BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

20 FEBRUARY 1996

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Barry Tiffany.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Chairman Barry Tiffany, Barbara Ewing, Councilwomen

Marge Boice and Kathy McNear, Thomas Schecker and

James Squires

Members Absent: William Mitchell

Mr. Tiffany reported that Mr. Mitchell called to tell us that he is at a workshop

tonight and will not be able to attend the meeting.

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 16 JANUARY 1996

Mr. Schecker moved for adoption and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye exempt Mrs. Boice who abstained, and the

Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. 1/22/96 Letter to Joe Perin re signs at 12000 Princeton Pike

Mr. Tiffany asked if anything had happened with the signs, and Mr.

McErlane stated that the reader board and the construction signs are

down. The other Perin sign still is there; I think he is still debating as

to what he wants to do with that.

B. 2/5/96 Letter to BZA from Marie Ellis, CB Commercial

Mr. Tiffany commented I want to compliment this board in waiting this out. Sometimes itís good to keep the communication and not dally tell somebody no or yes. Mrs. Boice asked what their solution was to this problem. Mr. Tiffany responded I guess they are talking about downsizing the directional signs, which far exceed the six square foot limit.

C. Zoning Bulletin Volume 44, No. 1A January 15, 1996

D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9 January, 1996

V. REPORTS

A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated that there is nothing to report that would affect this board at all. Things seem to be moving very smoothly.

B. Report on Planning Commission - Barry Tiffany

Mr. Tiffany reported we met last Tuesday evening, and we had two items that may be of concern to this board. One was the project for Dr. Todd, who is here this evening, and the second is that we had a discussion and again turned down Cellular 1 for a tower site. It was a 4-3 vote, and it needs five votes to pass.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Two

V B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - continued

Mr. Tiffany continued those of us opposed to it see it as a real eyesore. If you drive around the belt right now, these towers are popping up everywhere. Mr. Osborn looked into this and found some literature on it. In the market currently, it is limited to two companies that control the market. They are pushing for more and more towers, because as the usage goes up, more are needed. The problem is within the year, six more companies will be permitted to come into each market and each will want towers also. The law as it is written says we cannot discriminate between companies; we have to give fair and equal opportunity to all companies. These people want to put one tower in GE Park close to the highway, but there is one other competitor in town who will need one also, and six more coming. We have two towers in Forest Park, one by Discovery Zone which is horrible and the exact same thing as was proposed here. Mrs. McNear added there is one on Northland by Grandin Avenue.

Mr. Tiffany continued we had some discussion after the regular agenda, and I think we are going to take a very proactive stance with this. The telephone communication companies are pushing for the FCC to give them basically eminent domain to put their towers wherever they feel like, and I think we need to get aggressive as a city to see that this doesnít happen. A lot of cities across the country are demanding that they be hidden from view or shaped like a pine tree or church steeple or put them on top of buildings where they canít be seen. I proposed that to them, on top of McAlpinís or the old Glenmary building possibly, and they are going to look into that. There are a lot of places where they could be hidden or disguised.

Mrs. Boice commented we have gone through the mass of satellite dishes and gotten them down to the saucer or dinner place size. With the technology we have today, is there anything in the offing where these towers can be reduced? Isnít there something else? Mr. Tiffany

responded the problem is that when one tower stops, the other needs to pick it up. As they get more towers, they can make the towers smaller, but in order to get down to a 40 foot tower, you would have to have one every quarter of a mile. We have these towers with lights on them all around I-275. Unfortunately, the State of Ohio doesnít want them touching those things, and to me that is the perfect place to put these. Mrs. Boice commented if you try to put this through the legislature, you are looking at 10 years. Mr. Tiffany said there are something like 2500 towers right now and by the year 2000 there will be 150,000. It was incredible, and the year 2000 is only four years away. If we donít do something now, and maybe it will take 10 years to get it through the legislature, but if you donít start at some point, it will be a mess. I wanted to report this to the board, because we may see a lot of them coming in, and we are going to work on it.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. CB Commercial requests variance to allow the construction of an additional 7í-8" ground sign in front of Princeton Hill, 30 Merchant Street. Variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "ground sign shall be limited to 1 sign for each group.." "The height of a ground sign shall not exceed 7 feet.." (tabled 1/16/96)

Mr. Tiffany stated we will drop that from the agenda at the request of Ms. Ellis of CB Commercial.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

20 February 1996

Page Three

B. Tumbleweed Restaurant, 11305 Princeton Pike requests variance to install two satellite antennae. Said variance is requested from Section 153.097(A) "one "satellite dish-type antenna"...may be permitted.."

