BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 MARCH 1995

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Wilton Blake, James Young, Linda Stanton, Council-

members Marge Boice and Kathy McNear, Roosevelt

Joe and Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 21 FEBRUARY 1995

Mr. Blake moved for approval and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice

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

were approved with six affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 14 February 1995

B. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Last Wednesdayís Council meting was student council meeting,

and we had a group that got into a really good discussion on various items from the noise ordinance to animal nuisance. It was an interesting group, and I think all of Council enjoyed it. This evening we had a special meeting just before our meeting in connection with work that will be done on S.R. 747 and I-275 and the ramps. We had to have the special meeting tonight because the state required that we get certain legislation to them before our next regular meeting.

C. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Blake reported all of the members have a copy of the written report, and I would like to reiterate that the Planning Commission will be having a special meeting on March 28th to discuss the final approval of the OíCharleyís and Tumbleweed Restaurant. I also would move that this report be received and made a part of the official Minutes. Mr. Joe seconded the motion and by voice vote, all voted aye.

Report of Planning Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals

The following action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 1995:

1. Champion Window Co. requested to put an enclosure outside.

Passed 5-2

2. Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing for day care facility at

110 Merchant Street Passed 7-0

3. Final Approval - OíCharleyís & Tumbleweed Restaurants at

Northwest Corner of Princeton Pike & Merchant Street

Tabled until March 28 Special Meeting

V. OLD BUSINESS - none

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 March 1995

Page Two

 

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Debbie Sawyers, Property Manager, Hunterís Glen Apartments requests variance to hang two banners up to four weeks not to exceed 8 weeks per year). said variance is granted from Section 153.16(C)(3) "Temporary signs, balloons and search lights may be permitted in General Business, Motorist Service or Retail Service Districts."

Ms. Sawyers stated we would like to request another temporary variance for one year for the banners to be put up as you normally permit commercial properties to do. This is a residential property, and we donít fall under the same guidelines. We were given a variance in 1993 for one year, and we didnít even use all the time allotted to us; we didnít need it because we did a very good job leasing the property. We are back to having hard times again with occupancy levels, and we need to do a campaign. One banner is right over our entrance and one is on the side of the building that faces our entrance down by the pool off Chesterdale Road. You really canít see them that well; it is more when people come up that direction, they can see them. Sometimes you can see it a little bit from the interstate. So, we would like the same kind of variance we had before. We were permitted to have eight full weeks per year but we were also permitted four weeks continuous if need be with 30 day span in between.

Ms. Sawyers continued since I have been the manager, for two years, we have put up balloons regularly by our front sign and throughout on the weekend or something of that nature. The last time we put those up we were told by a city official that we were not permitted to put any balloons up. I would like to ask about the balloon situation; if that is considered signage or something of that nature.

Mr. Nadaud called on Mr. McErlane. Mr. McErlane asked if balloons were the only things that were up, or were there pennants? Ms. Sawyers responded Iím sorry I forgot; we did have small pennant flags on strings at our front sign and went down off all four corners and tapped them into the ground to make it noticeable. Mr. McErlane reported we do have a strict prohibition against pennants. It probably wasnít so much the balloons if you were talking about a group of balloons, we really usually donít bother about that, but pennants are specifically prohibited anywhere.

Ms. Sawyers added we have stiff competition. You have Cambridge Park and the new property, and we are having a real tough time with those two competitors. They are in Union Township and they can do anything; they put up signs, banners - they grab peopleís attention driving by, and I would like to have that opportunity. We a very family oriented property and it is fun for a lot of our residents to see things of that nature. Weíre not trying to detract from our neighborhood or look tacky. When we start to dip in occupancy, and we started to rise a little bit and are at 92%. Eight percent of 400 units means a lot of tax revenue to our community as well as school revenues. Most of those apartments are two and three bedrooms which brings in mainly families with children. I donít know that a lot of the other properties has the difficulty that Hunterís Glen has, but we would like to see the zoning board help us out a little bit. We donít want to make a mess out of it or go against the ordinances; we appreciate the city that we live in and we like to see the way it is run. We need some help. Sometimes itís eyecatchers that make the difference.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 March 1995

Page Three

VI A. HUNTERíS GLEN APARTMENTS VARIANCE TO HANG BANNERS-continued

Ms. Sawyers continued the last time I was here we did a Come Hit the Jackpot theme with a casino, and we did quite well with that. I will say that we did appreciate the variance we received before because it did make a difference; it did help.

Mr. Nadaud said the banners you were granted in 1993 did help you to secure new tenants? Ms. Sawyers answered I couldnít ever be completely honest; how would I ever really know. It always is incorporated with a major campaign theme which goes along with advertising in different sources and flyers. There are a lot of different advertising techniques used within this campaign, but it is our sense that the big to do atmosphere does help.

