Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes
20 February 2007
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Bob Weidlich, Bill Reichert, Jim Squires, Jane Huber,
Bob Emerson, Marge Harlow and Chairman Okum
Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official
Randy Campion, Inspection Supervisor
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV.
V. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 16 JANUARY 2007
Mr. Squires moved to approve and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. All voted aye and the
Minutes were adopted unanimously.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Zoning Bulletin – January 15, 2007
VII. REPORTS
A. Report on Council
Mr. Squires reported that a transitional overlay was added to the zoning on West Sharon
Road for the medical arts office building. Council considered the potential use of outdoor
wood fire boilers. The Board of Health recommended that Council not allow them and council
is considering an ordinance against them. Council approved allowing employees share their
sick time with employees with debilitating illnesses. Mrs. Harlow added that an ordinance
on the Veterans Memorial will be considered tomorrow night. CDS will begin with Phase 1
and by Council doing this, we hope our residents will see the progress and make more
donations.
.
VIII. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
IX. OLD BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of variance to allow the installation of a total of 360.8 square feet of
signage on the front elevation of O’Reilly Auto Parts at 409 West Kemper Road. Said
variance is requested from Section153.531 (C) (1) (b) the maximum gross area of signs, and
153.531(D)(1) “A single wall sign shall not exceed 150 square feet in total
area.”
Steve Weeks of the sign company said O’Reilly Auto Parts has applied for signage for
more than is allowed. You also have something from Bill McErlane that shows another
proposal for 193 s.f. for the front elevation.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
20 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE TWO
SIGNAGE FOR O’REILLY AUTO PARTS – 409 WEST KEMPER ROAD
Mr. Weeks said I would like to give everybody copies of a slight changed, which is 2.13
square feet larger than the earlier proposal, or 195.13 s.f.
Dick Semple added that the layout for the sign, Exhibit A, is the type of graphics used
throughout the United States. Exhibit II shows the whole building and the general area.
Mr. McErlane reported that the pole sign cabinet should be 8’ x 232’ so the
square footage on the pole sign would be 92 s.f. instead of 115 s.fr. It is two feet
shorter and each panel will be 23 square feet less.
The building elevations did reflect what the landlord was proposing to do with the
building. Planning reviewed this in January and one of the concerns was the amount of red.
Ten percent is allowed, and the applicant committed to no more than 8% being red.
The top sheet drawing shows what would be permitted per our code, which is 129 s.f, and
now that we have an extra 23 s.f., it would be 152 square feet. The only reason you have
the last page was to see what might fit better. It is not a recommendation, but a concept
of what would fit in the storefront.
The applicant has submitted something fairly close to that. The sign is a little higher
than the 195.13 s.f. total.
Their original proposal included channel letters and what is proposed tonight is a box
sign. I assume they are still talking about a red band behind this. Mr. Weeks said I
don’t know.
Mr. McErlane said for the wall sign we are looking at a variance from the 150 s.f.
permitted to 195 s.f. For the total allowable signage, they would need a variance from the
244 s.f. allowable to 287.1 s.f., including the pole sign.
Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one was present in the audience, and he closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Squires moved to grant a variance from 150 to 195 s.f. for the wall sign and from 244
to 287.1 s.f. for the total signage for O’Reilly Auto Parts.
Mr. Okum said Planning was clear about the saturation of red on the building, and stated
that the 10% red allowed should be across the building. Staff can deal with the red on the
building separately from the signage issue.
Mr. Okum said Planning encourages channel lit signage in the Route 4 Corridor Review
District, and they are looking at box signs rather than the channel letters. ..
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
20 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE THREE
SIGNAGE FOR O’REILLY AUTO PARTS – 409 WEST KEMPER ROAD
Mr. Squires commented that to keep this area uniform, we would have to allow something
similar to any future tenants. Mr. Okum commented that is something to consider. So if we
approve the box signs we would be encouraging box signs for the other tenants. In my
experience on Planning, I would say it has been Planning’s purpose to encourage
channel lit letters. The Auto Parts sign on Exhibit I could be channel lit but the
O’Reilly logo would be more difficult.
Mr. Semple said White Castle has a box type sign, so the precedent has been set on
Springfield Pike. Mr. Weeks added that auto parts could be done with channel lit letters
but the O’Reilly sign would be more difficult and the owner wants the same look
across the United States with that logo for recognition.
Mr. Semple added also I don’t think it would become a standard for that shopping
center. If there are more than two tenants they may not necessarily take that route. It is
just a case of graphics. And making the sign the best it can be made.
Mr. Okum added that the Corridor Review District encourages consistency on the signage, so
I would think the other businesses would b encouraged to do boxes for that consistency.
There are no box signs at the Springdale Town Center. If the box is approved, I would
encourage those two uses to do box signs to be consistent.
Mr. Weeks said it is more of a logo model than a box sign. This is more than a box sign.
There is a great expense to make it this shape.
Mr. Okum commented that the O’Reilly is a unique logo box, and I would think that
would be appropriate for O’Reilly. I was thinking that the auto parts could be
channel lit.
Mr. Weeks said the owners said if we had to go to channel letters, they would like to drop
the stripes. Several of the board members indicated that they liked the stripes, and Mr.
Weeks responded that he would put the stripes back in.
Mr. Okum said I think the applicant is willing to work with us, and the stripes are
necessary. Do the auto parts in channel lit letters and the O’Reilly in the custom
box logo and it would work very nicely and be balanced between the pilasters.
Mr. Okum said I think the board is ready to allow this 195.1 s.f. provided that the
O’Reilly logo stays the way it has been submitted and that the Auto Parts become
channel lit letters, as long as the total does not exceed 195.1 square feet A motion is
needed to amend the Auto Parts sign to channel lit letters with the stripes. O’Reilly
would remain as submitted.
Mr. Squires moved to amend the variance to a total of 195.1 s.f. with channel lit letters
for Auto Parts and the O’Reilly logo as submitted. Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.
By voice vote, all voted for the amendment. On the amended motion, all voted aye and the
variance was granted unanimously.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
20 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE FOUR
XI. DISCUSSION
A. Revised Board of Zoning Appeals Application – continued from January meeting
Mr. Okum led the review of the application with his suggested additions.
Number 1 – Provide photos and evidence supporting your request.
Number 2 - Provide detailed information as it pertains to your request. Illustrations,
drawings sketches, literature or what every evidence represents the request.
Number 3 – Be prepared to give testimony and present the facts at the zoning appeals
hearing. It is from this testimony, the testimony of others present and the evidence
presented that a decision will be made.
Mr. Okum said I want them to be aware that it is necessary to give testimony.
Number 4 – The preponderance of evidence supporting the variance will determine
whether the variance will be granted or denied.
Mr. Okum said the difficulty is that not what was approved as our Guidelines. On Page 3,
it states, “The Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize a variance of the provisions or
requirements of the Zoning Code provided all of the following facts and conditions exist:
1. Exceptional circumstances
Where, by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or unusual shape of a specific
piece of property on the effective date of this Code, or by reason of exceptional
topographic conditions, or other extraordinary situation or condition of such pieces of
property, or of the use or development of property immediately adjoining the piece of
property in question, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applying to the property in question or to the intended use of the property that do not
apply generally to other properties or classes or uses on the same zoning district.
2. Preservation of property rights
That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights which are possessed by other properties in the same zoning district in the same
vicinity.
3. Absence of detriment
That the authorizing of such variances will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this Code of the public interest.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
20 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE FIVE
X DISCUSSION – BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION - continued
4. Not of general nature
That the condition of situation of the subject property, or the intended use of the
property for which variance is sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to
make reasonably practical the formulation of general regulations for such conditions or
situations.
Mr. Okum added that is what was approved, and it is very difficult. I feel a preponderance
of evidence would give me reason to give a variance. If we followed all the Guides for
Granting Variances, we should be voting no 90% of the time. If we are supposed to be
following it, it is hard. Mrs. Huber added most of the time you cannot do it.
Mr. McErlane said the guidelines were adopted by this board, but they reiterate some of
the things in the Zoning Code. For example,
Section 153.710(B) “No such variance of the provisions or requirements of this
chapter shall be authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals unless the Board of Zoning
Appeals finds that ALL of the following facts and conditions exist:
and the four conditions are listed.
Mr. McErlane added the intent of this board is that there are situations where everything
does not fit into that, so you can look at exceptional circumstances that pertain to a
property, like topography and see the condition that merits the variance. That is the
intent of this board.
Number two of that same section concerns if there is a circumstance on the property that
keeps you from doing something that everybody else can do, like an angular back property
line. If for that reason you are being prohibited from doing something, that is another
reason to grant a variance.
Number three says that variances should not do anything that would be detrimental to your
neighbors.
Number four indicates that if there are enough people doing it, it should be put in the
code instead of having to grant so many variances.
Mr. Okum said we have zoning districts with large lots which is not the norm. If we cannot
get these issues resolved, will we assume it has to be the preponderance of evidence that
supercedes this? Is that the purpose? Maybe that is an issue for our Council
representatives that make these appointments. They should resolve what they want us to be
doing. That is why I am asking the question.
Mr. Okum said if the applicant does not answer these points, he will not get the variance.
Is that what Council wants us to go by, or is it the preponderance of evidence?
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
20 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE SIX
X DISCUSSION – BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION - continued
Mrs. Harlow said I can only speak for myself, but the law director said that because
everybody does not have the same square footage or topography, that is why this board is
there. It is to help the residents who cannot meet the code, to offer them relief if it is
in the best interests of the city to do so.
Mr. Squires added he also informed us that everything we deal with is unique, that we do
not have to worry about precedent, and I think that is extremely important. Everyone
coming before us is unique.
Mr. McErlane suggested some simple wording and a change in that section of the Zoning
Code. Right now it says “No such variance of the provisions or requirements of this
chapter shall be authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals unless the Board of Zoning
Appeals finds that ALL…exist.” If we would change that ALL to
“CONSIDER”. That way instead of it being mandatory, it is a guideline. Mr. Okum
agreed with this, confirming with the rest of the board members that they also agreed.
Going back to the review of Mr. Okum’s suggestions for the application, the addition
was “Failure to appear at two consecutive meetings will constitute failure to present
supporting evidence and action will be taken.
Mr. McErlane reported that you cannot withdraw the application; you either act on it or
request that the applicant withdraw it. Now it says that it could result in tabling or a
decision being made. Many times if the applicant doesn’t show, it would give them
another month before they had to comply with code. Mr. McErlane stated that normally the
prosecutor would suggest no legal action if the person has a pending appeal before the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Okum added we can only vote to approve or deny; we cannot withdraw an item.
Item #6 added to the application was an application number. Mr. McErlane suggested that it
be tied to the variance number.
Number 7 – 10 copies of detailed drawings – Mr. Okum said he felt that 10 copies
were not needed for the residents. Mr. McErlane said I don’t think it is unreasonable
to ask for drawings. This is what we need to determine what they want to do. On the plot
plan, Mr. Emerson commented that people assume that their fence is on their property line,
and that isn’t always true. Mr. McErlane stated they can add that to the site plan,
and we can pull up CAGIS data to confirm it. Also, if the applicant comes in advance to
discuss this project, we can provide them with the CAGIS information.
Mr. McErlane reported I put the requirement for pictures back here where the submission
requirements are.
On the checklist, I added to 3.1 Plot Plan, Item F. “Indicate setback distances if
that is what you are requesting.” I also added a 3.4 Provide photographs and any
other support information like brochures.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
20 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE SEVEN
X DISCUSSION – BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION - continued
Mr. McErlane added in the questionnaire, I added a whole block for them to describe their
reasons that they need the variance. I tried to rephrase the questions so that they would
make more sense.
Mr. Okum said I don’t think we should give them an opportunity to just say yes or no.
I would leave that out and say “Explain in Detail”. Mr. McErlane said we are
asking a question and the answer would be yes or no. It is an issue with the topography,
not the Zoning District. Mrs. Harlow asked if the same would be true with the size of the
lot. Mr. McErlane responded the properties on Kemper Road are the same district but in
many cases the lot sizes are different. Mr. Okum added and it still doesn’t address
the uniqueness of the lot. Mr. McErlane reported that the oversize lots should be
addressed in the Zoning Code.
Mr. Okum added I don’t like a question. Let’s change the question to a
statement. Explain in detail what unusual characteristics of your property make it
impractical for you to complete your project.
On the current number 3 concerning if the variance would negatively affect the adjacent
properties, Mrs. Harlow wondered if that is something that the applicant would know. Mr.
McErlane commented I don’t know that how important it is to be in there. Mrs. Harlow
responded that is something the board should consider.
Mr. McErlane said I will draft a revision to Section 153.710 (B) that you could forward to
Planning Commission. It would go on to City Council and after Council adopted it, you
would have to adjust your Guidelines. I will redraft it based on what we talked about
tonight.
Mr. Okum said the other item was lot sizes and outbuildings, but it is 9:00 p.m. and I
don’t want to go into it now. Members indicate that restrictions based on Zoning
Districts for large and unique sized lots don’t always apply, like Kemper Road. You
need to look at lot sizes and density and come up with realistic standards. The other item
is fences in front yards and corner lot issues.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mrs.Huber seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted
aye, and the Board of zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
______________________,2007 __________________________
David
Okum, Chairman
______________________,2007 __________________________
Jane
Huber, Secretary