(tabled 1/16/96)

Mr. Tiffany commented as I understand it, these are already installed. Mr. Dave Brown stated we have two satellite dishes; one is for Prime Star to access more television channels, and the other is for DMX music channels. Mr. Tiffany commented so neither of these are communication satellites for you to download your information.

Mrs. Boice asked if they anticipate any others and Mr. Brown answered no, adding that the reason for the Prime Star was because there was no cable currently being run to that location, and the cost to have it run would be about $7500.

Mr. Squires said Mrs. Boice commented earlier in the meeting about increasing technology, so I would ask if this could be done with the indoor 8 to 10 inch direct satellite dishes rather than the big ones outside? Mr. Brown answered not to my knowledge; that may be their avenue to keep costs down, I am not sure.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the parapet were high enough that we would not see these; what is the height of the units? Mr. Brown indicated he did not know how high they were. Mr. Tiffany commented it looks like they are 48" and 60". Mr. Brown added the only way you can see it is if you are behind it. Mr. McErlane added the elevation of the street is considerably lower than the ground elevation of the building. Mr. Tiffany said I didnít know if you could see them from the parking lot; they look like they are right in the middle of the building on top.

Mrs. Boice said when this came through Planning, was there any discussion on this? Mr. Tiffany indicated that there wasnít, and Mrs. Boice asked Mr. Brown if they had anticipated this at the time of construction? Mr. Brown answered no. The Prime Star was an add on when we got close to opening the restaurant. They had attempted to contact the cable companies. We wanted to have more than just regular TV, so we went with Prime Star to give us more access.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if there were a limit to the size of the one satellite dish type antenna in the Code? Mr. McErlane reported there is a maximum of a six foot diameter antenna and a maximum height of eight feet above the roof. Mr. Tiffany said so we are within the confines on both of these.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. McErlane if we anticipate more of this from the adjoining restaurant, and Mr. McErlane reported that OíCharleyís has contacted us about an antenna. He asked if Prime Star were 18 inches or larger, and Mr. Tiffany answered it is 28" x 39". Mr. McErlane continued OíCharleyís is only installing the 18 inch diameter dish, which is exempt from our Zoning Code.

Mr. Tiffany reported this is an issue that has been brought up more and more in recent years with businesses and that is why Planning Commission changed this so they can have the one antenna. It is a case of whether or not you want to permit the second antenna.

 

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Four

VI B TUMBLEWEED RESTAURANT - TWO SATELLITE ANTENNAE - continued

Mrs. Boice added our Code does read only one satellite dish per parcel, canít you combine all this in one dish? Mr. Brown answered not to my knowledge; these are two separate companies. I know we have contacted OíCharleyís about the possibility of splitting the cost of cable at some time in the future. We hope to do that, but I have no idea when that would occur.

Mrs. McNear asked if it were possible for them to share the satellite data with OíCharleyís? If for example you had the Prime Star on your roof, and you had the music station on the other one, could you share the cost and have the reception?

Mr. Brown commented I donít think the vendor would do that. Mr. Tiffany added I think the big problem would be if OíCharleyís wanted one station, it might have to be directed to a different satellite than say this one.

Mrs. Boice said isnít this the first time we have had a request for two dishes on one parcel? Mr. Tiffany responded to my knowledge, yes. When we did not have this ordinance allowing one, we had requests for one antenna, and we have had requests to install them on the back sides of buildings from other businesses, like Toys "R" Us.

Mrs. Boice asked if they were going to have the music and the TV viewing going on at once? Mr. Brown indicated that they were. Mr. Tiffany added that the TVs are in the bar area, and the music plays throughout the rest of the place. Mr. Brown added we have four TVs on various channels so you can watch basketball on one channel, Xavier on another channel, maybe UC on the other and we also can control the volume of that and still have music in the dining room.

Mrs. Boice stated I am concerned about the precedent of establishing two dishes on one parcel. Throughout the city we have requests, and they come in frequently for the dishes on properties, but this is the first time we have had a request for two on the same parcel, and I find that troublesome.

Mr. Schecker asked what was so special about the state of the art for importing the music in this mode as opposed to some of the more traditional modes of getting audio into your facility? Mr. Brown answered the DMX channels have more variety and can come in through cable, but since we do not have cable, we have to get it through satellite. l Another method is MUZAK which is a variety that we donít like, and also you can through playing of CDs. DMX plays CDís, but you have much more variety in terms of the number of channels, and type of music.

Mr. Squires stated in a way I concur with Mrs. Boice. The precedent that we may be setting here bothers me a little bit. We have restaurants going up all over Springdale, and if we are allowing two dish antennae for Tumbleweed, I am concerned about other businesses asking us for the same thing.

Mr. Tiffany commented one of the issues with playing your own CDís is if you play music in an establishment with more than one speaker, you have to pay royalties, and that is what DMX does for you.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Five

VI B TUMBLEWEED 11305 PRINCETON PIKE TWO SATELLITE ANTENNAE-cont.

Mr. Tiffany stated I would concur with Mrs. Boice on this. As many businesses as we have had come in recently, and as many as we will continue to have come in, I do not like the precedent that we would be setting with this either.

Mrs. McNear commented the other thing you may want to keep in mind is that itís not just a matter of restaurants; we will have hotels, motels and Iím sure there are other uses for this type of entertainment, that we also have to take into consideration as well. Having two satellites doesnít make me comfortable either.

Mr. Squires said if we do not approve this, does it have to be taken down? Mr. Tiffany said one of the two would have to come down. Mr. Squires asked how it got put up there? Mr. Tiffany answered it is very common; there are locations where these things go up where the building codes do not have requirements; they can put up basically anything they want, and donít run into problems with it. I donít think it is a case of trying to pull something over on the City of Springdale.

Mr. Schecker commented I agreed with the idea of not having two, but on the other hand, you do have an area if the equipment is hidden from view, I question the rationale for critiquing this and having them tear it down. I donít want to see them tear apart an improvement that is not offensive, but on the other hand setting a precedent could be a problem.

Mr. Tiffany said it is not the precedent for this man, but the precedent for the business down the road where you could see it. Mr. Schecker commented on the other hand we do address these things on an individual basis. If we were to grant this variance and another outfit were to come in and have theirs blatantly setting on their front door, we would be inclined to shoot that one down.

Mr. Tiffany said the burden of proof for the applicant for a variance to be granted is hardship, and I canít answer for you people whether or not hardship is present.

Mr. Squires said I would like to compliment Tumbleweed for hiding them the way you have, but I want to speak for precedent. There is no guarantee that other business facilities will hide them as well as you have. We could have these springing up everywhere.

Mr. Schecker commented the extenuating circumstances here is the fact that the fellow doesnít have access to cable. On the other hand, many of the other locations in town very well would have immediate access to cable.

Mr. Tiffany said the difference would be not so much for the TV but for the music. I know MUZAK is available over an indoor antenna and there are other services available over a phone line.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variance to install two satellite antennae for Tumbleweed and I would like to clarify that I am making the motion to get it to a vote; I am sure from my comments you understand that I will not be supporting that motion. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye was Mr. Schecker. Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany voted no, and the motion was denied by one affirmative and five negative votes.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Six

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Donald R. Kidd, 557 Observatory Drive requests temporary variance to allow parking of his truck on the side of his residence. Said variance is requested from Section 153.128(B) "No motor vehicles shall be parked or stored on any area not improved" and Section 153.044(B) "..only passenger cars which do not exceed 20í in length may be parked or stored upon a driveway or parking area.."

Mrs. Jeanette Kidd stated what we are proposing is a temporary variance. Mr. Tiffany asked what time do you need for this variance; I understand he was supposed to get with the Building Department for a time frame. Mrs. Kidd answered we would request at least a year; we would like more if possible. It is a new business, and we have a lot of ups and downs in finances, and our biggest concern is if we did not park it near the home, there might be vandalism on the truck; also, we plug it in, and it may be difficult to find a place to park it where we also can plug it in. Mr. Tiffany commented three of us were not here for the earlier discussion; do you have a picture of your truck with you? Mrs. Kidd did not.

Mrs. Boice commented when Mr. Kidd was in, there had been some discussion about the condition of the property, the ruts caused when you pulled it to the side of the house. Has anything been done to shore up that area? Mrs. Kidd answered that is something we want to do, but the ground has been very hard. He is no longer parking on the side, but has been parking in the driveway only. That side is not being used at all.

Mr. Squires said I went by your property earlier this week and tried to get an idea of what you were asking. You are asking for that rutted area to be blacktopped or concreted so it would hold this truck; is that correct? Mrs. Kidd answered we would prefer parking it on the driveway. He confirmed that this is a 24í commercial truck, and commented that there is a truck parked at 584; have we issued a variance for that? Mr. McErlane reported the business has been there since before the city was a city; it is grandfathered. Mrs. Kidd commented that was one question that we had, seeing that it is the same size vehicle as we have and has been parked there; we wondered how they could do that and we couldnít.

Mrs. McNear said in November Mrs. Kidd called me after her husband had been in at the meeting and asked me to drive by and take a look again, because they had moved the truck. I was there the week of Thanksgiving, and the truck was parked where you may have seen it today. Since November every time I have been past there, the truck has been parked in the driveway and not on the rutted side.

Mr. Schecker asked their anticipated remedy after the temporary period. Mrs. Kidd answered we are hoping to find a place to park it. The other situation is we would have to drive the vehicle to get the truck and leave the vehicle while he is using the truck. We do not really know; we have to check things out to get something. The biggest problem would be the plug in the winter with the diesel, and it may be difficult to find a place to park it that would have that facility. Iím not sure what weíll have to do.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Seven

VII A DONALD R. KIDD 557 OBSERVATORY PARK TRUCK IN DRIVEWAY-cont

Mrs. Boice commented when you were asked what were your plans were I kind of got the impression that if the variance were granted, no progress would be made. Weíre into February now; this was denied in November. It seems to me that no great effort has been made to see if there are other avenues? Mrs. Kidd responded we have contacted one individual who would possibly consider it although there might be a problem with plugging in. We do have the feelers out. We contacted the insurance company to see if they might know of someone. He contacted an individual who is located in Forest Park, which isnít that far from us, but it is a question of going back and forth with the vehicle.

Mrs. Boice said when we sit up here, we have to struggle to keep personal feelings out of this, but I have to be open and honest with you. If I had this situation next door to me on either side, it would be distressing for me to have a truck parked in a residential area on the driveway. I donít know how often it occurs, a couple a days a week or a week at a time, but that does concern me. We have so much parking on the streets as it is, it seems our residential areas are losing that aesthetic feeling that we would like. What concerns me even more is you are asking for a yearís variance. I think if your approach had been three months or six months, I would feel a little more comfortable that a strong effort was being made to solve this problem. A yearís a long time for a temporary variance. Mrs. Kidd said if youíve been by my house, you will notice that either way you come, the truck is not an eyesore. It does not stand out because of the pine trees. Mrs. Boice responded I understand that, and I have much the similar situation. If you were coming down my street heading west, my neighbor has planted enormous pine trees, so you canít see it, but again, we are into that precedent. We open the door for one, and we can have these setting on every driveway. I think you have to understand where we are coming from on that.

Mrs. McNear added the other thing we are looking at is there are a lot of people who are trying to start businesses in their homes, and we donít want to stop that; it is the American way. Thatís all well and good, but we do have to protect the rights of other people. Your vehicle is a 24 foot vehicle; the next thing we have to worry about is the person down the street who is an over the road truck driver who would have a 50 foot rig. They have the same right to use their property as you do, and if we allow your 24 foot truck to be in your driveway, what keeps them from saying the person down the street is running his business out of his truck, why canít I have my truck? Thatís where we run into a problem with this.

Mrs. Kidd asked why the grandfather clause okay down the street? Mr. Tiffany answered it was used before this Code was developed. A perfect example is the non-conforming use of Scottiís Deli. When that came in, the Code wasnít there; years later, it is there, so when they went to change, we couldnít let them come back in with something different in the same business. Mrs. McNear added another example of that is my father in law who owns a trucking company in another town, and it is in the residential area, but the homes were built after the trucking company was there so it is granddfathered. Iím sure the city and residents would like to see that moved out of there too, but it preceded the subdivision. Mr. Tiffany added from a legal standpoint, the City does not have any binding power over that one down the street; I wish we did.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Eight

VII A DONALD R. KIDD 557 OBSERVATORY DRIVE-TRUCK ON DRIVEWAY-cont

Mr. Tiffany asked what other vehicles they have at the house, and Mrs. Kidd stated that they have an Astrovan which we just purchased and a Dodge Shadow. Mr. Tiffany asked if there were ample spaces on the street to park those vehicles, and Mrs. Kidd reported that they can park all of them on the driveway, or the van and truck on the driveway, and I park the Shadow on the street.

Mr. Tiffany stated I tend to agree with Mrs. Boice on the precedent issue and also the idea that a temporary variance being requested to allow them to park the truck on the driveway for a period of whatever time this Board sees fit to give them time to come up with solutions. I do see some hardship here, since they own the truck.

Mr. Squires, addressing Mrs. Kidd asked if in light of what Mrs. Boice asked, would you consider a variance of say six months rather than one year? Mrs. Kidd responded I think we need at least that. It is very difficult to find a place; we have checked out several, and it will be hard to find a place with these qualifications. Mr. Squires said I empathize with you a great deal because of what I saw at 584, a huge truck in the driveway. At the same time, precedent is a consideration. Maybe we would consider it if you would modify it from one year to six months.

Mr. Tiffany commented we have two variances that we are looking at. One is for parking on an unimproved side of the house, and the other is to park this truck in the driveway. Personally I am not for parking a vehicle on an unimproved surface at any time because of the ruts and mud. My consideration would be to park the truck on the driveway temporarily until they can find something else.

Mrs. Boice said I really have a problem with extending a temporary variance for a year. I would certainly be agreeable to three to six months, which would require you to come back in for reviewing. I appreciate your problem; I am aware that it is your business, and we all understand that, but human nature being what it is, I do feel if you are more under the gun with a shorter variance, that the effort will be made a little more. I would be open to a motion for a variance of anywhere from three to six months to allow the truck to park on the driveway. Mr. Tiffany commented you would be creating a long term maintenance issue if we permit a temporary variance on the side of the house.

Mr. Squires asked if the Board has to consider two variances, and Mr. Tiffany responded the request was for two, one to allow the truck to be parked on the side of his house, and the other was to allow the truck to be parked on the driveway. If he parks it on the side of the house, it is still a parking area, and it is a variance to that also. If it is a temporary thing, I donít think it is reasonable to ask them to improve the side of the house for a temporary fix. I think this Board is looking long term, so I would shorten that to just allow them to park the truck on the driveway, and be specific in the motion.

Mr. Squires moved to allow the truck to park on the driveway for a period not to exceed six months. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Temporary variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Nine

VII A DONALD R. KIDD 557 OBSERVATORY DR. PARK TRUCK IN DRIVEWAY

Mr. Tiffany stated you will be allowed to park for six months on the driveway only; nothing on the side of the house. After six months, if you have not found a solution, you are welcome to come back in and try again. That is up to you. Mrs. Boice added I would ask you to make a really good effort; Mr. Squires said Iíll be positive about that, and say I think you will.

B. Lykins Companies requests variance to allow the replacement of the pole sign at 11444 Springfield Pike (Friends) with a ground sign. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "A ground sign shall be not less than...10 feet from a street right of way line..."

There was no one present to represent Lykins Companies. Mrs. Boice moved to table and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to the March 19th meeting.

C. Home Builders Association, 415 Glensprings Drive requests a variance to allow the construction of one additional sign. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(5) "Ground sign shall be not less than 10 feet from a street right of way line..."

Richard Meder of West Shell Commercial reported we are requesting a variance to establish a second sign at the driveway entrance to the building.

Mr. Tiffany said I donít see anything indicating what this sign will look like. Is it a real estate sign? Is it the ReMax sign? It is three by two or six square feet. Mr. McErlane reported for residential it is six square feet. This is for their office, a permanent sign and it will say ReMax. Mr. Tiffany asked if they couldnít tie this into the other sign?

Mr. Meder stated if we do the sign by the book, we are 10 feet into the parking lot. We have the right to have a second sign, but we donít want it in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Tiffany said so this is setback variance.

Mrs. Boice wondered if any of the other tenants would want this, and Mr. Meder said they would not. We had a variance about five years ago for the original sign, the Home Builders sign with six slots. ReMax takes about half the second floor, and they originally wanted to go with what the city had requested by having a sign in the middle of the parking lot, but Home Builders doesnít want to have that look to their building.

Mr. Tiffany said you are entitled to additional signage; however, you are not entitled to additional signage right there. Thatís why I am asking if you can tie it into the other sign, maybe put something on top of that other signboard that would give them better identification.

Mr. Meder answered Home Builders doesnít want that sign distorted any more than with the six or seven tenants. ReMax currently has a spot on the existing sign, and they have requested to be set off aside from the Home Builders sign because they want a sign like Coldwell-Bankers so people know where their offices are versus their competitors. That is why they have asked for a different sign. Their name would come down from the original sign and leave room for another tenant.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Ten

VII C HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 415 GLENSPRINGS ADDITIONAL SIGN

Mr. Squires commented I did not drive by the parking lot and examine this site, but to be fair with you, I think the picture is a bit misleading. There is an awful lot of room on the west. You have four electrical boxes that have to be maintained. Have you taken this into consideration?

Mr. Meder answered yes, and by the way, us getting the sign for them does not hinge on ReMax releasing with us. The way we positioned their lease is that they would be able to provide it if it were okay with the City of Springdale. The language of the lease was that they could go to the west of the driveway, and they for whatever reason have picked in front of the boxes to the left of the driveway.

Mr. Squires said you want the sign on the west side so it can be seen by westbound traffic into your place, is that correct?

Mr. Meder answered the bulk would be westbound and probably would be planted in the same general direction of the other sign so the westbound traffic could see it. They picked that location because it will be a smaller sign as you are driving up; I canít answer on the part of ReMax.

Mr. Squires asked if there were any consideration for enlarging the present sign, and Mr. Meder indicated that they did not give that any thought. We jumped a couple of hurdles to get the sign to start off with, and also to do that would be more costly.

Mr. Tiffany said a residential real estate sign is six square feet, the same as this, and it strikes me as a real estate sign; thatís what it looks like. It doesnít look like an identifying sign, but like something on the property is for sale or lease. Mr. Meder stated that is not what the Home Builders want. They donít want that perception because the building is not for sale. It is more of an identifying marker. Mr. Tiffany added itís a nicer sign, abut with it separate like that it strikes me as a real estate sign.

Mrs. McNear said perhaps if the sign was designed to look more like the existing sign, it would look more like part of the project rather than a for sale or lease sign. Mr. Meder responded if you look at the sign, the ReMax is blue and red, but the design is supposed to be similar in nature to the existing sign. Mr. Tiffany commented I guess it is the red and blue that really sets it off. Mrs. McNear added the supporting posts make it look more like a real estate sign to me. Mrs. Boice said at first glance, you would think the building is up for sale. Mr. Meder asked if lowering the sign would help? Mrs. McNear suggested putting shrubs underneath to make it look more permanent. Mrs. Boice said that would probably solve it. Mr. Meder commented we never address the landscaping around the sign, but I am sure ReMax would not have a problem with it, and the other sign has a couple of shrubs.

Mr. Squires commented I fail to see the similarity of the two signs, the red white and blue of the ReMax and the other one with the removable panels. I donít know the solution; you are entitled to another sign, it is a question of where. You do have a problem with those boxes. I donít think you can put a sign as big as the Home Builders sign on the west side; I donít think there is enough room for that. Have you investigated that?

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Eleven

VII C HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 415 GLENSPRINGS DR ADDITIONAL SIGN

Mr. Meder Home Builders does not want to have a sign equal to the size of their sign. What we are trying to do is distinguish between a tenant in the building and the actual building. Mr. Squires asked if there were no consideration to modifying the present sign to allow ReMax as a bigger panel? Mr. Meder answered the consideration was that the sign was what it is and we already had gotten a variance for that size of sign. The other item was the cost factor from the Home Builders position. Reading between the lines, I would tell you that they would be hard pressed to change that sign because they donít want to change the image of the building from a Home Builders building to a ReMax building. Mr. Schecker commented that sign may do that.

Mr. Tiffany stated in reference to the comments as far as landscaping under this, I donít know that there is enough room to landscape with these power boxes. Mrs. Boice said if you do the low lying yews, there should be. Mr. Tiffany continued I donít know that there is enough room with these boxes. Mrs. Boice added just underneath there; some of these miniatures. Mrs. McNear suggested a hanging plant, just something that would look like it is a permanent structure. Mrs. Boice added I really think people will mistake it as a real estate sign.

Mr. Meder commented our concern was that, and that is one reason why we asked them to put Suite 201 on the sign. Mr. Tiffany asked if this were for recognition from the street and Mr. Meder answered from the street and also as people come up to the building to know that ReMax is located in the building. ReMax has been a tenant for five to six years, and more signage has been a bone of contention.

Mr. Tiffany suggested another corner by the landscaping, and Mr. Meder responded the board for Home Builders does not want to see that. Besides wrestling with Springdaleís demands, the Home Builders Association has been very restrictive in terms of what they want to see. Keep in mind that Home Builders built the building and it is almost a trophy building for them.

Mr. Tiffany commented personally I am very shocked that they would even allow them to propose this sign in this location next to those boxes. I think it is atrocious; it will accentuate those boxes.

Mr. Meder reported when you look at the site plan itself, it is probably 95% asphalt. The only green belt we have is between the sidewalk and the actual asphalt. We do have one or two little islands around the parking lot, but nothing to put a sign up in there. We discouraged them and will not allow them to put any type of pole sign inside the parking lot.

Mr. Schecker said if somebody is coming to ReMax, that sign will not be the thing that drags them off Springfield Pike onto Glensprings. As you approach heading west on Glensprings, that sign for ReMax like your other tenants, is pretty visible. It seems to me that people know where they are going if they are looking for .ReMax; they have the address and there it is. On the other hand, if ReMax wants a little more advertisement, what about the back side of the box which is totally blank in terms of the eastbound traffic on Glensprings? Would that satisfy them in any way? Mr. Meder answered I cannot answer for ReMax. Mr. Schecker continued I donít feel any particular responsibility in terms of your relationship with ReMax. You have your own business concerns there, and if our concerns are the setback of the is sign, I donít have any other questions.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Twelve

VI C HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 415 GLENSPRINGS DR-ADDITIONAL SIGN

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mrs. .Ewing. Mr. Tiffany voted no, and the variance was granted with five affirmative and one negative vote.

D. Springdale Family Medical Center, 212 West Sharon Road requests variances to allow the construction of a 3,000 square foot addition. Said variances are requested from Section 153.193(D)(1)(a)(b)(c)"..front yard setback to the building @ 100í (26í shown) front yard setback to parking @ 50í (2í shown); rear yard setback to the building @ 35í (5.39jí shown) and east setback to parking @ 5í (1í shown). Variances also are requested from Section 153.193 (D)(9)(g)(1) "..4 deciduous trees at a minimum 3" caliper and 3 evergreen trees at a minimum 6í height for every 100í of frontage. Section 153.193(D)(9)(a)"..1 street tree (minimum 2 1/2" caliper) per 40í street frontage..."

Mr. Tiffany stated this came before Planning last week, and Planning had no concerns with what is before us this evening. We are looking at a piece of property that this gentleman is going to make a tremendous improvement to. The Corridor Study asks for a lot of trees and setback requirements that donít work with what he is proposing, and that is what we have before us this evening.

Dr. Thomas Todd reported in 1977 Barry Webb joined me in the practice, and by 1983 with health care changing and with our having only one examining room, we looked for a space to build an office and chose the empty lot at Springfield Pike and Sharon Road. This was the gateway to Springdale, and we came to Planning and Board of Zoning Appeals in 1983 and they were happy to have this building there. In about 1990, we added another doctor and bought the adjacent lot. Iíd like to add that we are going to tear down the ugly pole sign, and now we propose to add 1500 square feet for another suite of offices.

Mr. Tiffany added the variances are for the setbacks on the parking lot which are basically the same as what he has existing. It is a continuation across onto the new property. Dr. Todd added Mr. Purcell is the one that designed the original building, a Pease building, and his sons will build the addition onto it. Mrs. Boice said I would concur that what you have down there right now was a tremendous addition with what we are trying to do with the corridor. As we look at the variances that are requested and required, we have to keep that in mind. We must remember what the improvement will be as we make our judgments. Mr. Tiffany stated I think you also have to keep in mind that the front yard setback is for the corridor standards, as opposed to typical general business, so they are far greater than typical general business. Mrs. Boice added with extenuating circumstances and when you are trying to improve a corner that has been three-quarters improved greatly by what is there now, and now we have a chance to do it 100%, that has to be waived. Mr. Tiffany commented if you look at the board over here, the area in white is existing, and if you look at West Sharon Road, he is already at this level of setback at that point, and all we are doing is continuing that across. He is continuing the building across; he is not proposing a jutting out structure towards the street there. He is tearing down a pole sign and an eyesore building, and doing a fantastic improvement to the site. As far as the trees go, the demand in terms of the Code is tremendous. On this site, it is impossible to meet what is demanded in terms of trees.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Thirteen

VII D SPRINGDALE FAMILY MEDICAL CENTER ADDITION 212 WEST SHARON RD

Mr. McErlane reported the requirement for deciduous trees is 3" caliper, there are 19 of those, and 14 six foot tall evergreens. In addition to that, there is a street tree planting requirement of one per 40 feet of frontage on Route 4, which would be an additional four trees of two and one-half inch caliper. There are some street trees planted in the right of way now. One thing you need to keep in mind is when the corridor standards were adopted, the planner looked at facilities similar to Maple Knoll and the Church of the Nazarene, developments that had large front yards. As the standards are written, it requires a 50 foot green space between the right of way and the parking, so typically there is a lot of room to plant the trees. In this case, we are matching existing setbacks, so there isnít room.

Mr. Tiffany commented there are very few spaces where he could add trees, but I would like to see some back by the dumpster. Mr. Purcell stated the dumpster will be boxed in with gates. Mr. Tiffany continued there is five feet of space on the west side of the parking lot between that and the retaining wall. Mr. Purcell reported the retaining wall runs down there, and it swings across the veterinarianís property about five or 10 feet. Mr. Tiffany asked if we could get trees along that edge, some ornamentals to dress it up a little bit. The tree preservation ordinance is extremely important to us. Mr. Purcell said that can be done; that is no problem. Mr. Tiffany asked for suggestions on types of trees that would work well. Mr. McErlane stated you probably would want to stay away from evergreens because of the spread on them with only five feet there. Also, youíd probably not want ornamentals with berries because of the cars. Mr. Tiffany said I didnít know how high the wall was, and we donít want it to grow out into the cars. Mr. Purcell said it is one foot high

Mrs. Boice said I wonder if we could take these one at a time and see where we have any problems before we continue with the tree discussion. I believe the first one is the front yard setback to the building at 100 feet and 26 feet is shown, front yard setback to parking - does anyone have problems with a variance being granted on that? Mr. Tiffany asked if there were any objection to any of the setbacks on any of the elevations? There were none.

Mr. Tiffany stated so setbacks are no problems. Now we have the trees to consider. Again, required would be 19 three inch deciduous and 14 six-foot evergreens. Mrs. Boice commented I donít know where youíd put them. Mr. Tiffany said if we can come up with some trees, anytime we can get trees, go for it. Mrs. Boice responded I agree, but there is no way you can put that number on that property. They are requesting four deciduous, three evergreens and what else? Mr. Tiffany stated there are three different issues. By corridor standards there has to be four deciduous trees of three inch caliper and three evergreen trees at a minimum of 6í height for every 100 feet of looking at a variance to that issue. Then, we also have the street trees at one per every 40 feet of street frontage, and I donít see that as a viable option either.

Mr. Purcell reported there are trees on the property that we are planting that are flowering crab trees, and these trees are existing. Mr. Tiffany asked if there could be flowering crabs on the west side of the property also to tie into those, and Mr. Purcell answered I donít see why not.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 February 1996

Page Fourteen

Mr. Tiffany commented we need to look at the number of trees. Mrs. Boice wondered if there were any suggestion out of Planning in terms of numbers. Mr. Tiffany said no, and they had no problems with any of the other variances requested. The major things were that the dumpster be enclosed.

Mrs. McNeal said on the west, retaining wall, are you looking to put something in there to block the view from the residence? Mr. Tiffany answered we had a letter from the resident stating he didnít want his wall touched; everything was fine with him. He is required to put in trees, and this is a spot where we can put in trees; we canít go with what he is required to put in, but anything we can get as far as trees are concerned, we should go for it. Mrs. McNear said so you are looking for a number of trees. Mr. Tiffany commented it is 153 feet, so if we went back 75 feet, and said one for every 10 feet, it would be seven trees. Mrs. Boice commented that sounds reasonable, depending on the type of trees they are putting in. Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane the number of inches per tree typically. Mr. McErlane reported in the tree preservation ordinance, for typical ornamental we require it to be 1 1/2 inch caliper. Dr. Todd commented there are a couple of big maples in there. Mr. Tiffany said so we would ask for seven trees down the west side of the property of one and one-half inch caliper.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance to the setbacks, adding that seven deciduous trees of one and one-half caliper inches would be planted on the west property line. Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Tiffany. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

VIII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Schecker stated concerning the March meeting, I will be working for the Board of Elections. The polls close at 7:30, and I will come to the meeting as quickly as I can.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Schecker moved to adjourn and Mr. Squires seconded the motion and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:05 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,1996 _________________________

Barry Tiffany, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,1996 __________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary