BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 2009
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Robert Diehl, Robert Weidlich, Robert Emerson, Jane Huber, Dave Okum,
William Reichert, Randy Danbury
Others Present: Randy Campion, Inspection Supervisor
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 20 JANUARY, 2009
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.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
a. Zoning Bulletin – January 10, 2009
b. Zoning Bulletin – Index
VI. REPORT ON COUNCIL
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.
VII. REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION
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.
VIII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
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.
X. DISCUSSION
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.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
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