MARCH 16, 2010
7:00 P.M.


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


Members Present: Jane Huber, Dave Okum, William Reichert, Robert Emerson, Lawrence Hawkins III, Jim Squires and Robert Weidlich

Others Present: Randy Campion, Building Inspection Supervisor



Mrs. Huber moved for acceptance the February 16, 2010 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting minutes, Mr. Emerson seconded the motion and with 6 “aye” votes,
Mr. Squires abstaining (absent for the February 2010 meeting), the minutes were adopted.


There were no items of correspondence.


Mr. Squires gave a report of the previous City Council Meeting: Council considered an ordinance to the City’s Zoning Code regarding electronic signs, mainly those that are illuminated and will show messages. The intent of the ordinance is to find the primaries and the limitations under which those signs will be permitted; Council had its first reading on that at this last meeting. The second item that we have done is authorized Council, the Mayor and the Clerk of Council to enter into a contract with Aleta Construction for the Northland Boulevard repair and resurfacing.
Aleta Construction came in with a very nice bid, considerably under the amount of stimulus money that we were awarded for that project, so it looks like we will be able to do all of it. There were two resolutions at the past Council meeting.

Mr. Hawkins: I do want to note for the Board that we did have a couple Board Members from Princeton High School who are Springdale residents come to the last Council meeting, as well as the Superintendent and the Treasurer. They came with information about plans to build the High School and Middle School. This proposal that they are going to put on the ballot is twenty million dollars less than the one they had previously.

Mr. Squires: As far as rehab is concerned, the Superintendent did make the point that they could spend money to rehab the structures and they may last twenty years. If they voted for the tax levy bond, an operating levy they would likely get fifty years out of it; that would be a huge difference. The Princeton Board has gotten ten years out of this previous operating levy and that is remarkable.


    Chairman Okum gave a summary report for the Planning Commission: At the March 9th Planning Commission Meeting there were three items on the agenda, two are on our agenda tonight as carried forward, recommendation to this Board for consideration. The third being Princeton Plaza PUD redevelopment and that is being continued with discussion with the applicant.
    We do have one item for the Board of Zoning Appeals that was advertised and is not on the agenda, that was for property at 11741 Chesterdale Road; the applicant had requested that they be put on the April 20th agenda.



No items of old business were presented at this meeting.


A. Chairman Okum: The owner of 212 West Sharon Road requests a variance to erect a ground sign with a 0’ setback from the public right of way. Said variance is from Section 153.423(B)(3) “…All signage shall be no closer to the public right of way than 10 feet.”

Mr. Chad Nahrup: I am here representing Mercy Hospital. Mercy recently purchased the Springdale Family Physicians; as a result there was a need to update the signage at the street. The old sign is a single panel, what Mercy would like to do is enhance the sign and make it a little bit more visually appealing and increase the visibility of the sign. Because it sits at the intersection it is a little bit harder to read and know what is in that building. We met with the Planning Commission last week; the overall look and shape of the design was approved with the one stipulation that instead of being a “V” shaped sign it would need to be separated to allow for some additional landscaping.

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

Chairman Okum: The Planning Commission didn’t say that the angle had to be removed; there was not an insistence of the angle but there was a requirement that a minimum of 8’ be between the two sign panels. The applicant indicated at Planning Commission that the purpose of the angular method of the sign is because of the odd angle of Sharon Road where it intersects at Route 4; to get visibility from both directions.

(The applicant provided to the Board of Zoning Appeals an 11” X 14” paper with photo and lines demonstrating where the signs would sit on the property.)

Chairman Okum: Based upon the minimum of an 8’ gap, that would pretty well meet the standards that Planning Commission had set. The landscaping would then be reviewed by Planning Commission Staff. We don’t typically talk a lot about hardship in situations of a sign location but this is a unique situation where there has been a lot of roadway expansion there over the years. I don’t find this to be a harsh change and I will be supporting this request.

Mrs. Huber: I move to grant a variance from Section 153.423(B)(3) so as to allow for the erection of a “V” identification sign, as submitted by the applicant, property located at 212 West Sharon Road at 0’ setback from the public right of way; “All signs shall be no closer than 10’ from the right of way line.”
Mr. Reichert seconded the motion.

(Chairman Okum opened the floor to the audience; no one came forward and this portion of the hearing was closed.)

Chairman Okum: Seeing there is no further discussion, Mrs. Huber would you poll the Board?

(Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with 7 “aye” votes the request was granted.)

B. The owner of 11580 Princeton Pike requests a variance to develop the property and requests a variance to allow a 1’ setback from right of way on Princeton Pike. Said variance is from Section 153.502(C) “In no case however, shall the parking area or access drives be located closer than 10 feet from any right of way…”

Mr. Adam Fischer: I am representing Thompson Thrift, a developer from Indiana. There was a plan a little over a year ago that was approved for a large building with a lot of variances; there has been some trouble with financing and other things and we are at a point today with the approval through Planning Commission with a number of conditions for this 3500 s.f. building on the corner of Princeton Pike and
Kemper Road, the former BP gas station. This decreased the number of variances needed from eight to just one; that one is where the corner of our parking meets up with the corner of the right of way on Princeton Pike.

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

Chairman Okum: The Board of Zoning Appeal Members have been provided with the approved plan dated March 1st, 2010 with conditions attached and the Staff comments. I have to compliment Thompson Thrift on taking the comments from Planning Commission and making those ideas work; just one variance on this project is pretty outstanding. I will certainly be supporting this.

Mr. Emerson: In the expansion area, is that going to be parking lot?

Mr. Fischer: That is for future building; that area will be graded, seeded and maintained.

Chairman Okum: There was also a contribution by the applicant of space up at the corner for a City icon location. To get the impervious surface ratio of .75 does not utilize that expansion area; once they build the building they are still at .75 or below.
There were issues with being able to get the whole development built at once, so this is their answer to that.

Mr. Weidlich: I would like to make a motion that we grant Thompson Thrift Development at the corner of Princeton and Kemper Roads a 1’ setback from the public right of way on the northwest corner of Princeton Pike.
Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

(Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with a unanimous “aye” vote the request for a 1’ setback variance at 11580 Princeton Pike was granted.)


Chairman Okum: There is one item for discussion, the revised application. Some months ago we worked on an application and we really never finalized that and Staff wanted us to do that. I will send you a copy of the final draft that we have for the application. There was also a check-list that I put together for Board Members to use to answer the requirements and that would be optional; I use a check-list at Planning Commission for things that I want to keep in front of me. This check-list would not be part of the packet but it would be a check-list for you to use to make sure they are meeting the standards that are set in our Code. The only thing I ask is if you do adopt or decide to use that check-list personally, that you destroy it because we typically don’t want to keep our papers. I will get that out to everybody in plenty of time before the next meeting so that we can have a discussion and adopt it and we can get it on the website, as well, so that it is the same.

Mr. Campion: I have a question of the last item on the agenda; because of the variance that was granted on the impervious surface ratio, what happens to that variance?

Chairman Okum: It goes away because they re-parceled and re-plotted so that it is no longer the same plot that it was before; but in this particular case because they have chopped up the parcels they are realigned. That is why it is important when we have a referral from Planning Commission that somewhere in our motion we adopt into that statement especially if it is a very complex issue, that we make sure we incorporate a “Condition upon”. I usually make the motion in Planning Commission and I always include “Conditional upon Board of Zoning Appeals review of variances and approval”; same thing if it is a PUD.


Chairman Okum: I will accept a motion for adjournment.

Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mr. Hawkins seconded; all members of the Board of Zoning Appeals signified by saying “aye” and the meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2010 ___________________________________
            Chairman Dave Okum

________________________,2010 ___________________________________
            Secretary Jane Huber