. Cherry Linder said these are in violation today and
he said yes. Mayank said he met with the applicant and the applicant has
requested 4 signs, 1 highway sign, 1 free standing sign, and 2 wall signs on the
canopy. He said the way our code reads, the farther the sign sits back from the
ROW, the higher it is allowed to be. He gave the background of the signs and
what has occurred over the years on the property.
In the event the board
approves this case, there are 8 conditions as follows:
1. The maximum sign face area for the
entire site shall be limited to 270 square feet. This sign face area shall
include the highway sign, freestanding sign, and
wall signs for the gas pump canopy.
2. A maximum of two (2) canopy
signs shall be allowed.
3. The car wash building signage
shall be limited to two (2) directional signs each being less than eight square
feet in area and located above the vehicle doorway entering and exiting the car
wash building and reading “entrance” and “exit” , respectively.
4. There shall be no sign on the
convenience store.
5. One freestanding pylon sign
located along Mason-Montgomery Road with a setback of twenty feet shall be
allowed. The said sign shall not be more than 25 feet in height (22 feet high
freestanding sign on 3 feet high concrete base (and 142 square feet in area
(each double sided) as depicted on the attached Exhibit “A”.
6. The existing highway sign shall
be allowed. The said sign shall not be more than 75 feet in height and 144
square feet in area (sign panel of 12’ x 12’ for pectin or logo sign.)
7. No other signage is permitted
that is legible from the public right-of-way including, but not limited to, gas
pump signage, lighting post signage, freestanding signage, and temporary signs.
All extraneous signs shall be removed from the site prior to issuance of zoning
permit.
8. This variance shall be valid
for this refacing only. Any future changes to the signs shall require
compliance with Chapter 22, Signs, of Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution.
William Heckman asked about
the 2 sides, and asked do you count 1 side? Mayank told him you count the
square footage on 1 side. Cherry Linder said she was concerned about the
violations and asked if there are fines. Mayank said yes. He said Kevin
Fehring, the zoning inspector, waits for the board’s decision then if it is in
violation, Kevin does a letter for tickets for fines. Cherry asked if he has
done that on this case and Mayank said yes. Mayank said in the file there is a
letter for this address.
Proponent
Janet Weiler, LJB Signs, 3100 Research Blvd., Dayton, OH 45420,
said Shell puts her in a difficult spot.
She said Shell puts up banners and she asks them to take them down. They do
promotions across the country and the signs are put up. She said she wants to
reduce the signage but Shell Corporate comes up with these promotions. Cherry
Linder suggested a regional manager be contacted. William Heckman asked her who
erects the promotional signs? Ms.Weiler said it comes from the internal
operations. Jim Rinehart asked her if the manager is aware, why doesn’t the
manager step in and correct the problem. There was discussion on these
promotions and violations. Cherry Linder closed this portion of the meeting and
asked for any public comments. There were none. Cherry asked for board
comments.
Board Comments
Jim Klatte said he was concerned about the free standing sign and how they are
going to bring it into compliance. Mayank said the total sign face area is
their job to figure out what to do to comply with our suggestions, similar to
what was approved for BP. Cherry Linder said he attitude is that the sign issue
is very complicated. Mayank understands and is a very competent person and we
should go ahead with his suggestions on this. Jim Rinehart said he is concerned
about the violations.
Motion
There was a motion by James Rinehart to approve Case 2004-190, with the 8
Conditions suggested by staff. There was a 2nd by Cherry
Linder.
Roll Call William Heckman-Yes, James Rinehart-Yes, Cherry Linder-Yes, James
Klatte-YesThe motion was approved.
ADJOURNMENT Motion by James Klatte
to adjourn. There was a 2nd by James Rinehart
The motion was approved.
|
