16 FEBRUARY 1999

7:00 P.M.







The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman James Squires.


MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilwoman Kathy McNear, David Whitaker,

Chairman Squires, Barbara Ewing, Councilman

Bob Wilson

MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Schecker

David Okum (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)

OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor



Mr. Wilson moved for adoption and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.


A, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 12, 1999

    1. Zoning Bulletin – January 25, 1999

Mr. Squires said please take note of the first two articles concerning noise control and overgrown grass and junk on property. Pay attention to the court decision; it is very interesting reading.

    1. Report on Council Activities – none
    2. Report on Planning Commission – none
    1. A variance once granted will be referred back to the Board of Zoning Appeals if after the expiration of six months no construction is done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the variance.
    2. If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after the denial.

    3. Chairman’s Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board are to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this board is directed to sign in, take his place at the podium, and state his name, address and the nature of the variance. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said variance is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 February 1999

Page Two

    1. Calvary Pentecostal Church, 11970 Kenn Road requests variance to allow the construction of a steeple extending more than 20 feet above the roof. Said variance is requested from Section 153.068 "..may extend a maximum of 20 feet above the main building.
    2. Reverend Norman Paslay said our request is in regard to the steeple on top of our new sanctuary. It has been along journey, but we hope to transfer in May there. In speaking with those in the industry, the standard rule for steeples has been put to us as 1 to 1 – whatever the crown of the building is, the height of the steeple would equal that., We are not asking for that; we do not agree with that. The height of the building is 36 feet at its highest point. WE are asking for an extra 10 feet for our steeple. This also would include a simple cross emblem which would be the top three feet. Aesthetically we feel it would fit very well. We have a very traditional design. Also, we are trying to operate in harmony with the rendering we submitted as part of our initial site plan approval, and the ratio of steeple to church. I feel confident that this additional height will not overwhelm our property. We have 22 acres there and we have built on seven of them. Since it is the only structure there, it will be a nice fit because it is open. The green line along our northern edge would preclude any of the residents having their view blocked toward I-275. It will not tower obtrusively into their line of view.

      Mr. Nathan Profitt is here to answer any structural questions you have. He has submitted a basic drawing. The reason we don’t have a specific drawing is we have not placed our order pending your decision.

      Mr. Profitt said I drew it at 19’-9" above the crown of the sanctuary roof. My understanding is that the variance was from the ground to the top of the steeple, and I read here that we may extend the steeple 20 feet above, so I’m a little confused as to what the variance is. The sketch you have before you is exactly what we intend to do.

      Mr. Paslay added we have a color rendering that would proportionately represent the steeple as we hope to have it. Actually the steeple itself wold be six feet and three to four feet would be the single cross, for a total of 10 feet. Mr. Profitt added this rendering is more detailed than what we had intended to do.

      Mr. Okum said we have a 50 foot limit on building height including steeples. This would put you at 6’-6" above what is allowable. In your case it is an advantage, because your building sets high. Gradewise, you are higher than the expressway, so you wold be above 50 feet if we were considering sight line from the expressway. Considering the residential area, you probably are at almost the same grade line as the residences on the adjoining street.

      Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mrs. McNear asked if he had a feel for how high this would be compared to the Temple Baptist Church across the street? Their church is very tall. Mr. Lohbeck indicated he did not have that information, and Reverend Paslay added I think it would be very different because their land is very different; they set down in.

      Mr. Wilson wondered if the steeple was on the original presentation with the dimensions. Mr. Profitt answered I cannot speak to the actual dimensions of the original rendering. The permitted drawings reflected pretty much what I have drawn in the sketch. The architect felt that aesthetically what he had drawn on the permitted drawings was what we should build.

      Reverend Paslay added as I recall, the discussion did not include specific steeple dimensions. Mr. Profitt added the drawings never spelled out the total height of the point of the steeple. All we had were dimensions to the peak of the roof.

      Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

      16 February 1999

      Page Three


      Mr. Okum asked if we could get a copy of the approved plans from the office so we can view those. Mr. Lohbeck left the meeting to get those.

      Mr. Squires wondered if the architect had indicated that it would be aesthetically unpleasing if the steeple were shorter? Reverend Paslay answered more than saying it would be negative in the code, he was saying it would be positive within a variance. Mr. Profitt added when I called one of the suppliers and spoke with them about the 1 to 1 ratio, and then spoke to our architect, he said that would be way out or proportion for the building we designed, so we really backed off that.

      Mr. Wilson asked the construction materials of the steeple, and Mr. Profitt answered we will build the base ourselves out of a lumber material and the steeple itself is fiberglass.

      Looking at the original drawings, Mr. Okum stated it is 57 feet from grade to the top of the steeple, excluding the cross. The steeple itself is shown at 20 feet. Even though they approved the plans, if it is in violation of the code, it still would need a variance.

      Reverend Paslay commented I think the reason it was not addressed earlier was because we had not settled on a steeple. There was no intent to circumvent the procedures. We knew we would need a variance.

      Mr. Wilson wondered if the cross itself would be illuminated. Mr. Profitt answered it will not be illuminated, and it is a metal material. The cross becomes a lightning rod which is grounded, and it will be painted the color of the spire. A good example is the one on our existing building across the street.

      Mr. Okum commented because of the elevation of the church, this will stand out, but I also feel if you put a shorter steeple on this church, it will look pretty silly. What has been presented on the drawings gives them a quality steeple. I would rather there been one than something that looks bad. I do not have any major problem with the steeple.

      Mr. Squires added I would like it as part of the public record that there was absolutely no intent on the part of the applicant to deceive the board. The chair and I think the panel concurs with that.

      Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak on this variance. No one wished to.

      Mr. Wilson said for clarification, are we granting two variances, one for the plans that already exist and the additional over and above that? Are we doing two, or all in one? Mr. Squires answered I believe we are doing one. Mr. Okum added I think it is one variance for the steeple. The cross is part of it, and that should be reflected in the motion.

      Mr. Okum moved to grant a variance for the erection of a steeple on top of the Calvary Pentecostal Church at 11970 Kenn Road not to exceed 59’-6" to the very top of the cross. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Whitaker, Mrs. McNear Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    3. Leroy Fuller, 269 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the construction of a 576 square foot two car garage in addition to the existing 1 car garage. Said variance is requested from Section 153.039 ""here may be..1 detached garage on the same zoning lot…"

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 February 1999

Page Four


Mr. Fuller said I would like to make this garage a little longer than the 24’ x 24’ and go to 24’ x 36’ garage which would be regal white (he showed the color).

Mr. Okum wondered if he intended to have two detached garages on the site. Mr. Fuller said yes, the one I have presently is small and is full of a power mower, riding mower and hand tools; no cars go in there at all. There is a little carport on the side. Mr. Okum continued the building you want to build there is a pole barn. Do you have samples of the metal panels? Mr. Fuller answered no, it is with PDQ, and when I asked them what I should bring tonight, they gave us the drawing saying it should be sufficient. I am planning on the 26 gauge vertical steel panel, which is regal white (showed color pallet). It is a stamped panel.

Mr. Okum wondered if he had considered removing the other garage. Mr. Fuller answered no, it is not rotted away. The wood is good; I had thought about attaching to it, and the builder said they wouldn’t do that, so I was going to put the blacktop between the two of them and put the new one behind it.

Mr. Okum said I know you have a very large lot, but you are going to have three buildings, your home, your garage and your garage, which is much more than most properties in Springdale have. We don’t have many that have two garages. We debate over the size of a 10 x 12 shed on a site, and we are talking 864 square feet which is as big or bigger than some homes in Springdale. I have a lot of reservations if you continue to have two garages. I think two garages on one site is exorbitant.

Mr. Fuller said some of the people have attached garages, and even larger ones detached. My neighbor has a drive through attached garage to the house and another large one in the back. I was talking to him about the one he has.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Lohbeck the maximum square footage on a detached garage. Mr. Lohbeck answered in R-1-B the minimum is 400 s.f. and the maximum is 600 s.f. In R-1-C, there is a 240 s.f. minimum and a 600 s.f. maximum.

Mr. Fuller commented the garages on both sides of me are pretty large. One is 30’ x 60’ which is beside the house a little bit back further. My near neighbor has 30’ x 50’ and his is all the way to the back. They were there before the zoning regulations changed. When the builder said they wouldn’t add on to the existing garage, I put the garage back 36 feet to house the cars I have. I have International Scouts and a tractor as collector items which is what I want to keep in the new garage with my garden tools.

