BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JANUARY 1996

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chairman Barry Tiffany.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Chairman Barry Tiffany, William Mitchell, Barbara

Ewing, Councilwoman Kathy McNear and James

Squires

Members Absent: Councilwoman Marge Boice and Thomas Schecker

Mr. Tiffany stated Mrs. Boice and Mr. Schecker had informed us that they would not be here this evening.

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 19 DECEMBER 1995

Mrs. McNear moved for adoption and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five

affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. 12/20/95 Letter to Sam Burns re 11631 Walnut Street Property

B. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 12A - December 15, 1995

C. Zoning Bulletin Volume 44 No. 1 January 1996

D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12 December 1995

V. REPORTS

A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice - no report

B. Report on Planning Commission - Barry Tiffany

Mr. Tiffany reported Douglas Eades came in with a request for final plan approval for Charing Cross Estates, Phase I. He was nowhere near ready, and that was tabled. Under New Business, we had approval of Modification Entrance A of Tri-County Mall; that was tabled because they were stuck in the snow in Baltimore. Kemper Dodge came in for approval of an addition to the back of their building and some additional parking which was approved. Jake Sweeney came in for a facia change on his Chevrolet dealership, which was approved, and Ethan Allen came in for final approval next to Tumbleweed and that was approved also.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. CB Commercial requests variance to allow the construction of an additional 7í-8" ground sign in front of Princeton Hill, 30 Merchant Street. Variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "ground sign shall be limited to 1 sign for each group.." "The height of a ground sign shall not exceed 7 feet." (tabled 12/19/95)

Marie Ellis stated you wanted to see the dimensions of the existing signs that we are considering as directional signs. There are two of these signs; she showed photographs, adding that one is on Merchant Street at the main entrance, and one is on Tri-County Parkway. The question was what were the dimensions of the panels on that sign.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Two

VI A ADDITIONAL GROUND SIGN AT 30 MERCHANT STREET - continued

Mr. McErlane reported the maximum square footage for a directional sign is six square feet; these exceed that, so they would be considered signage. Mr. Tiffany said in consideration of all the signage we have now, what are we looking at in terms of numbers for this variance? Ms. Ellis reported if you are counting these as ground signs, there are two of these existing. This sign would make three and the sign that we are requesting would be four.

Mr. Squires asked where the sign goes in relation to 30 Merchant Street? Ms. Ellis answered it is down from the main entrance, currently about where the For Lease sign is.

Mr. Tiffany said for clarification, are they allowed two signs per the Code? Mr. McErlane reported the way it reads is per store, but since

we are in an office district, it would be per building. Mr. Tiffany continued so at this point, they are in excess of what is allowed by code. Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding at the time the original signs were placed, Linclay owned all the properties in that area and they were planning an overall development of several office buildings. They placed the signs based on that development, and some time after that filed bankruptcy. Two of these signs are located on properties that are no longer 30 Merchant Street properties; they belong to other owners.

Mrs. McNear asked how many square feet do they have currently, and what are they allowed per the Code? Mr. McErlane responded I can run back to my office and get an actual dimension. I donít think they have a problem square footage wise. It is the number of signs. The formula is the width of this building x 1.5 + 40 square feet; I do not believe they have a problem. Ms. Ellis asked if in the Code on directional signs does it state any more then the fact that it has to be a certain square footage, or that it has to be directional in nature? Mr. McErlane answered just by definition, it has to be directional in nature

Mr. Tiffany asked if the City has any recourse to correct the overage that is there now? I understand how we got the three signs, but I do not understand how it happened. Obviously it wasnít applied for. Mr. McErlane responded yes it was. Mr. Tiffany said when they changed it over to Princeton Hill, how did this happen? I donít think we have any recourse there; Mr. McErlane said I donít know; we may. We have not attempted to do anything. Mr. Tiffany commented we are talking 230 square feet presently, plus the proposed sign? Mrs. McNear said and currently there is no variance for the third sign.

Mr. Squires said we are talking just one sign, but there are four tenants on it, is that correct? Ms. Ellis responded the sign proposed is for four panels, which would allow variables on how we would lease the vacant space in the building. If we got a tenant who is a very big user, 20,000 square feet or more, we probably would give two of those panels to one tenant. If we would lease the space to smaller tenants, we would actually use all four panels with four different tenants. It is all one sign with four panels on it.

Mr. Squires continued I am reading from the letter that they acted on it at the last meeting and apparently the area of any ground sign shall not exceed 100 square feet and cannot be more than seven feet high and this is 7í-8". Would that be to the top of the copper? Ms. Ellis confirmed this.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Three

VI ADDITIONAL GROUND SIGN - 30 MERCHANT STREET - continued

Mr. Mitchell said looking at the side view of the proposed sign, it looks as though you will have signs on both sides of it. Ms. Ellis responded it will be perpendicular to the road so you can actually see both views on Merchant Street.

Mr. Tiffany asked Ms. Ellis if she had an approximate distance from the large existing sign at Princeton Pike and the proposed new sign in front of the building? Ms. Ellis answered no, but it is a good distance away, because the property right behind this existing sign is the current detention pond for the restaurants. That is where this came about. We had a lot of prospective tenants come to our building, and they were looking at the drive around the Merchant Street area and how their customers would be able to find their offices. They said you see the Princeton Hill sign, and when you make the turn, it becomes where is that building? They thought their customers would have a problem in knowing that this is Princeton Hill. If they would happen to miss the main drive, there is a secondary drive behind it that goes to Princeton Hill and the Sheakley building and they are getting to the wrong building. People are going to the Sheakley building and saying where is this tenant, and they are at Princeton Hill. That is a concern of some of the tenants who looked at our building and said for us to be able to locate here, we will need some type of signage by the building so people will be able to find us. That is where this originated. We had enough of those requests that we thought it best to look into this.

Mr. Squires commented I concur with that; I drove around that area with that in mind. There is a problem there; if I had an office there, I would be concerned about people being able to find it. Ms. Ellis added this property has a lot of mature trees and landscaping which looks nice, but covers the Merchant side of that building. So after you make the turn onto Merchant Street, the view of the building isnít as good as it is from Princeton Pike. Mr. Squires asked how many feet the proposed sign was from the 30 Merchant Street sign. Ms. Ellis answered we donít have the actual dimensions between those two signs. If I had to take an approximate measurement, it is somewhat of a far distance. It will go where the For Lease sign is now, right in the middle of the side of the building where you can see it when you get to the drive.

Mrs. McNear asked if there were a way to combine the 30 Merchant Street sign with the new proposed sign? I sympathize with your plight in that building, and it is a very beautiful building, probably one of the nicest that we have in Springdale, but we also have the other Linclay buildings across the street. I have the feeling if we allow this, we will end up with this type of sign in every building we have over in that development. I wouldnít like to see that, so if there is a way you can combine that sign with the Princeton Hill and your tenant names I would prefer to see that than to go with the fourth sign. Is there a way that you could incorporate that into your plan?

Ms. Ellis responded I guess there is a possibility. The only difference I can see between this property and the Executive Centre across the street is Executive Centre has a sign that is much larger in size by their entrance on Merchant Street. They have the one on the corner, just like we have our Princeton Hill sign, but when you make the turn, they have a big one right by their entrance. So it is a little different if you are comparing the two properties.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Four

VI A ADDITIONAL GROUND SIGN - 30 MERCHANT STREET - continued

Ms. McNear responded I understand that; I am just concerned about

setting a precedent for adding additional signage. Ms. Ellis continued this would be a possibility if this sign were somehow smaller so they would be considered directional instead of exceeding the size allowed and having that ground sign installed by the side of the building. Ms. McNear commented if you have it under six feet where it would be directional, it would be a non-issue in that aspect. Ms. Ellis said the only difference would be that we would have to tear that sign down to create a new sign and build that sign to make it consistent with the property.

Mr. Tiffany stated I share Mrs. McNearís concern with setting a precedent. You are a sign ahead of the competition right now, and if we give you another 110 or 120 feet above and beyond seems a lot to me. I understand you have dollars invested in the existing signs. Thatís a business decision and a business expense. I would personally like to see you keep your 30 Merchant Street signs and redo your Princeton Hill sign out on Princeton Pike and put your tenant names out there for some better exposure on Princeton Pike. I donít know of a tenant who would object to that. Ms. Ellis responded there may be; they would see that tenant name at the corner, but after they make that turn, they would lose it again. That was some of the concern expressed to begin with. Mr. Tiffany commented then I wouldnít object to a directional sign at the corner instead of the big Princeton Hill sign, and have your big Princeton Hill sign in front of the business. The Code is there and written the way it is to keep the signage not to an excess. As you go from community to community, you donít see a major sign at the entrance to a development and another major sign in front of the building. It is one or the other. Ms. Ellis responded I guess I agree with that; the only thing was this is what Linclayís vision was of that whole area at the time it was built, and now we are all dealing with that after the fact.

Mr. Tiffany stated the criteria for a variance is hardship, and personally I do not see hardship. I see a business decision, and trying to do the best you can for your clients, which is great, but you have exposure, better than anybody else back there. Ms. Ellis responded this property is currently in receivership because of GE pulling out and they occupied 85% of the building. We have had some leasing efforts this year and have actually leased to two tenants, but square footage wise combined they were about 18,000 square feet compared to what GE occupied, so most of the building is vacant.

Mr. Squires asked if it were possible, as Mrs. McNear suggested, to have those panels on the main sign on Princeton Pike, redesign that sign? Ms. Ellis answered it was a possibility. The only thing is when they make that corner, they will lose it again, and that is where we originated to begin with.

Ms. McNear commented part of this is common sense. If you are a tenant in that building and someone asks for directions, you tell them to turn right on Merchant Street and weíre the first big building on the right; how much simpler can it get than that? I think you can see from our discussion that youíre not going to get four signs. Weíve given you a couple of alternatives, and it is up to you to say what you would like to go with. I think the Board is flexible, and Iím speaking for myself, but I get the feeling that four is not going to happen.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Five

VII ADDITIONAL GROUND SIGN - 30 MERCHANT STREET - continued

Mr. Tiffany said I donít know if you want this voted on tonight. It sounds like you may want to rethink it a little bit; maybe try and move things around a little bit; you may still be in need of a variance at that point. So we can table it or take a vote on it; it is entirely up to you. Ms. Ellis responded if it were tabled, I probably would not have the answer by the next meeting, because if that is the way we were to go, there would need to be some new thought on how we would actually redo that sign because the sign we are proposing was going to be interior illuminated, where this sign is not. Mr. Tiffany said we can table it until you get in touch with us. Personally I think that might be your best route at this point. You are also missing a couple of board members tonight and itís always best to have seven here to get everybodyís opinion.

Mr. Mitchell commented I donít think we can use the fact that we donít have all the members here as a valid point; thatís something she canít control. Mr. Tiffany responded itís valid in that they may have differing opinions. Mr. Mitchell continued the fact that they are not here is not her concern.

Mrs. McNear moved to table and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and the item was tabled with five affirmative votes.

VII NEW BUSINESS

A. Shawn McCoy, 544 Dimmick Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a 12í x 16í utility building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 "...accessory building..shall not exceed 120 s.f."

Mr. McCoy stated I purchased the property couple of years ago and it had a one and one-half car garage on the property. During the severe weather, a tree fell over an damaged it. When the contractor applied for a permit to repair it, apparently the man who built it did it without a permit and I would like to repair and restore it.

Mr. Squires commented I was out at your place this afternoon, and I didnít realize it was a garage; I thought it was a utility building. Mr. McCoy it was detached, and a car can be stored in it. It is a concrete slab with a door large enough for a car; the doors swing open. Mr. Squires asked if he intended to use it as a garage, and Mr. McCoy answered no, we have it for storage of bicycles. Mr. Squires continued it is not observable from the road; ;youíve to walk to the rear of your driveway to see it. How many feet downhill from your house is it? Mr. McCoy answered it is 200 feet off the road. Mr. Squires asked how many feet beyond that the property line goes, and Mr. McCoy indicated that it was 29 feet. Mr. Squires asked if the cost of redoing it would be more than 60% of the value of the building, which was built in 1971? Mr. McCoy answered they are not sure of the year it was built.

Mr. McErlane reported we could not find any records of when the building was built; we have variance records back to 1961, and there were no records for this building. In order for it to be considered a legal non-conforming building, it would have had to have been built prior to 1971. The house itself was probably built somewhere around then and we can only assume that it was built without a permit since that time.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Six

VII A SHAWN MCCOY, 544 DIMMICK AVENUE - UTILITY BUILDING-continued

Mr. McErlane continued the 60% rule really only applies for legal non-conforming buildings. If you have a building that does not comply with the current code that was legal at the time it was built, and it is damaged beyond 60% of its value, it has to be rebuilt in accordance with the current code. In this case, it is not a legal non-conforming building, but it doesnít comply with the current code. What Mr. McCoy is asking is if he can repair it and leave it there with a legitimate variance.

Mr. Squires commented you have approximately 199 or 200 square feet there now. In order to get back to the existing code, the east and west walls would have to be knocked down three feet on each side; youíd have to make it 10 x 12, which would be a considerable expense I would think.

Mr. Tiffany asked the setback from the property lines, and Mr. McErlane stated Mr. McCoy indicated it was approximately 29 feet from the property line. Because it is a large lot and backs up to the creek, it probably has little impact on adjacent properties. The only concern the Building Department would have is if it is to be used as a garage is that it have a paved surface back to that point. The other concern was that it looked as though it might have been a living quarters at one time, but as long as it is used for storage or a workshop or something of that nature, we wouldnít have a problem with it.

Mr.Tiffany asked what constitutes a garage? Mr. McErlane said if it is used for parking vehicles. Mr. Mitchell asked if it had a garage door, and Mr. Tiffany answered that it did. Mr. McErlane added it is not a roll up garage door. Mr. Squires asked again if Mr. McCoy intended to use it as a garage, and Mr. McCoy again indicated that it was just to store bicycles and lawn mowers. Mr. Tiffany said what stops the next owner from using it as a garage? Mr. McErlane stated we would not allow vehicles to drive to and from it; if it is obvious that there are vehicles driving over an unimproved surface to it.

Mrs. McNear commented perhaps we could have them put different doors on it so a car could not drive through there. Mr. Tiffany stated at this point I donít know that we could say to anyone that you canít put a certain kind of door on there, unless it doesnít meet the Code. If it is used for driving a car back there over an unimproved surface, then we would address that at that time. That may be the best we can do.

Mr. Squires commented I stood at the back parking lot and there was so much snow I didnít attempt to walk down there; is there a blacktop down there? Mr. McCoy answered the blacktop ends five yards beyond the large ridge of snow. Other than that, it is grass. There is not a road per se; it looks like he was trying to make one. There are rough spots that I prefer to dig up; they are hard on the children. The one time I went down there to unload some things, and had to have the car towed out.

Mr. Squires said in light of what some members have said about the future if you would sell the property, what is to prevent it to be used as a garage, and Mrs. McNear asked if the door could be changed; would you be willing to do that? Mr. McCoy responded there is no paving that comes up to the door; you have to step into it so I have never put a car in it for that reason. Mr. Squires asked if there were plumbing there and Mr. McCoy answered that there is water and electric.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Seven

VII A. SHAWN MCCOY 544 DIMMICK AVENUE - UTILITY BUILDING - continued

Mr. Squires continued so conceivably a future owner could actually use that as an extra room. Mr. McCoy answered it is conceivable but it would not be the most comfortable space. Apparently somebody did have heating ducts which were destroyed when the tree hit it. Mr. Squires asked the type of heating that was there, and Mr. McCoy stated I can only guess that it was a wood stove or something of that nature. Mr. Squires continued suppose somebody wanted to live down there and started a fire; there is no way for our people to get down there. We really are looking at a problem there. I would prefer to see those doors redesigned if that is possible. I want it closed off; we canít afford to have anybody live down there. Iím sure you wonít do it, but if a person bought the property from you, they could work on it down there and we would not know it. You cannot see it from the road.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there is anything in the Code that restricts somebody from having electric and water to a utility building, and Mr. McErlane reported that there was not, as long as it is inspected and meets code, an electrical inspection would be part of the rebuilding process. Mr. Tiffany continued also there would be no objection in the Code to putting a heating system in a storage building, and Mr. McErlane responded that typically if it were a workshop it might have some semblance of heating. Mr. Tiffany said I donít know that we have any right at this point to say to him that he canít do certain things other than what the variance is in reference to, the size of the building. I understand everyoneís concern that someone may do that; it is up to the city to catch it.

Mrs. Ewing commented my concern is granting any variance to that the property could open up Pandoraís Box. Someone else may be going in and using it as they see fit, so I too have some concerns about this.

Mrs. McNear stated I think we are starting to go off the deep end here about what somebody in the future could do. Anybody could do any of these things at any time. Thatís why we have a Building Department; thatís why we have inspectors, to look out for these type of things. If it is going to be used as storage, we have a lot of properties, especially along Kemper and Cameron Roads where we have permitted storage sheds of this size. I personally donít have a problem; you canít see it. The property is maintained very well. I donít have a problem with it as long as we make sure we are not going to turn this into a garage. If it means changing the door, Mr. McCoy said he would be willing to do that. I think we need to move on and not worry about what could happen next year or 10 years from now.

Mr. Squires commented I would concur; having seen it, I have no problem with it.

Mr. McErlane stated my only reason for voicing the concerns about a living area and garage are to have it on record that is not a future use. That still would be regulated through the Zoning Code anyway, and would apply to any property in terms of additional plumbing or illegal use of the property without a paved surface for driving on.

Addressing Mr. McCoy, Mr. Tiffany said you understand that it is not to be used as a garage or living quarters unless there is an improved surface to be used as a garage. Mr. McCoy indicated that he was.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Eight

VII A SHAWN MCCOY - 544 DIMMICK AVENUE - UTILITY BUILDING-continued

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance to repair the 12 x 16 foot utility building to be used strictly for storage and not as a garage without an approved area. Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. Voting aye were Ms. McNear, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Squares and Mrs. Ewing. The variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

Mr. McErlane commented the building is a 22í x 16í building, not

12í x 16í. The agenda is incorrect. Mrs. McNear moved to reconsider and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion.

Mr. Tiffany commented I have seen the building and been past the house; I know Mrs. McNear and Mr. Squires and Mr. Mitchell have seen it. I still do not have a problem with it back there. It sets far enough back; it is not an issue to me. I donít know if the Board concurs with this or not, but if it is, Iíll ask for a motion.

Mrs. McNear moved to amend her original motion to grant the variance to repair a 22í x 16í utility building and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

B. Rhodes Furniture, 12000 Princeton Pike requests variance to install a temporary banner for a period of not more than 12 months. Said variance is requested from Section 153.160(C)(3)(d) "..shall not exceed 2 consecutive weeks..four occasions during any calendar year a minimum of a 1 month period between the end of one occasion and the beginning of the next."

Hope Palmer of Collins Signs stated originally when I sent the request in, we were asking for a banner on top of the Perin sign. The Perins have approved a banner underneath the Perin sign. I came for a variance on August 15th on wall signs as well as the pylon sign. We were not going to discuss the pylon sign, but Mr. Perin suggested that the total number of square feet on the pylon be divided and Rhodes get one-third. Therefore the variance allowed us 53 square feet of signage. At this time, there has been no approval from the Perins to put any signage on the pylon. Weíre in a Catch-22. They gave us permission to do it but they have to approve any changes that are made on the pylon and to date, we have not been able to acquire any type of approval. I know that currently Staples is also requesting signage on this pylon sign. When they originally went in, I think it was five years ago, they were promised a sign on the pylon, and they still do not have it.

Ms. Palmer continued what we are requesting is a 30 square foot banner for a period of 12 months to give Perin and Rhodes a chance to get together for us to make a proposal they will accept to build the sign and get it installed. We have submitted many different designs to the Perins, and unfortunately, they have not agreed to any of them.

Mr. Tiffany asked if Perin Interiors is still in existence there, and Mr. McErlane reported that they are not. I think what Mr. Perin had planned to do is give it a center name as Perin Place or something of that nature. Mr. Tiffany asked if the sign for Perin Interiors was still there, and Mr. McErlane stated that there is a large sign that says Perins, and I think the reader board also says that. Mr. Tiffany asked what the Code says about removing signs from closed businesses. Mr. McErlane reported it has to be removed in a 30-day period.

Board of Zoning Appeals

16 January 1996

Page Nine

VII B RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE TEMPORARY BANNER-cont

Mr. Tiffany commented we are beyond that, and I would ask that we get with Mr. Perin on that to get it down. Maybe that will push him to get something going with these people.

Mrs. McNear said up front I want to tell you that 12 months for a banner, no way. I will not vote for that. We have very strict rules about banners, and that will not happen. Secondly, Rhodes recently was in here, and we did give an additional variance for the signage, because they have signage on both of the new parapets and there was another variance for a sign on the side of the building. I guess we would have to give you additional pylon signs once it was approved by the Perins.

Ms. Palmer reported actually we are requesting a temporary banner until we get our 53 square feet which the Board has allowed us, and which Mr. Perin suggested that we have, until we have time to get it built and up. It may only take six months, but we are requesting a 12 month period to get this out of litigation and up.

Mrs. McNear stated I still think there is quite a bit of signage up there. You wouldnít even get a temporary sign for six months; we only allow a month for the entire year, and if we do that for you, we have to do that for everyone else.

Ms. Palmer responded I personally donít think you would be setting a precedent, because how many other businesses are in litigation? Mrs. McNear responded that doesnít matter; if one business sees that you have it, they will want it too.

Ms. Palmer asked if there is any way the variance board can pursue this with the Perins and let them know that this needs to be taken care of? When I drove by earlier today, I was in the wrong lane and realized it and looked to my right and saw the Now Open banner. I did not see any type of signage on the pylon. We want what we were granted. Mrs. McNear asked how long the Now Open banner had been up, and Ms. Palmer responded 10 days. Mr. Tiffany confirmed that there was a permit on that.

Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. McErlane if since the Perin business has not been there for a month, does that sign need to be removed? Mr. McErlane stated any sign for a business that is no longer in business has 30 days to remove it. Mr. Mitchell continued so we can see that the Perin sign on the pylon could be moved, and the only thing that would be left would be the Rhodes temporary banner, is that correct? Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

To Ms. Palmer, Mr. Tiffany said you asked before if the Board could go to the Perins and try and push this issue. Thatís one of the reasons that I mentioned that the city should contact him and inform him that his signs have to come down. If heís going to call this Perinís Place, he needs to put up signs and call it that. The signage that is there relates to a business that was there before, not to what is there now. He needs to move on that, and that would be the extent of what we could do at this point.

Ms. Palmer asked if it would be possible for us to have a temporary banner for four months? I want to be able to give Rhodes proper signage on that pylon.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Ten

VII B RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE TEMPORARY BANNER-cont.

Mr. Tiffany stated I understand, but I canít tell you how many people in the past week to 10 days have come to me and asked who approved all the signage on the Rhodes building. You have been approved for what is on the building, which is extensive. You have fantastic exposure from the highway; it is incredible. So you have all the signage on I-275 on the side of the building, on the front of the building, and you are cleared for 53 square feet on the pylon. Ms. Palmer responded but we canít get it. Mr. Tiffany said with us, youíve got it. Your issue is with Joe Perin at this point to get him to move on it. For us to grant you a year variance, a six month variance, a four month variance, I donít think does you any good. I understand it will give you good exposure, but I donít know that it does you any good in your process with Joe Perin.

Ms. Palmer responded we were allowed the 53 square feet on the pylon, and this has gone to the lawyers and they are discussing it. Rhodes really feels that they need that sign on the banner. Again, as I was driving by today, I missed the store.

Mr. Squires said the sign you are referring to is the one that is temporary, two stakes with Rhodes Furniture, red on white? Ms. Palmer confirmed that it was, and Mr. Tiffany asked if that were a construction sign, and when it was due to come out. Mr. McErlane answered that it was, and the Code says at the completion of the project. Mr. Tiffany asked if it were reasonable to ask that the sign be taken out at this time. Mr. McErlane answered it is reasonable at this. point. There are just minor issues to clear up on the final occupancy. Mr. Squires said if that sign is taken out, there is no direction to Rhodes a I observed it. Mr. Tiffany commented other than the entrance, I donít know how you can miss the building. Mr. Squires said I agree with you there.

Mr. Mitchell stated on the issue of the temporary banner, are there any other comments? Mrs. McNear commented they have had their grand opening; they have been open almost three weeks. They have plenty of exposure. What we have done in the past for someone who needed additional help with a banner, is put their two two-week periods together and allow a one month period to hang their banner. That would even be lenient because they have already had their grand opening sign and there is that now open banner on the pole sign and on the side of the building there is a 50 square foot sign that says Rhodes on top of the Perins. That may have been taken down; it has been a week or two since I have been there. A month is as long as I would be willing to go. Ms. Palmer stated as far as I know it is just a set of channel letters right now. If we could get our two weeks back to back for a 30 day variance, we will work fast with Perinís lawyers. Mr. Tiffany stated you understand that for the balance of the year they are not permitted any banners. You are proposing one on each side? Ms. Palmer reported it is probably one banner with graphics on either side.

Mr. Squires asked if the city solicitor would act on this? Once a business is sold or leased, it seems like the Perin sign should be down. Mr. McErlane stated we need to send a notice to the owner about removing it, and we give them time to comply, and then it is turned over to Mayorís Court if it doesnít comply.

Ms. Palmer said when we make these proposals to Mr. and Mrs. Perin, can we include a sign for the Perins to say Perinís Place? They are under the impression that they get to keep one-third of the total square footage.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Eleven

VII B RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE TEMPORARY BANNER-cont.

Mr. Tiffany responded that would be something you would have to propose and bring into the Building Department and they can tell you. Ms. Palmer stated it would be against Code if we still had a sign up there that said Perinís Place, Rhodes Furniture and Staples.

Mr. McErlane reported we discussed that a little bit at the last BZA meeting, and that was the reason why we took the existing square footage and divided it by three, one for Rhodes, one for Staples and one for a center identification sign. I think that was Mr. Perinís idea all along, although I have had discussions with Mr. Perin about the future of the sign that is up there, and he seemed to be under the misconception that we were allowing 53 additional square feet on the existing pole. I faxed him the Minutes of the August meeting to clarify that point.

Mr. Squires moved to accept the variance for the banner as described. Mr. Mitchell asked if he means 12 months or the one-month period, two two-week periods back to back? Mr. Squires amended his motion to grant the variance for two consecutive two week periods. Mrs. McNear asked to add that the Now Open banner will be removed, and that there will be no additional banners displayed for the remainder of the 12-month period. Mr. Squires added and the construction sign is to be removed as well. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

C. Tumbleweed Restaurant, 11305 Princeton Pike requests variance to install two satellite antennae. Said variance is requested from Section 153.097(A) "one "satellite dish-type antenna"...may be permitted..."

There was no one from Tumbleweed present and Mrs. McNear moved to table, and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was tabled to the February meeting.

VIII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Tiffany stated everybody wasnít here last month and everyone isnít here this month, and I would like to have everybody here before we talk about some things for the new members of the board. It was good to hear that some of the people had visited the sites of these things tonight. Please if you get a chance, make an effort to visit the sites so you have a good mental picture of what you are dealing with; it helps you a lot. As the liaison to Planning, if there are any issues you might have that are a concern regarding zoning, things that you think should be changed, please let me know. Iíll be happy to take it to Planning.

Mr. Tiffany continued with the Princeton Hill property, I donít know if I was clear as to why I was telling the lady that we were minus a couple of members. If it looks like itís not going well and we donít have members present, I will always afford an applicant the opportunity to pass at this time and take a table so all members are present. Mrs. Boice or Mr. Schecker might have had something to say tonight that could have persuaded us differently. Mr. Mitchell commented I guess you are directing that to me, and the message I got out of that was since we were missing two board members, we were not going to make a decision anything tonight. That was my whole point, to clarify it. Mr. Tiffany responded that wasnít my intent and I wanted to make sure that everyone understood why I do that. Mr. Mitchell answered I understood what you said.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 January 1996

Page Twelve

VIII DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Tiffany continued if there are only four members at a meeting, be prepared not to hear anything, because Iíll tell the applicant that unless he gets three out of the four votes, it wonít pass, so Iíll always afford them the opportunity to be reviewed at a later date. It also wasnít looking good for her.

Mrs. McNear stated on something to look at, we have 10 x 12 foot utility buildings approved under Code. Some of the yards in Springdale are very small, and that is all they really could accommodate, but we do have some large properties, and we see a lot of 12 x 14 and 12 x 16 foot buildings for those yards. Perhaps we could look into something like if your yard is over a certain square footage, you would be allowed a larger building. A lot of times we have people in from Kemper and Cameron and West Sharon Road where a 12 x 16 foot building would not be a problem at all; you would not even see them because of the depth and width of those yards. Mr. Tiffany asked how large of a building are you looking for? Mrs. McNear responded I think a 12 x 14 or 12 x 16 would be appropriate. I donít want to put the dimensions on that, but I think the 12 x 10 is not sufficient for somebody who has two or three acres, they will have a lot more lawn equipment than I would have with my small yard.

Mr. Tiffany commented one of the issues would be say they have a half an acre but it runs left to right as opposed to front to back. Now you donít have a lot of space to hide a 12 x 16 foot building. I definitely will bring it up to the Planning Commission; it is something we should look at. Mrs. McNear responded it is not hard and fast, but I think if you say 12 x 10 and you have a lot like on Kemper Road where you canít see around the trees and the trees from the Recreation Center block it in the other direction, why make an applicant go through that when there is plenty of space for that.

Mr. Squires commented in light of that, 12 x 10 or even 12 x 16 feet on Mr. McCoyís property would be lost. You wouldnít see it. Mr. Tiffany stated it is very valid and we would have to determine the acreage and lot size and depth and things like that.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. McNear moved for adjournment and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:46 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,1996 _______________________

Barry Tiffany, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,1996 ________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary