FEBRUARY 17, 2009
7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.


Members Present: Robert Diehl, Robert Weidlich, Robert Emerson, Jane Huber, Dave Okum, William Reichert, Randy Danbury

Others Present: Randy Campion, Inspection Supervisor



Mrs. Huber moved for acceptance the January 20, 2009 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting minutes, Mr. Danbury seconded the motion and with a unanimous vote from all Board of Zoning Appeals Members the December Board of Zoning Appeals minutes were adopted.


a. Zoning Bulletin – January 10, 2009
b. Zoning Bulletin – Index


Mr. Danbury gave the report on Council: The gentleman from Duke came back to address Council concerning the problems we have had with the power outages; after testing they have discovered they have the wrong size clamp and they are going to come back to take care of that; that should take about two weeks. Another issue is a telephone pole at Glen Springs and Route 4 has been leaning for some time and it has been fixed. Another item is the purchase of a new police car. We have finalized the Springdale Day at the Reds for the 25th of April; it is a Saturday at 1:10p.m. Tickets can be purchased at the Community Center.

Mr. Diehl: We did receive the news that Mr. Osborn, City Administrator is going to retire in July; he has been here 35 years.

Mr. Danbury: Mr. Osborn is going to be going out on the field at the Springdale Day at the Reds; we will have a speech about all the different things that he has accomplished.

Chairman Okum: We are going to miss him a lot.


Chairman Okum gave the report on Planning Commission: Last Tuesday,
February 10, 2009 we had a Planning Commission meeting, there were four items on the agenda; Hooters, it has been tabled until the March meeting; two Conditional Use requests, one for Growth Spurts day care; one for Qdoba Restaurant for an outdoor eating area; and the last item was a request for lifestyle window graphic panels for the vacant spaces at Princeton Plaza Shopping Center.



A. The owner of 483 West Kemper Road requests a variance to allow the elimination of a garage. Said variance is from Section 153.105(A) “A single two-car garage and related parking area is required.”

Mrs. Li: My name is Hung Yu Li; I am here for 483 West Kemper, we bought our house like it is; there is a wall behind the garage door. The garage was too narrow for a car to go into.

(At this time Mr. Campion read the Staff report.)

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience for comments; no one came forward.)

Mrs. Huber: I make a motion to grant a variance from Section 153.105(A) so as to allow for the elimination of the garage at 483 West Kemper Road. “A single two-car garage and related parking area is required.”
Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Mr. Reichert: Access to the house can only be made from the basement, is that correct?

Mrs. Li: Just from the basement; there is no other door into the garage.

Mr. Danbury: I think this is something that the Fire Department may look at because this may be a fire hazard.

Chairman Okum: Mrs. Li, is this space used for anything other than storage?

Mr. Shawn Lee (son of Mrs. Hung Li) came forward: No. We had the rental inspection and it was the inspector who noticed that the garage door would not open.

Chairman Okum: So it is rental property and the garage is not used for anything other than storage?

Mrs. Li: Correct.

Mr. Reichert: From the garage door to the wall, approximately how many feet is that?

Chairman Okum: The report said it was an 11’ wide garage.

Mr. Emerson: Can you open up the garage door?

Mr. Lee: No.

Chairman Okum: There is a garage door and then a wall. So your proposal is that you are asking us to o.k. your request to remove the garage door and put plywood in its place so that the opening can be closed in?

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Chairman Okum: So, this room is living space?

Mr. Lee: No.

Mr. Danbury: What are you going to be putting in place of the garage door?

Mrs. Li: We want to board it up with wood and siding.

Mr. Danbury: One thing that this Board has to do whenever we make a variance; it goes with the property forever. The thing that concerns me is that you may not want to have it as a garage right now, but there may be some people that want to purchase the house from you in the future and it may be an issue that they want a garage.

Mr. Lee: They can use the driveway and the street for parking.

Mr. Weidlich: Would you be in agreement to leave a garage door in place there?

Mr. Lee: Yes, sir.

Mr. Weidlich: I would be in agreement to leave your garage door in place and take that interior wall down and since you have no other way than through the basement out of that garage, you need a door to get out of there. Am I correct that you said the only way into the garage is through the basement?

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Mr. Weidlich: If you have a problem in the house, where neither one of your doors can be gotten to, that means somebody has got to go down into the basement and up through the garage and then they are trapped because they can’t get out of the garage.
I think you need an operating garage door there.

Chairman Okum: As I understand the applicant wants the abandonment option; to abandon this space as a garage. The code calls for a two-car garage which would be almost impractical for them to accommodate that and they are a legal nonconforming use but they have not presented anything that I can see that would justify any test for reasoning for a variance in this particular situation. Therefore I will be voting against the request for a variance.

Mr. Danbury: The main issue I see is a safety issue, with one exit. This is rental property and you may have some children in there and they could play with matches for example and we could have a major catastrophe. I would bet that the fire Department would not allow this.

Mr. Diehl: We cannot allow the garage door to be taken down; that garage door must be functional in that it can go up and go down at all times, even if you don’t use it.

Chairman Okum: There are no motions to amend so Mrs. Huber will you poll the Board?

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeal Members and with unanimous “no” votes the request for the variance to allow the elimination of a garage was denied.

B. Thompson Thrift and The owner of 11580 Princeton Pike requests a variance:
1. To develop the site with an impervious surface ratio of 0.855. Said variance is from Section 153.224 “No use in the GB district shall exceed an impervious surface ratio of 0.75.”
2. And a request for a variance to allow parking space aisle width dimension to be 15’. Said variance is from Section 153.502(A) “Each off street parking space shall have the following dimension…aisle width equals 24’.”

Jeff Kanable: I am here representing Thompson Thrift Development to request two variances to accommodate the subject development at the corner of Kemper and Princeton Pike; the first variance is impervious surface ratio and the impervious surface ratio total is .855; when I say total that means our redeveloped area, the existing area for Skyline Chili and the existing area for Ponderosa. Our site alone, the former BP site and the Huntington Bank or Tiffany Glass site is 81.8%, but as we talk about impervious surface ratio we’re talking about the whole. The second variance is related to the rear area; there is a drive aisle to the rear of the building and it is 24’ wide, but we recently added some parallel parking spaces along the rear and they are 9’ wide, so 24’ less than 9’ wide parking stalls leaves us 15’ for a drive aisle.

Chairman Okum: There were some conditions on delivery periods for the site that affects the rear of the building; was there not so many hours during the day or daytime hours?

Mr. Kanable: I think you are right, I think deliveries were limited to the rear of the building and I don’t have my approval letter with me tonight.

Chairman Okum: We probably will have to check the minutes to find out. There are some concerns if there is a truck parked there and cars parked there making deliveries that the drive aisle would be blocked. We may need to address that this evening so that there is no blocking of the aisle.

(At this time Mr. Campion read the Staff report.)

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience for comments; no one came forward.)

Mr. Emerson: I would like to make a motion to approve a variance to allow an impervious surface ratio of 0.855 referenced from Section 153.224; and a second variance based upon the 15’ wide parallel parking passing aisle between the two buildings referenced from Section 153.502(A).
Mr. Danbury seconded the motion.

Chairman Okum: Do you see any hardship that you could not accommodate that when you accommodate the entire parcel? That would bring you back down to 0.75 on the sum parcels.

Mr. Kanable: My understanding is the sum of the future redevelopment parcels will be equal to the 0.75.

Chairman Okum: Staff has also indicated on that drive aisle in the back that there is going to be a change coming, possibly before Planning Commission and then Council and so forth to narrow that down to 11’ to12’ drive aisle. That makes a big difference. If a delivery truck were brought into the back and parked there and a parallel car parked there, how much space would you have?

Mr. Kanable: Standard box truck at 12’ wide, assuming a vehicle is 8’ or 9’ wide, we have 3’ or 4’ free to negotiate a dolly or to deliver boxes.

Chairman Okum: So if a delivery truck is there and that car is parked there, there would not be a drive aisle?

Mr. Kanable: That is correct.

Chairman Okum: To avoid the policing we could make a motion that would say, “At no time shall a delivery truck and parking vehicles restrict the aisle to less than 12’ for any more than “so many” minutes”.

Mr. Kanable: We designed this so that they can pull in and reverse back out. From my experience delivery trucks don’t want to be there any longer than they have to be; there may be an exception to that when the tenants are first getting stocked up which may require some additional time.

Mr. Campion: If the Board is considering putting a restriction of a time limit, the Board might also consider putting some kind of signage posted as part of their building permit that says you can only park a truck here for loading and unloading for 15 or 20 minutes; whatever time limit that you decide.

Chairman Okum: I think that is a really good idea.

Mr. Emerson: Did you say that most people that park back there will be employees?

Mr. Kanable: Yes.

Mr. Danbury: There is a big section of parking right here, have you considered moving the loading zone? (At this time Mr. Danbury moved to the diagram to demonstrate a way to relocate the loading zone.) Take the loading zone to the southeast section of the whole complex that would enable us to not worry about blocked in parking.

Mr. Kanable: There will be a retaining wall along the southern border.

Mr. Weidlich: Mr. Kanable, in your experience wouldn’t you say the loading zone will float back there depending on where the delivery is being made?

Mr. Kanable: I think some signage may limit that. These guys kind of go where they want to go.

Mrs. Huber: I wish to commend anybody that wishes to build from scratch and have new buildings but I just can’t understand, because it is just too much for that site and I think the variances requested are setting some kind of precedent that I don’t know that we can recoup from, even though supposedly other sites are going to be involved in this and I don’t like the thought of our pushing out other businesses to build this.

Mr. Diehl: Tell me how, if I become a truck driver, I will come in and get out when I make a delivery?

Mr. Kanable: If you enter off of Princeton Pike, the delivery truck would come to the rear of the building and exit either eastbound Kemper Road or back through our existing cross-access point to the south.

Mr. Diehl: So the truck can continue through?

Mr. Kanable: Yes.

Chairman Okum:
1. The first item is the 0.75 impervious surface ratio, that it shall be met by the remainder or sum total of the entire site.
2. The second item is that at no time shall the deliveries in parking area restrict the drive aisle on the rear of the building for no more than 15 minutes and signage shall be installed to reflect the limited period.
So, those are the two items that need an amendment if we can just get a so moved then we will discuss it.

Mr. Reichert: Are we going to be voting on each one individually or both together?

Mr. Kanable: My understanding is it is a package.

Chairman Okum: The Board could move to separate them. We have a motion on the floor, right now we have one motion that would need to be defeated then we would have to go back and reconsider and it would require 2/3 majority to bring it back to the floor.

Mr. Reichert: Then, at this point I will leave it as both items being under one motion and also approve the amendment as stated as signage in the loading zone limitation.
Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

Chairman Okum: Mr. Kanable, do you understand those conditions on the variance?

Mr. Kanable: I do understand.

Mr. Emerson: I need clarification; on the two sites that aren’t being developed right now, when they do the impervious surface, are they going to bring the ratio of the one that is being developed down.

Chairman Okum: The sum total will be 0.75 of the whole property.

Mrs. Huber polled the Board on the amendment only and with six “aye” votes and with one “no” vote the motion was amended.

Mrs. Huber then polled the Board on the amended motion and with six “aye” votes and with one “no” vote the request for the variance was granted.


Chairman Okum: We only have one item for discussion and that is the questionnaire; we are still working on it, Staff and I have worked together and we have come up with moving all of the section of the code that the applicant needs to be aware of up top so that they understand it. We are working on the questions; I have added a chart so that we can do a “Yes” or “No” and “Comments”. I want to have Ms. McBride take those sections of the code and explain them in layman’s terms.

Mr. Danbury: One more thing I forgot to bring up, we are going to have the dedication of the Veteran’s Memorial on Memorial Day weekend.


Chairman Okum: So, with that, I’ll accept a motion for adjournment.

Mr. Reichert moved to adjourn and Mr. Emerson seconded the motion, the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2009 ___________________________________
            Chairman Dave Okum

________________________,2009 ___________________________________
            Secretary Jane Huber