Mr. Wilson said I went to your property this morning and walked around. The neighbor you referred to with a three car plus garage is he a couple of houses from you? Mr. Fuller answered the one next to me has his garage all the way to the back. It is yellow and is large and apparently there is an easement that belongs to the city. He is next to that, and the building has been back there for a long time. Mr. Wilson commented you have a one car garage and a carport. How many cars do you have? Mr. Fuller answered that he has four vehicles.

Mrs. McNear wondered if the garage he wanted is as two or three car garage. Mr. Fuller answered I wanted to put a two car garage, and my neighbor told me I wouldn’t be able to get my stuff in it. My little garage is full right now and I have other things stored elsewhere, collectors items.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 February 1999

Page Five


Mr. Fuller commented I assumed that I could come up and get a permit to build the garage I wanted. My real need is for a four car garage, 24’ x 24’. When I measured what I have, it’s not going to fit in there. If I keep the existing garage, I probably could make do with the carport and garage space if I get the tools out.

Mrs. McNear asked if it would have four garage doors. Mr. Fuller responded the new garage would have one door, one side door and two windows.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak for or against this variance, and no one came forward.

Addressing Mr. Fuller, Mr. Squires commented we struggle with sheds that exceed 120 square feet, and you are asking for an 864 square foot garage when the maximum is 600 square feet. We are in a dilemma.

Mr. Okum asked the setback, and Mr. Fuller answered it is the same as the building that is there now. Mr. Lohbeck stated it is 15 feet.

Mr. Squires asked the applicant how long he had lived at this address, and Mr. Fuller answered that he bought it in late May and moved in late August. Mr. Squires wondered if he were planning on staying for a while, and Mr. Fuller said that he was, adding that it is a very nice house.

Mr. Okum wondered the size of his home, and Mr. Fuller answered it is 41 feet across by 24.5’. Mr. Okum wondered if it were 24 feet, and if it were, being a two story the home is 1800 s. f. with a basement. Mr. Fuller added I have collected automobiles over the years and do not want to give them up.

Mr. Wilson commented you moved in August of 1998; did you intend to build an additional garage at that time? Mr. Fuller answered yes, I was going to build a garage. Mr. Wilson wondered if that was the reason he bought the home on the large lot, and Mr. Fuller indicated that it was, adding that he had been looking at Colerain Township, but Springdale was nicer with a better home.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Wilson said you understand our dilemma. You are talking over 240 square feet more than what is allowed in the code. You are correct in your statement that other residents in the area have in the past built larger garages. Mr. Fuller commented when I asked about those, they told me that they have had them for a long time and were grandfathered.

Mr. Wilson asked him if he actually needed 840 square feet. Mr. Fuller responded yes; if not, I would have to store my vehicles elsewhere or get rid of them, but I choose not to do that. I think it would be an enhancement to the property; it would be quite similar to the buildings in the back yards on that part of the street all the way down. Some of the houses do not have garages and they are very small houses. But there are also some very nice garages and very nice homes of equal size along that same side of the street. I feel I would be fitting in, not setting a precedent beyond theirs.

Dan Hackman said I am a friend of Mr. Fuller’s and it was his intent to build this structure from the very beginning. That is why he selected the size of lot that he did. The structure that he is looking to build is not disproportionate with the size of that lot. How you position it on the lot may be in question, but there are other homes in the area that have similar structures that are quite appealing and seem to fit nicely in that neighborhood on that lot size.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 February 1999

Page Six


Mr. Okum said I still have a problem with two garages on one site. If you intend to keep the two, I probably will not vote in favor of this. I do not see any problem with proportional sizing of your garage on the site. I don’t see a problem with a three car garage on this site, but on the other hand, I see a problem with two garages on the site. That would be my objection to it. You do understand that if it is voted down this evening, there is a six month period before you can reapply.

Mr. Squires asked the applicant if he had considered adding on to the garage you have so it can accommodate the three vehicles instead of a separate garage?

Mr. Fuller answered I talked to the people at PDQ and they said no. I talked to Wing and they said no; no one wanted to attach to an other structure. To gain the floor space I need for my vehicles, I was going to leave the one garage as existing, and add another garage behind that one. I am going to be in a situation where I cannot keep the vehicles on the property. I haven’t talked to anyone who builds garages so I don’t know what standard size I could get and at what cost. Cost is an issue here. The PDQ price was $9,000 for 24 x 24 and $11,000 for 24’ x 36’. It becomes an economic issue. The one that is there is quite nice. The structure is pretty solid, and I had not considered taking it down.

Mr. Squires answered I didn’t intend to suggest tearing the one down; it is very sturdy. My intent was remodeling, such as adding on to that space so you could get a three or four car garage out of that and still have a single unit. Mr. Fuller said I tried to get a quote on that, and they wouldn’t do it.

Mr. Wilson said I have a concern about a separate building. If you enclosed your carport and extended it back you could put your four cars in. Now you are talking about 24’ x 36’; I have a real problem with that and I don’t feel comfortable. I drove by and looked at some of the other garages. There was one that was three cars plus a door about the size of a house, and that has been there for years, so I have a little bit of empathy with you. There are people who have had oversize garages up and down Kemper Road, but that still doesn’t make me feel more comfortable about granting a 24’ x 36’ garage, a second building on that property.

Mr. Fuller said if I find a contractor who is willing to extend that back another 24 feet, where are we at on a situation like that? Mr. Wilson responded for me personally, I would be more receptive to that because it is one building, especially in view of the fact that there are other garage on the same street that are equal to what you are doing and possibly larger.

Mrs. McNear commented I would much rather see one large garage than a small garage and a large garage behind it. It gives some consistency to the building. You have a large piece of property so I don’t have a problem with the overall size. If you can make one large garage incorporating the one you have I would be in favor of doing something like that.

Mr. Fuller said then I have a question. One choice would be to extend on the garage that is there, which no one wants to do, or tear that one down and put a garage up in its place. Those are the options I am hearing. I had a sketch made up that attached to the current garage, and people are not interested in doing that. They have the prefabricated units that they want to do quickly.




Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 February 1999

Page Seven


Mr. Fuller said what I am hearing is tear that one down and put up a 24’ x 36’ garage.

Mr. Squires commented there might be some way to add on to the structure. I would hate to see you tear something down that is perfectly good. Mr. Fuller responded I think there is, but I don’t know the person that will say yes to that, and how much time I would have to find that person.

Mr. Whitaker said there are contractors that will add on to it. I am a builder myself; I am not saying I will do it but I have done them. There are garage builders out there that would add on to the structure for you. I’m not objecting to the 24’ x 36’, but I would be if it were in addition to the other garage.

Mr. Okum said I think we are all going in about the same direction. My recommendation to you would be to not have a vote on this tonight pole. I suggest you withdraw this request and submit a new request. You could get on the agenda next month and probably get your construction done this spring.

Mr. Fuller said I had it drawn up initially and was going to come through, take the back out of the existing garage and go straight back 24 feet. I had two doors, one on the outside of the carport, a short seven foot and one inside which would be eight foot.

Mr. Squires said I don’t think anybody on the board wants to vote negatively tonight, because it will put you in a hole. What about sitting down with a designer and designing that garage within a reasonable cost that would be architecturally compatible with your home. That would significantly improve your property. You have a beautiful lot there and a tremendous area to work with. I think I am reading my colleagues pretty well that maybe one structure would be the way to go, and you shouldn’t have any difficulty getting that. lf you would like to withdraw this as Mr. Okum suggested, then we can reconsider it later.

Mr. Fuller responded I would like to put it back and see what I can get done in the next 30 days and come back and talk with you then. The item was withdrawn from the agenda.

C. Arhaus Furniture, 35 Tri-County Parkway requests a variance to allow 6 parking spaces to be closer than 10 feet to the Tri-County right-of-way. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(G) "Drive and Parking Areas – Front Yard Setback from street right-of-way is 10 feet" (referred by Planning Commission)

Bill Woodward said I represent Arhaus Furniture and I am one of the co-owners of the building itself. Arhaus has signed the lease to occupy the old Leuger’s store next to Cookers.

In laying out the parking for them, it became necessary to encroach within 10 feet of the right of way in front of the store. Most of the parking around this building is toward the rear, and it would mean a hardship on their business to not have more parking around the front. So, we laid out a few more parking places in the front. There is a very large and beautiful maple tree right in the center of the circle driveway around the front of the building which we are trying to avoid by pushing the parking to either side as much as possible.




Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 February 1999

Page Eight


Mr. Woodward said so we actually are encroaching in the 10 foot area by about six feet. We get within four feet of the right of way line. There is quite a bit of grass area between us the street, 25 feet from the pavement of Tri-County Parkway, so we still have a lot of green space between us and the street.

Mr. Wilson asked if they would have a rear entrance. Mr. Woodward answered there will be two tenants in the building. Arhaus is taking 14,000square feet, and in the southeast corner there will be another 6,000 square foot tenant. There will be two entrances to Arhaus, one directly in the front of the building and one back approximately 30 to 40 feet on the Cookers side of the store.

Mr. Wilson said I hear what you are saying about customer convenience in terms of having more parking spaces to the front. But then I see two handicapped spaces way in the back. Is that for your other tenant? Mr. Woodward confirmed that. Mr. Wilson asked if Mr. Woodward if he anticipated using in excess of 50 spots for both tenants.

Mr. Woodward answered no; we don’t anticipate using more than those spots for both tenants. We think the tenant in the back may be a heavier user than the furniture store. When we were before the Planning Commission talking about parking, I reported that Arhaus at any one time would not have any more than 15 cars. This is simply an attempt to get more parking at their front door, which would be better for their business.

Mr. Wilson said I would much rather you put another entrance here by the first 15 spots than have six here. Instead of six people walking to the front, if you had a doorway on the side, then 15 people could get into the side.

Mr. Woodward responded if we have a tenant in this corner that is an office user, they can have four or five people per 1,000 square feet so they would use 30 spots and take most of the parking. There are liable to be only 10 convenient parking spaces for the furniture store. Mr. Wilson suggested designating spots for the furniture store.

Mr. Okum said the building has been empty for several years. Whatever

goes into that 6,000 square feet will be limited with their parking. I don’t

have a problem with the site parking across the front considering the

number of users this development is anticipating. The applicant indicated that they would do a hedgerow landscaping and a landscaping plan for this front area. If you are going to encroach closer to the street, I would suggest that our motion include that you submit a landscaping plan to be approved by the city planner.

Mr. Woodward stated all the comments, and there were a considerable number, are being put on the revised site plan by our architect, and I hope to have that available in the next couple of days.

Mr. Okum said it is silly not to have some parking across the front of that site anyway. I think the angles will help for cars to get into those slots, and they appear to be very wide spots, so I don’t have a big problem with it.

Mr. Woodward responded we are fairly tenant driven on the design of the building. They hired their own architects and did their own exterior. They originally had one entrance at the corner, and they wanted to change that.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 February 1999

Page Nine


Mr. Woodward continued originally they were going to come in the front and put 10 spaces straight across the front of the building. We prevailed upon them to save the tree and move the spaces around as you see on that plan. If we eliminated all the spaces, I think we would have some trouble with our tenant. I’m not saying they would break their lease, because they have a signed lease with us, but I think they would be very unhappy.

Mr. Okum added part of Planning’s motion was that the curb cuts into this site will be changed out to depressed curb entrances. The aprons will be cut and brought down so that it is an easy entrance and exit.

Mr. Okum stated they will have EIFS on all three sides of the building and are repainting the rear with all new gutters, so there will be a total overhaul of the building. Mr. Woodward added we are resurfacing the parking lot with 1˝ inches of surface.

Mrs. McNear asked if there was a tenant for the 6,000 square feet. Mr. Woodward answered they did not. Mrs. McNear added I do not have a problem with the parking spaces in the front. I think this will be a good fit because furniture stores are not going to have hundreds of cars in there.

Mr. Wilson wondered if at Planning they indicated as part of the motion that there be landscaping. Mr. Okum responded that part of the motion was that there be row hedges and landscaping to buffer the cars, and the motion was conditional upon Board of Zoning Appeals approval of this variance.

Mr. Okum asked the depth of the spaces, and Mr. Woodward answered 20 feet. Mr. Okum commented they still have the 24 foot aisle.

Mr. Squires wondered if the future tenant would be strictly office space, and Mr. Woodward answered no, we are talking to a jeweler for example. It would be a destination kind of retail.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance for the six parking spaces to be located on the front of the site that do not meet setback requirements, with the landscaping to be approved by the city planner. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Whitaker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires voted aye. Mr. Wilson voted no, and the variance was granted with five affirmative and one negative votes.



Mrs. McNear moved for adjournment and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


__________________________,1999 _______________________

David Okum, Acting Chmn.


_____________________________,1999 _______________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary