BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

18 FEBRUARY 1997

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman William Mitchell.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: William Mitchell, Barbara Ewing, David Okum,

Councilwoman Marge Boice, James Squires,

and Councilwoman Kathy McNear

Members Absent: Thomas Schecker

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 21 JANUARY 1997

Mr. Okum moved to adopt and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice

vote all except Mrs. Ewing and Mrs. Boice who abstained voted aye, and the

Minutes were adopted with four affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 14 January 1997

V. REPORTS

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

B. Report on Planning Commission - David Okum

Mr. Okum stated Dave & Buster’s presented their project for plan review and approval for the PUD modification. There also was a presentation and request for plan approval for GTE facility. This is on the agenda this evening since there were three items referred to this board for consideration. Charing Cross Estates had another presentation of another plan and it was tabled at the request of the applicant. It did not have a favorable response from the Commission.

VI. STATEMENT CONCERNING VARIANCES

A. 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.

If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after the denial.

VII. OLD BUSINESS - none

VIII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Roy Funderburg, 908 Cedarhill Drive requests a variance to allow his satellite dish to be positioned 21’ high on a pole next to the main building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.053(B)(3) "It does not exceed 12 feet in height or the height of the primary (main) building on the lot, whichever is less."

Mr. Funderburg stated where I had it located originally I was unable to receive signals, so I had to relocate it. It has been up there since September of 1994. I got your letter that I needed a variance, and I am here requesting the variance.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 February 1997

Page Two

VIII A ROY FUNDERBURG 908 CEDARHILL DRIVE SATELLITE DISH 21’ HIGH

Mr. Squires commented looking at your property, I am assuming that the dish is now at its present height of 21 feet because of that very large tree interfering with your signal.

Mr. Okum wondered if the previous dish location was in his yard and on the ground. Mr. Funderburg indicated that it was. Mr. Okum continued did you get a building permit at that time? Mr. Funderburg responded I had someone do it and I do not know if he had a permit or not. Mr. Okum asked if when it was relocated the company got a permit at that time and Mr. Funderburg responded that he did not know, adding that it is a 10 foot dish. Mr. Okum wondered if it could be placed in the back yard, and Mr. Funderburg stated that it could not; if it were any closer, the house would block it.

Mr. Okum commented that there are smaller dishes available now. Mr. Funderburg responded for much more money; I have a lot of money tied up in this one.

Mrs. Ewing wondered at what point this variance went into effect, when the resident needed to contact the city for putting up the satellite dishes. Mr. McErlane responded there was a permit issued originally. The original ordinance was passed requiring a permit for satellite dishes on December 18, 1985.

Mr. Squires said I am referring back to something we did earlier. We had a resident who wanted a satellite dish mounted on a chimney and we receive notification that this doesn’t apply to that. Mr. McErlane responded it only applies to dishes one meter and under. This dish is much larger.

Mr. Okum said I sympathize with your need, but if I voted for this it would be setting a precedent. The Zoning Code was written to eliminate the issue of satellite dishes on roofs, against houses and elevated above the homes. I was part of the legislative committee that drafted the original satellite dish ordinance and the amended one, and I could not support this as you have it here. I understand there is a significant hardship, but I can name 500 other homes that could exhibit that same hardship. If everyone wanted to put a 120 foot dish on their roof or against their house, they would have the opportunity. The purpose was to limit that type of attachment to the property and therefore I will vote against your request. I am sorry.

Mr. Squires wondered if the applicant had investigated any other possibilities of receiving a proper signal and staying within the code so a variance would not be required? Mr. Funderburg said I could remove the tree; I would have to cut the tree and it probably would cost about $1,000. Mr. Squires wondered if a smaller dish on the chimney would do the job.

Mr. Okum said the DSS Dish would set on the ground attach to your chimney or mount on your deck. Currently they are very economical. , less than the cost to relocate your unit.

Mr. Funderburg stated that system cost me about $6,000, but if that is all I can do, I will have to do it.

Mr. Mitchell said are you saying you want to withdraw your request and proceed to remove the dish, or do you want the committee to take action on it? Mr. Funderburg responded I will remove it.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 February 1997

Page Three

VIII A ROY FUNDERBURG 908 CEDARHILL DR. SATELLITE DISH 21’ HIGH

Mrs. McNear commented maybe you would like to table it rather than withdraw so you can pursue your options.

Mr. Mitchell commented if he is going to install within the Code, he will not have to come back and forth. Mr. Funderburg stated if I cannot have it I have to move it. Will I need a permit to put the other dish up? Mr. Mitchell responded I would recommend you get a permit so it will be installed within the Code.

Mrs. Boice asked Mr. Funderburg if it were his wish to withdraw or table and Mr. .Funderburg said withdraw. The item was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant.

B. Kemba Credit Union 211 Northland Boulevard requests variance to allow the installation of a ground sign on the right of way. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "ground sign shall be..not less than 10 feet from the street right of way line."

Lee Davis of United Signs of United Signs and representing Kemba Credit Union stated from the curb, the sign will identify this driveway. People coming down Tri-County cannot find Kemba, and those coming up see it and have a tendency to go by the driveway.

Mrs. Boice asked how long Kemba had been at that location and Mr. Davis answered probably 10 years. They evidently have had this complaint for quite some time, but nobody did anything about it. Now they are getting new customers who can’t find the driveway.

Mr. Okum wondered if it were a ground sign on the bank across the street, and Mr. McErlane answered that the sign is considered a pylon sign (Huntington Bank). Mr. Okum continued you have indicated that the sign will be six feet; the poles on that sign have to be much longer because it falls in the drainage facility. Mr. Davis stated they are three inch square tubes. Mr. Okum asked how tall they would be, and Mr. Davis reported that the top of the sign is six foot to the grass. The bush in front is 30 inches tall so we tried to put this sign so it would be over the top of that. We are back 21 feet from the curb, so you will not have traffic interference.

Mr. Okum wondered if there was a reason why they wanted to do this type sign rather than a directional sign. It doesn’t need to be six feet high and four feet wide. Mr. McErlane stated directional signs are permitted if they are not more than six square feet, but he would still need a variance on the setback even for a directional sign. Mr. Davis added I drew up a drawing that fit with their logo and set it back 21 feet from the curb so you could see it coming down Tri-County Parkway. It is not illuminated at all, but I am open to everything and I think Kemba is too.

Mrs. Boice commented with a business established 10 years, I do not know why we need this. Mr. Davis answered the new customers are having trouble finding it. They see a bank and go into Huntington. Mrs. Boice added it is a pretty easy location, Tri-County Parkway and Northland Boulevard. I agree that a directional sign would be all you would need. Mr. Davis responded I have no objection to reducing the size of the sign. We had to be six feet high because the bushes are 30 inches. Mr. Okum wondered if there was an exceptionally deep right of way line, and Mr. McErlane indicated that there was. On Northland Boulevard it is 12 1/2 feet back, which is typical but on Tri-County Parkway it is 20 feet from the curb. The bushes are real close to the right of way line.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

18 February 1997

Page Four

VIII B KEMBA CREDIT UNION 211 NORTHLAND BLVD. GROUND SIGN

Mr. Okum said so your request is to put the sign in the right of way. Mr. Davis responded behind the property line. Mr. McErlane added you are saying between the bush and the street is 16 feet. Mr. Davis answered yes, and that is the reason I am going out five feet. Mr. McErlane added right now it is at 20 feet from the curb; Mr. Davis is at 21 feet so he is asking for a 1 foot setback.

Mr. Okum suggested moving it one foot to the left instead of centering it over the bushes. Mr. McErlane stated his requirement is another 10 feet beyond that. Mr. Okum said so he would be required to be 30 feet from the curb. Mr. Squires said you indicated you were open to suggestions; if you went back 30 feet would that satisfy your needs? Mr. Davis answered you would not see it coming down Tri-County Parkway. Mr. Mitchell added another bush would block it.

Mr. Okum asked the material of the sign and Mr. Davis stated that it is aluminum. Mr. Okum commented in an early evening you would not see that sign if it is not illuminated. Mr. Davis answered they are not open after 6 p.m. and none of their signage is illuminated.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Okum voted no, and the variance as granted with six affirmative votes.

C. A. G. Hauck Co. requests variance to allow 112 parking spaces for The Fitness Store at 11336 Princeton Pike (117 spaces are require). Said variance is requested from Section 153.091(A)(3) "..shall have at least 74 spaces plus six spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area over 10,000 square feet."

The applicant phoned and requested that this item be tabled. The Board moved and seconded and the item was tabled to March 18, 1997.

D. Edward & Rita Bramkamp requests variance to allow the transfer of property and resultant 66 foot setback. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(G) minimum lot width = 100’.

Michael Neiheisel reported that Mr. and Mrs.Bramkamp have less than 100 foot lot width on Sharon Road and they want to deed away seven feet of the property. Mr. Bramkamp owned his current property and the parcel which is now Springdale Family Medicine’s parking lot. In 1960, he built a restaurant on the property and the restaurant parking lot extended to the retaining wall next to his house. In 1970 when he sold the restaurant, it was assumed he sold all the parking lot. In 1988 the restaurant property was sold to Drs. Todd and Webb, and they demolished the restaurant and used the parking lot as their own. In 1996 Springdale Family Medical, Center put an addition there and paved over the old parking lot up to the retaining wall. A survey was done and it was determined that the retaining wall was seven and one-half feet on the wrong side of the property line. Mr. Bramkamp is willing to deed to Drs. Webb and Todd the seven and one-half feet, and that would bring the property lines in conformance with the parking lot.

Mr. Squires said I have looked at this and it seems to me that it is quite reasonable. I would move to grant the variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 February 1997

Page Five

VIII NEW BUSINESS - continued

E. Springdale Pony Keg, 369 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow painted and illuminated signs in the window. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(9)(i) "Painted and internally illuminated window signs shall be regarded as permanent signs," and Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "Maximum gross area of signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 square feet."

Yogesh Shah stated my wife and I own Springdale Pony Keg and we are requesting that the signs we have hooked up and painted in the window be allowed.

Mr. Okum wondered if there were other variances for signs at this location. Mr. McErlane stated they were under a temporary variance and a year or two later BZA indicated they did not want to renew that variance. They then reduced the amount of square footage so it would be within Code.

Mr. Mitchell commented the problem I am having is I do not see the need for other signs in the window. Everyone can look and know that it is a pony keg. I also do not see the hardship or need for additional signs in the window.

Mr. Squires stated I have the same problem. I am looking at the pony keg and the Springdale Cleaners and there is a tremendous amount of signage in those windows. Do you feel comfortable with what you have? Have you considered doing it with less signage? Mr. Shah stated we never thought about that at all. If you like, we can take out this sign and keep the Springdale Lotto sign.

Mr.Squires asked the background of this window sign request. Mr. Okum answered that was as a result of our recommendation. There was a sign regulation approved by Council last year to eliminate sign blight and window signage was incorporated along with all other signage. Planning and Council felt that window signs should be considered as part of the total signage package on properties. Mr. McErlane added there is a certain percentage allowable for temporary signs, up to 25% of your windows can have temporary signs, but painted and neon signs are not considered temporary. In this case we are looking at neon and painted signs.

Mrs. McNear stated that she would be voting against this variance, and Mrs. Boice agreed, adding that as you drive through the city you see many businesses who have pushed this beyond belief with neon and paint. I cannot support all these window signs.

Mr. Okum said there is a total number of square footage of signs that you can have on a business. If you were to reduce this signage down, you would have more latitude. At this point you are at your maximum, and if you would add window signage it would bring you above that.

Mr. Shah stated I do not care about the neon signs; I can take them out. My only concern is that this is the way the business has been done all these years, and I don’t know why now this has changed.

Mr. Okum stated you are a victim of what was done before. Your business was one of the reasons the ordinance was drafted. There are a number of businesses like yours over signage and utilizing windows and we intend to address that in the Code.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 February 1997

Page Six

VIII E SPRINGDALE PONY KEG 369 W. KEMPER ROAD - WINDOW SIGNS

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. No one voted aye and Mrs. McNear, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell voted no. Variance was denied with six negative votes.

F. Skyline Chili, 85 East Kemper Road requests variance to allow neon window sign. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(9)(i) "Painted and internally illuminated window signs shall be regarded as permanent signs" and Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "Maximum gross area of signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 square feet."

Pete Perdikakis said the sign is the neon sign that says "Drive Through Open". I am not advertising a product , and I have cut my hours, but the drive through is open two hours longer Monday through Thursday, and three hours longer on Friday and Saturday. I am just trying to let people know that it is open.