Ms. Sawyers continued when I came to see this board in February of 1993, we were 81% occupied. We started that campaign and went on and off with it through the year and by December we were 95%. Iím not saying it has to do with change of management or anything, but we did turn things around. I also think it has to do with attitude; residents love it when they see a bunch of balloons. We do record our traffic sources, and some people say it was from your sign or banner, but what that percentage was I really donít know, but I think it is part of a major ad campaign for an apartment community. If you notice places close by, you will see things like this going on pretty regularly.

Mrs. Boice asked what the occupancy is right now and Ms. Sawyers answered 92.7%. Three months ago it was 88%, and we are moving back up again. I thought I had it licked the first year when I got it to 95%, but typically it goes up and down. The property was built very poorly, and there are a lot of problems with it.

Mrs. Boice asked if they are still renovating a lot of the units? Ms. Sawyers answered we are not doing as many as we were. This year we will do 24 of them, but we probably have a little over half of the units upgraded. We still have a lot of original construction problems; we have water main breaks every three or four weeks, plumbing problems. The acreage is very small, 18 or 19 acres but we have 130 units more than a like space at The Colony, so it is a pretty tight area. Mrs. Boice asked the age of the property, and Ms. Sawyers answered it was built in three phases, 1970, 1971 and 1972, so youíre right on 25 years. We have quite a number of newer competitors; Goldcrest in Sharonville is doing major upgrades and they advertise, so itís a little hard on us and we really have to compete to get people.

Mr. Nadaud said so your request is actually not to exceed eight weeks per year Ms. Sawyers answered I think thatís all we need; I think two or three campaigns we can limit it to having banners up two to three weeks at a time, skip a month or so and then do another campaign. I was just hoping to have this set for spring, maybe a campaign in summer, maybe a campaign at school time. That should work well. We donít need the banners that often, but when we do decide we need to do a campaign, we would like to have them.

Ms. Sawyers asked if there is any way to make a variance permanent for this sort of thing? Mrs. Boice commented I guess thereís a way.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 March 1995

Page Four

VI A. HUNTERíS GLEN VARIANCE TO HANG TWO BANNERS - continued

Ms. Sawyers continued you have to consider an apartment community residential, and I know you have to make a complete distinction between commercial and residential. But an apartment community is nothing but a commercial business trying to make money. I canít see why it couldnít be a permanent one unless it has something else that Iím not aware of.

Mrs. Boice responded banners are a little bit different; we are not talking setbacks here. Weíre talking banners, and I donít think we have ever granted a variance in this area for more than a year, because we like to take a look at it down the road. I think Springdale is a model city as far as signage is concerned, and we have kept a tight line on that. So as a permanent variance, no way. Ms. Sawyers commented thatís understandable.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant a variance for a period of one year with the clear understanding that the total use of the banners is not to exceed eight weeks per year, and that we will allow the discretion of Ms. Sawyer that was allowed in the variance granted in 1993. Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Joe and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

B. Robert A. Speidel, 12158 Marwood Lane requests variance in order to construct a privacy fence in his front yard. Said variance is granted from Section 153.038(A) "..yard structures shall not be permitted in a front yard."

Mr. Speidel stated we want to have a privacy fence from our house to the street. Evenings we like to sit out and enjoy the weather, and the church has services all the time and we get blinded by the lights. We just want privacy, thatís all. Mr. Nadaud asked if it were similar to the one across the street? Mr. Speidel responded we have the same problem.

Mrs. Boice asked how many times a week do they have services? Mr. Speidel answered it seems like they are over there every night; they always have something going on.

Mr. Young commented the house is a pretty similar setup to the gentleman we granted the variance to. It is a dead end street that backs right up against the church. I agree with this gentleman; if I were living there when I wanted to sit out and enjoy the evening, it would be nice to be able to do that without headlights or any other kind of lights. Mrs. Boice commented I agree.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the church owns the chain link fence there now? Mr. Speidel answered no, that is ours. Mr. Young asked what he was going to put up there, and Mr. Speidel answered another six by eight pieces. Mr. Young asked if it were wood paneling and Mr. Speidelís son answered basically it looks like that the picture is, 6 x 8 foot pieces.

Mr. Nadaud commented I do not have any problem with your request; I can understand your concerns and your situation with the lights.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 March 1995

Page Five

VI B ROBERT A. SPEIDEL 12158 MARWOOD LANE VARIANCE FOR FENCE-cont.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance from Section 153.038(A) to allow this gentleman to put up a privacy fence on his front lawn. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Joe and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Speidelís son said since we put the six foot fencing up and with the guardrail out, we have had a lot of problems with people jumping the fence. I wonder if there is anything that can be done with that. They are jumping the fence, our fence and your fence and our neighborís fence. and I wonder if I can put a sign on the fence and say private property stay off. He is the owner of the home and he comes out and they use foul language towards him. There was a guard rail there and now they tore that out and put a six foot fence in and they canít get over it. Eventually someone will get hurt. We call the police and cannot give our name because the last time we did they damaged the car.

Mr. Nadaud commented I donít think the Board of Zoning Appeals could do anything to help you outside maybe allow you to put a sign up there. It is a private fence, right? Mr. McErlane said the fence you are talking about is at the end of the road. It is not a private fence; Public Works put that in. I assume they put that up to keep people from climbing over to the church property. Mrs. Boice asked if it would be better to take that down? Mr. McErlane responded I assume they put it up for a reason, and took down the guardrail posts. The guardrail posts probably functioned for what they need to do. There had to be a reason for putting the fence up.

Mr. Speidelís son stated we did not even get to go to the meeting, and then we tried to talk to people, and they said it was already granted. There is a minister that lives down the street and now he has to drive all the way around the block to get to the church. There is a lot of inconvenience. We have all been kids and jumped fences, but my point is if they fall over into his property and get hurt, we will be sued. Itís an accident waiting to happen.

Mrs. Boice stated there was some discussion on this at Council. I think Mr. Osborn is out of town right now, and I would suspect he will have better recall on this than I do. This is right at the end of Marwood? I remember some discussion, but if you would leave your name and phone number, Iíll get back to you the first part of April. It seems to me that we did this because we thought we were avoiding problems

Mrs. McNear commented we might want to put a gate or some kind of opening or path through there. When I was campaigning, a lot of the neighbors in Heritage Hill that had a lot of problems with that because the kids would cut through to go to church and they had to send their kids all the way around to Chesterdale Road and they were concerned about the safety feature.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 March 1995

Page Six

C. Daniel Kennedy, Forest Dale Church of Christ requests variance to reduce the lot at 578 West Kemper Road to 75í wide in order to provide additional area to Parcel 144 so that a house may be built. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(D)(2) "The minimum lot width shall be 80 feet..."

Mr. Kennedy stated we bought that corner property about five years ago. Somebody had visions of acquiring all the property between the corner and the church. That canít happen, but we have just acquired the property next door; this property has worked out real well because it gave us a nest egg. We are in the process of selling it. We sold the one lot to Gertrude Seider, and she has plans for a house that probably will be about 45 feet deep. We want to sell 25 feet; we can sell 20 feet without a variance, but by giving her five more feet, she wonít have to get a variance for her house. Mrs. Boice commented that will affect your setback. Mr. Kennedy said that is on the side of the house, and there is plenty of room, 54 feet. If we take 25 feet off, we still have 29 feet. Also, there are other parcels that were sold off on Greenlawn some time back. By moving this line the whole 25 feet, it straightens the property line for 578 West Kemper all the way back to its full length, which is another advantage. We would like to clear this up before we put the house on the market.

Mr. Young asked what will happen to the house that is 578 West Kemper? Mr. Kennedy answered we are in the process of bringing that up to condition where we can sell it. There are windows that need to be replaced; we just spent $5,500 to put in a new basement wall. As soon as we get that ready to sell weíll put it on the market, and weíll take the money from that and pay on the mortgage on the property next to the church. The house she wants to build would face on Greenlawn.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Kennedy to point out where Kemper Road and the church is on this drawing. Mr. Kennedy stated the church is way down the street, and showed Mrs. McNear where Greenlawn and Kemper is.

Mr. Nadaud asked if Mrs. Seider already owns the corner lot, and Mr. Kennedy confirmed that she owns that 100 feet. Mr. Nadaud continued and you want to sell her the additional 25 feet. Mr. Kennedy confirmed this. Mr. Young commented sheíll have to do some work on that lot to put a house on it. Mr. Kennedy stated there is plenty of room there by positioning the house on Greenlawn. Mr. Young added she has a gully that sheíll have to fill or do something. Mr. Kennedy said I donít think so; it is a matter of landscaping.

Mrs. Boice asked if she is planning on splitting that lot; it will be

125í x 210í. Mr. Kennedy answered if you look at that lot, there is a culvert here, and as you come up the hill here, the house will have to be positioned. Mrs. Boice responded thatís right; there are some ground problems there.

Mrs. McNear said if we would grant this variance, would we be encroaching on any easements on the property behind it? There will be 29 feet behind the buildings. Mr. McErlane stated the 29 feet is a side yard setback, and the required setback is 10 feet.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

21 March 1995

Page Seven

VI C VARIANCE TO REDUCE LOT AT 578 WEST KEMPER ROAD - continued

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance as requested, and Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Young, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Joe and Mr. Nadaud. Variance as granted with seven affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Nadaud said it was nice having this information in our packages for us to review prior to the meeting. We had an opportunity to see where the fence was going. It was a good idea.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Blake if he recently had required the doctorate recently; should we be congratulating you? Mr. Blake stated I received my doctorate about two years ago.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________,1995 _________________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman

 

 

_______________________,1995 _________________________

Roosevelt Joe, Secretary