BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JANUARY 1995

7:30 P.M.

 

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilmember Marge Boice, James Young, Linda

Stanton, Chairman Ralph Nadaud, Wilton Blake,

Councilmember Kathy McNear and Roosevelt Joe

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 20 DECEMBER 1994

Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye except Mrs. Boice and Mrs. Stanton who abstained,

and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. 12/21/94 Letter to William G. Syfert, Chairman of Planning re: Storage of

Recreational Vehicles in Front Yards

B. 12/21/94 Letter to William G. Syfert re Home Businesses & Parking

C. 1/3/95 Memo from Cecil W. Osborn to Bill McErlane re Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Front Yards

D. 11/29/94 Letter to Gordon Bunnell, Vineyard Community Church,

1391 E. Crescentville Road re Fenced Play Area

E. 12/3/94 Letter to Wayne F. Hach Cincinnati Commercial Realtors re Expiration of Variance T-1-1994

F. Zoning Bulletin, Volume 42, Number 12A - December 15, 1994

G. Minutes of Planning Commission - 13 December 1994

H. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice reported the Charter Revision Commission has recommended to Council a Charter change be put before the voters to change the position of the Clerk of Council/Finance Director to an appointed position by the Mayor (Finance Director) and Council (Clerk of Council). That legislation is on the agenda tomorrow evening. Much to my shock it carries an emergency clause. For a massive change in the Charter and not having the legislation before us, I am a little amazed. If any of you are interested in following the course of that proposed Charter change and whether it will end up on the ballot, it will come up before Council for the first time tomorrow evening.

I. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Nadaud reported we have a written report from Mr. Blake. We will not spell it out since everyone has a copy, but it will be included in the Minutes.

"The following action was taken at the January meeting of the Planning Commission:

1. Eric Novicki requested final approval of office use in R-1-B-T

District Zoning (11729 Springfield Pike) Approved 7-0

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

17 January 1995

Page Two

IV. I. REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - continued

2. IDI requested approval of off-premise real estate signs

(v-shaped fronting on I-2785 and 4’ x 5’ double sided sign

fronting on Crescentville Road for Northwest Business Center

Approved 7-0

3. O’Charley’s requested concept approval for proposed restaurants

(O’Charley’s and Tumbleweed) at Northwest Corner of Princeton

Pike and Merchant Street Tabled

4. Perkins Family Restaurants 370 Glensprings Drive requested

approval of exterior building changes Approved 7-0

5. Anchor Associates requested final plan approval for retail

development at southwest corner of Century Boulevard and

East Kemper Road Approved 7-0

6. Oil Express 165 West Kemper Road requested final plan

approval for new building Approved 7-0

Notes of Interest: Thriftway, 409 West Kemper is altering the store

to include Provident Bank. At the Tri-County Mall, Gadzooks is the

newest tenant, and Warner Bros. has an application pending."

V. OLD BUSINESS - none

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Wayne F. Hach, Cincinnati Commercial Realtors requests continuance

of Variance T-1-1994 to permit two real estate signs for Princeton Hill

Development. Said variance is requested from Section 153.133(A) "The advertisement or message contained on any sign shall pertain only to a principal business, industry or other pursuit conducted lawfully on which the premises the sign is located or maintained or pertain to the sale, lease or rental of the premises..."

Jeff Carey said I work with Mr. Hach and I spoke with Mrs. Webb and she requested that I get a letter from Cincinnati Commercial Realtors who I represent and who are the owners of the property giving us their permission to keep the signs in place.

Mr. Nadaud asked if there were any changes to be made to the existing sign, and Mr. Carey answered that there are not. Mr. Nadaud continued has the sign has brought forth any results, and Mr. Carey answered that it had. We are probably one day from signing a lease with a consortium of three hospitals in the Cincinnati area for 12,000 feet. We do have plenty of office space left, unfortunately, but we are working on it. Mrs. McNear commented it is great that we have a potential renter in there. Will we still need these signs once that space is filled; how much square footage is remaining if those hospitals take the 12,000 feet? Mr. Carey answered 73,000 feet.

Mrs. Boice commented we are anxious to see that property leased as well as you, so I would move that this variance be extended for one more year. Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Nadaud, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Joe. The variance was extended for one year.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 January 1995

Page Three

 

B. Vineyard Community Church, 1391 E. Crescentville Road requests variance to allow the play area fence to remain. Said variance is requested from Section 153.038(B) "..are permitted in side yards if they are set back from the side street line not less than the required set-back of the adjacent main building of the butt lot."

Gordon Bunnell stated our request for a variance comes from a discussion we have had with the city official regarding a fence around the play area on Crescentville Road. This fence was installed about three years ago, and is used to surround the play area that awe use in the staff and church youth activities. We are asking that the variance be granted to allow us to leave that fence in place.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the home next door belongs to the church. Mr. Bunnell said yes, it is a facility we use to distribute food and clothing to the hungry. We distribute an awful lot of items out of there.

Mr. Nadaud asked if this is used primarily as a day care facility, and Mr. Bunnell answered when you say day care I think of it as something you get paid for doing or something you do in the community. We use it in the worship activities and church activities; we use it for staff members so anyone on the staff with small children can use that area. We have not put it out as a day care center.

Mr. Blake said is thhis a request for a variance to allow the fence to remain? Mr. Nadaud commented actually I think it is a request to allow the fence to project beyond the setback requirements, is that correct? Mr. Bunnell responded my understanding is we can’t have the fence there at all; it has nothing to do with setbacks.

Mr. McErlane reported the requirement for fences pertaining to this property is the same as what would pertain to a residential property in that you can’t have a fence within a front yard setback on the side street. This is essentially their side street; ;your main entrance is on Chesterdale, so Crescentville is essentially their side street. So, any fences have to be set back the same distance as a fence would be required for a house on a side street, which is 30 feet. To shed some light on why this wasn’t addressed earlier, within the section of the code that pertains to churches and schools, they are permitted to be in a residential district in lieu of being in a public facilities district with certain parameters. Most of the yard requirements for churches or schools in a residential district refer you to the public facilities district for guidelines. However, the one pertaining to fences refers you to the residential area. When we interpreted it initially, we went to the public facilities requirements, which would allow a play area to be in the front yard. More recently we were asked to review this particular instance to make sure it complied. After further review, we found that it was the residential district that governed it, so we asked Mr. Bunnell to request a variance in order to leave the fence up.

Mr. Nadaud commented so the board should approve or disapprove a variance request to allow the fence to protrude beyond the setback requirements, is that correct? Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

Mr. Blake said so what you are saying at the beginning it was the city’s interpretation that the fence was within the guidelines, and after review, the city found it was not.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

17 January 1995

Page Four

VI B. VINEYARD COMMUNITY CHURCH 1391 E. CRESCENTVILLE - continued

Mrs. Boice stated I have driven by the property, and as you look at this and see Crescentville and light industry across the way. When you look the other direction you do see homes where that is technically their front yard. Because of Crescentville Road and what is directly across the street I personally do not see any problem with it. I think it has been done very nicely. Any time I have been in the area, it always has been nicely taken care of, trimmed around the fence and that type of thing. I would therefore move to grant the variance. Mr. Blake seconded the motion.

Mrs. McNear said the only question I have is how far is it from the street? Mr. McErlane said it is right up to the right of way line. I can’t tell you exactly where the right of way line is, but the hydrant in the picture is probably close to it. Mrs. McNear said it is probably about 10 feet. I’ve driven by it many times, and I personally don’t have a problem with it either. I would rather go on the side of safety with this rather than worrying about the fence.

On the motion to grant the variance, voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Joe and Mr. Nadaud.

The variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Blake said since this is our first meeting in January, I would like to wish all my board members a very happy new year. I hope this will be a productive year, and we will do great things for the City of Springdale. I wish everybody good health and wealth.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Blake moved for adjournment and Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Board adjourned at 7:55 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,1995 _______________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman

 

 

______________________,1995 ________________________

Roosevelt Joe, Secretary