Mrs. McNear commented your saying you are not advertising a product is splitting hairs; it is still advertising your business, and I will be voting no as I did with the previous applicant. Mr. Perdikakis commented I think this is different from comic strips on the walls. I am not trying to say it is not advertising; I am saying it is needed and not in bad taste. I have always tried to enhance the area, not tear it down.

Mr. Squires asked for clarification of the request, and Mr. Perdikakis stated that there was a variance for outside signage and this sign was put up at the same time. There was nothing done at that point because it was at the inside of the building. Mr. McErlane stated it is considered a sign if it is intended to be read from the right of way. The property is currently under a variance for 15 square feet over the permitted square footage. The total allowable signage is based on linear footage of the building, and this building is only 28 feet wide so they are limited to 97 square feet. With the additional 15 square feet granted by variance, two-thirds of the allowable signage is taken up by the pole sign on the property. At this point they are at their maximum without the neon sign.

Mr. Okum commented I frequent your store and have ever since you opened, but I never have seen this sign, and I use your drive through. I look to see if your drive thorough menu board is lit and your lights are on in your building. Mr. Perdikakis responded we turn the lights off in the front of the store when we close the inside. Mr. Okum continued you run a good business, but I have not seen that sign and I will have to vote against it because you are to your limit on signage and I think we would be establishing a precedent. I do not think you will be gaining or losing by not having it.

Mr. Squires commented Mr. Okum said what I wanted to say. I frequent that restaurant and I did not know that sign was there. Could we look at the slides again to see the pole sign? The slide was viewed by the members.

Mr. Syfert wondered if it would be possible to have the drive thorough open on the pole sign and Mr. Perdikakis answered it would be out of the variance. That sign was brought up from the original store. I do understand what you are trying to do, and I am not against it, but I think there are certain differences on how signage should look, and I do feel in certain situations that you need to look at the aesthetics of what is trying to be done here. Speaking as a small businessman, I am trying to let people know that the drive through is open.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 February 1997

Page Seven

VIII F SKYLINE CHILI 85 E. KEMPER ROAD DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW SIGN

Mrs. McNear commented the ordinance says that this is part of your signage, and our job is to enforce that. This is not to give you a hard time or make your business more difficult. Your establishment looks nice, but we have to enforce the law.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. No one voted aye, and Mr. Okum, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell voted no. Variance was denied with six negative votes.

 

G. Mr. & Mrs. Mark Riesenberg, 11892 Ventura Court requests variance to allow their deck to project 17 1/2 feet into yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.037(D) "..not more than 50% into a required rear yard."

Mr. Riesenberg stated we have an odd shaped yard; we live in a cul de sac. We are planning on building this off the extension and bringing it out at the corner eight feet. Very little of that is actually against Code as the fence angles out towards that back house, it will free up more room. We are planning on building the other side of the deck out further 12 feet so it will be eight feet on this end and 15 feet on that end.

Mr. Mitchell wondered if they have talked with their neighbors about this and Mr. Riesenberg answered my wife got signatures from all the surrounding neighbors; none were opposed to it. They probably welcome it so we can talk to them more. When we drew this up, our math was wrong. We thought it would be 12 feet but actually this will be 10 feet and the other end will be 15 feet.

Mrs. Riesenberg added our neighbors behind us share the same problem because on the Lawnview side the lots are very small. With the deck they built, they are not much wider than we are proposing and they were not upset but sympathetic to our problem.

Mr. Okum asked exactly what 50% into the required rear yard meant and Mr. McErlane reported that the rear yard setback in this zoning district is 35 feet. You are allowed to build ad deck or covered porch half of that distance. There are two existing variances, one for an addition which juts out on the one side and a variance in 1977 for patio room .

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. No one voted no, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

H. GTE, 111 Tri-County Parkway requests variance to allow warehouse and parking beyond 250 feet. Said variances are requested from Section 153.083(B) "The accessory buildings and uses permitted in GB Districts are.. and Section 153.091(C) "The nearest point of a parking lot shall be..not more than 250 feet from the main entrance.."

Ken Schon said there should be three variance issues tonight: (1) the distance from the front door to the farthest parking; (2) the required number of parking spaces. GTE doesn’t need that number and suggests dropping 30 parking spaces and save three silver maple trees; and (3) warehouse use.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 February 1997

Page Eight

VIII H GTE 111 TRI-COUNTY PKWY WAREHOUSE USE & PARKING REGULATIONS

Mr. Schon continued because of the configuration of the lot, the building is down at one end. We have 115 parking spaces in this end and an additional 52 down here.

Mr. Schon stated the first floor is leased to GTE, and the other half will be leased later. The original plan was for 5,000 square feet of warehouse. If you look at the sketch you will see the way this is laid out these are the two dock entrances so the space utilized is the loading dock area. This space or cage would be a secure area to handle inventory. There is some office space and storage area. The other space in here is a potential hallway to connect this space if we were to lease it. The issue was that warehouse is not an allowed use in this area. Originally we said we need this much space and it was called warehouse, but we have gotten further along and technically we are talking about one-fifth of this area to be used for storage space. It really is an incidental use, and I think everyone on Planning said that it seems reasonable and that it fits in with the GTE use, but there is no allowance for it in the Code. This building would be the regional headquarters for GTE in the Cincinnati area. It is a two-story building; GTE would be leasing 30,000 square feet. It is an office building with very little to do with warehousing.

Mrs. McNear stated my company is part owner of the PCS, so I will excuse myself from this discussion.

Mr. Mitchell commented I would like to keep the three issues separate: (A) would be the distance from the front door to the furthest parking area which is over 250 feet; (B) the number of parking spaces; and (C) warehouse use.

Mr. Okum said on the reduction in the parking numbers, considering there are only 75 positions in the building, it seemed overkill to have the number of parking spaces regulated by the Code. We also wanted to preserve trees. They did an excellent job of placing the building, and there is an enormous grove of trees along Tri-County Parkway that they did a good job of preserving.

Mr. Okum continued Planning did not have a problem with the furthest parking space being more than 250 feet from the front door. They did put a water feature in there. When we discussed the interior use, we looked for ways it could fit into the Code. It is not that they are taking up the entire building with warehousing. They are taking a limited amount, and with the discussion it became apparent that the warehousing would not be all warehousing, and our recommendations were passed by a 7-0 vote. It did receive very favorable acceptance by Planning and was recommended to you for your consideration.

Mr. McErlane stated on the parking issue 188 parking spaces are required and they are showing 166 spaces.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variances as requested and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Mrs. McNear did not vote, and the variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 February 1997

Page Nine

IX. DISCUSSION

Mr. Mitchell suggested moving the time of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting from 7:30 to 7:00 p.m. All members present agreed. Mrs. Boice suggested that the packets be flagged so everyone would be reminded of the new earlier time.

Mr. Okum wondered if everybody liked the statement on the variances that was on the agenda tonight and suggested that it be at the top of the sign in sheet. Members agreed

Mr. Mitchell stated on Mr. Funderburg’s request concerning his satellite dish, we told him we were going to vote him down and he said if we were not going to give it to him, he would have to move it. I thought if he was going to move it would be better than our turning him down; that is why I suggested that he withdraw the request.

Mr. Mitchell continued we approved the Cincinnati Bell structure on Kenn Road last year and they installed it by Temple Baptist Church. They promised to put landscaping there, and I drive by there every day and I never have seen landscaping around that thing.

Mr. Mitchell wondered if the mayor was putting together a committee to discuss recreational vehicles. Mr. Okum said that will be part of the Zoning Code revision committee. I am on from the Planning Commission and they are aiming at six members plus the administration. The preliminary guidelines are being drafted now. One thing that might help the committee would be if something catches your eye that is unique and something you would like to see in Springdale a photograph would help to describe it so when we go through the Code it would be helpful. I wonder about the use of neon lights, and Mr. McErlane said you can write that into the Code. Mr. Okum commented the new Chinese restaurant on Northland Boulevard is the worst thing I have seen in Springdale. Mr. Squires added it is every bit as bad as Springdale Cleaners. Mr. McErlane commented Springdale Cleaners is in court.

X. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Okum moved for adjournment and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the meeting was adjourned t 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________,1997 _________________________

William Mitchell, Chairman

 

 

______________________,1997 __________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary