BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

18 APRIL 1995

7:30 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

He stated in the absence of Secretary Roosevelt Joe, I will ask Mrs. Stanton

to serve as acting secretary.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Wilton Blake, James Young, Councilwoman Marge

Boice, Councilwoman Kathy McNear, Linda Stanton

and Chairman Ralph Nadaud

Members Absent: Roosevelt Joe

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 21 MARCH 1995

Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six

affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -14 March 1995

B. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes - 28 March 1995

C. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 3 - March 1995

D. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 3A - March 15, 1995

E. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 4 - April 1995

F. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated due to the length of the agenda, I did not come

prepared for a Council report. Basically everything we have been dealing with of late will not impact on this board, so if youíre interested, you might want to catch the replay on t.v.

G. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Blake reported we did have one item under New Business, which was a concept discussion. Rick Joseph of Jo-Mar Properties had a proposal for a Tuffy Auto Service at 370 Northland Boulevard. There were so many complications, we put that to the side and asked him to bring it back again. We also had discussion regarding temporary signage and the time frame that the planners have to make their submissions to the Planning Commission; we had been running into some difficulties with that.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Chesterdale Associates owners of 11733 Chesterdale Road (WCI-Waltek) requests variance to allow the outside storage of some of the finished product. Said variance is requested from Section 155.106(B)(1) "all raw materials finished products mobile and other equipment shall be stored within enclosed buildings". (tabled 2/21/95)

Tim Sullivan, Attorney and Bob Sanders of Waltek approached the board. Mr. Sullivan reported we were here several months ago, and if any of the board members have had an opportunity to see the business since then, they will have found that it was and is a cyclical problem with the storage of materials outside. problem which brought us here originally.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Two

V A WALTEK 11733 CHESTERDALE RD REQUEST FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE-cont

Mr. Sullivan continued we would like to share photographs which were taken to show what we think the business looks like from the residential area. We understand that is the concern, and that the residents donít want to see outside storage work in progress. As a result, the company put chain link fence completely surrounding this area with slats that go through all the chain link so you canít see it. I think these pictures confirm that from the viewpoint of the residents, there is nothing obnoxious you see at all. You see the fence but mostly you see vegetation. Also, the pictures call attention to the fact that the homes are quite some distance away from the fence and the business building itself; it looks like they are at least 100 or 150 feet away. Section 153.101 points out that the purpose is to protect residential and commercial districts by limiting the types of manufacturing uses in those areas. We think what has been done will protect the residents in the future, and the cyclical nature of the problem will make it minimal. Mr. Sullivan presented the pictures to the board members. Mr. Sanders is here if there are any questions. We also would like an opportunity if there are residents who address the board to respond to their remarks.

Mrs. Boice commented I was out of town at the February meeting, and I was really stunned when I found this was back on the agenda. I thought we were pretty definite about the way we felt about outside storage the last time. I am most interested to see and hear from the residents as to what has changed if it hasnít or what.

Mrs. McNear commented Mr. Sullivan, what you say is true, that we definitely are concerned about the view that the residents have from their properties. Regardless of how far away the business is from their properties, they still want to get full use of their yards. I drove by the property, and you can see the storage from Chesterdale. Itís an eyesore to see it from that street as well.

Mr. Sullivan responded my understanding is that Chesterdale Road is the border between Springdale and Sharonville, and if there were any residents on the other side of Chesterdale they would not have the benefit of this board or any of the rules and regulations. Mrs. Boice commented we are talking about the residents on our side. Mr. Sullivan continued we would agree that they should not be denied the use of their yards. I did not personally go onto the yards nor did the photographer because we didnít want to trespass, but I did see it from the business owner side. There is a lot of vegetation there which blocks the fence itself. Also, there is a great difference, probably between six and eight feet, between the level of the yards and the level of the building, so most of the fence is not visible at all. With respect as to why we came back, it was at the suggestion of the building official. Mrs. McNear commented you can still see it as you drive down the street, and it is against our laws to have outside storage.

Mr. Sullivan responded we understand that is what the ordinance provides and we are requesting a variance. The reason for the variance is that is the nature of the business and it was unfortunate that a confluence of events caused those things to set there for a period of time. The company recognizes that they shouldnít set there open and visible to everybody from their back yards. We think weíve done things to solve that; if anybody has any suggestions to do anything else, I know the company would be happy to respond.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Three

V A WALTEK 11733 CHESTERDALE RD. REQUESTS OUTSIDE STORAGE-cont.

Mr. Young commented I thought the point was to show the back of your property to give a better idea of what impact the residentsí view is, and Iím having a hard time telling that from these pictures. Mr. Sullivan responded those are taken from the front of the houses whose back yards are adjacent to the business. If you were to be in the house looking out your back window, you would see pretty much what you see in the pictures. It is true that it is very hard to see where the building is and where the fence is.

Mr. Young continued are you saying that you put up a fence with lattice work? Mr. Sullivan answered yes, it is a light brown lattice through the chain links so you canít see through the fence itself. Mr. Young commented I think what we need to do is have the residents come up and get their viewpoint as to what is going on.

Mr. Nadaud asked the residents present who wish to address the board to come forward. I also have some pictures here that Mr. Keith has brought.

Mr. Robert Keith, 11724 McClellan Lane said my property is adjacent to Waltek in the back. I gave you some pictures, and I would like you to observe the mess in the back of there. There have been as many as five trucks backed up against the property adjacent to mine, which they load and unload every day. They have a forklift they bring out and haul and load the trucks where there is no fence or lattice work. There are all wild bushes there which is all to block me from seeing everything that goes on. I can see everything. My point is this. If they move that stuff out of the side of the building next to the Kroger Company, they have as many as eight to 10 big open doors, and they could back the trucks right up to the building, load and unload without anybody seeing. To me the only reason they load on the south side of the building is because they donít have room to back their trucks in to load off the docks. The doors are open and you could back the truck right in and you wouldnít see them loading or unloading or anything, but they canít get their trucks in there to do it. So they bring them around to the other side where there are no open doors to load or unload and they pull the forklift out and load their truck and thatís what a lot of the debris is from right at the bottom of the hill. They donít clean up. Once they clean up like the board asked them to do, they could move their trucks in and out on the side where it is supposed to be done and not adjacent to our property. You can see in the pictures what all is laying there, plus the bushes that were supposed to be cleaned up a year ago. They brought a couple of people in, cut some of them down and that was the end of it. They didnít clear it all out; they didnít get it all off the ground. Itís still laying there from last year.

Bernard Janson, 11752 McClellan Lane said I am the last house on the street, and I see everything Bob sees. Tim said he is concerned about the residents, but we are concerned about the whole area, not just us but what you see driving down Chesterdale Road too. I hate it when summer comes because when you are out in the yard and they are working during the day, the sound of metal vibrating comes out our way also. I complained about the back door the meeting before last. Bob is right; on the north wall they have eight doors up to tailgate height of a tractor trailer that they could back in and we would never know they are there. They could put their stuff inside at no expense to them. It was made for that.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Four

V WALTEK 11733 CHESTERDALE RD. REQUESTS OUTSIDE STORAGE-cont.

Janet Janson, 11752 McClellan Lane said the slats you claim you put in the fence only is in the back of our yard, and we are concerned about what Springdale looks like. If any of you have driven there, you can see it looks like a dump. And the plastic in between whatever you are having blows all over on a windy day. Thatís not cleaned up regularly and it is a big nuisance and a mess to Springdale. Also, the pictures we brought are actually flattering; it makes it look decent, and it is not.

Mrs. McNear stated I would like to make a motion, and I will bring it up positively to make it easier to understand and vote upon, but I move that we grant the variance as stated. Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion.

Mr. Blake commented my question is to the property owner; I never could understand the purpose of wanting outside storage.

Mr. Bob Sanders answered what happened on that project was it was delayed for six months and we had bought all this material. It was a unitized job, which means it was factory assembled; the stone and glass is put on the trusses and it is shipped like that. We had so much material, we couldnít put any more in the yard, and we tried to get them to let us store it on the job site but they wouldnít let us, and we stopped production on it; there wasnít anything else to do.

Mr. Sanders continued Iíd like to respond to your remarks about the bushes. We want an amiable relationship with our neighbors; I talked with every one of them and asked what we can do to make it look nicer. There are a lot of overgrown bushes, and we cleared a lot of the under brush out. When we talked to one neighbor he said donít clear that out because I want that buffer there and the other said this is all garbage; please clear that out. So, weíre in a Catch-22. I said weíll give you two guys to work on the area and do whatever you want them to do, weíll pay you to show them what you want us to do. That was turned down, and we are in a quandary as to what to do to try to appease them. If you want us to put a tall fence along the north side with the slats in it, weíll gladly do that. We have grown a lot faster than anticipated, and on occasion we will have some stored material that will not ship the very next day. We ship probably five or six trucks out per day. Thatís the first time I heard that it bothered them that we loaded the trucks on the other side. That is good feedback, and maybe we can clear out the first dock or two so we can start loading on the other side. We are running a second shift right now, and I donít know if that is bothering anybody. Maybe we can just load the trucks on the first shift. Weíll do what we need to do to try to appease our neighbors. We are good people trying to make a living.

Mrs. Boice said I will pull from memory of a year ago, as I recall you stated then that this would be a consistent thing which you just stated again. The suggestion was made from this podium that with your business expanding the way it is, you need to be looking for a storage facility. Have you pursued that?

Mr. Sanders answered yes, we have put an offer on a piece of property in Sharonville; they have until Friday to respond, so we are seeking outside sources. At the time it was suggested that we could rent an outside facility to store the material. We came up with a rough estimate of something like $350,000, which we tried to get the general contractor of the project to pay for, and he would not do that. Mrs. Boice responded a year has past and youíre just going to find out Friday?

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Five

V A WALTEK 11733 CHESTERDALE RD. REQUEST FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE-cont

Mr. Blake commented as I hear the gentleman speak of trying to commit with some kind of agreement, I am in a quandary. I would like to hear from the residents; is there any proposal that you all have that could be done? Iím ready to listen.

From the audience, Mrs. Janson answered do not have an outside storage. Mr. Janson added or build a building. He has room to build another building on there, and it might be cheaper than renting in Sharonville. Can you not enclose where you have the storage now?

Mr. Sanders answered with construction costs, it would be cheaper to purchase a building. Mr. Janson stated in the short time you have been there, if your business has grown that much, you should have the funds to do this. Mr. Sanders said you would think that, but in the construction business you collect the money any time from 60 to 90 days. A growing business devours cash. You really canít see over that fence, and if we put a fence on the other side, the north side. Is it the noise that is bothering you? Mr. Janson said what about the flat trucks on the south of the building; they are setting there all the time. And on the outside of the fence on Chesterdale is a tractor trailer that is there all the time.

Mr. Keith added what about the five or six trucks behind my property loading and unloading, stuff setting on the ground. When are you going to load from the other side of the building where your docks are? That is the purpose of the big doors on that side of the building. You havenít got one on this side; they set there week after week. Even your merchandise is setting on the ground waiting to be loaded. Why do we need five or six trucks there; I can see them from the back of my property.

Mr. Sanders asked if it would help if we put up a fence? I canít guarantee that we will always load on the north side of the building. I can talk with the shop manager. I am sure we can do it more often than we have. Mr. Keith responded I know you moved some of your stuff on that one side, because it used to be nothing but solid material.

Mr. Sanders commented unfortunately with the length of the material, we cannot load from the back of the truck. If they are unitized trusses, they will be 20 feet in length, and the truck bed is eight feet wide and you canít pick it up from the back. You have to load it from the side.

Mr. Nadaud commented we could argue about this all night, but we do have to move on.

Mr. Young commented Mr. Sanders, you mentioned talking to a few of the residents to try and work things out. Was there any thought of putting together a meeting to talk about what should be done for the betterment of everybody? As a businessperson, I donít understand why you didnít invite these residents into your property to show them some things and try to work something out, as opposed to showing up here a year later again asking for this variance. I think the residents have a valid point, and I understand your concern because you are in a situation where you are trying to transport things in and out, and you are caught at certain times. I guess my feeling is I wouldnít have let it get to this point.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Six

V A WALTEK 11733 CHESTERDALE RD. REQUEST FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE-cont

Mr. Young continued it is striking, as Mrs. Boice said, that you are looking at a piece of property but youíve just done it in the last week? Mr. Sanders answered no, when you look at property you are talking anywhere from $800,000 to $2 million. Mr. Young responded I understand that, but it seems to me too that you were also looking at a piece of property at the last meeting that was in Sharonville; I might be wrong. Mr. .Sanders answered I canít think of any other property we were looking at.

On the motion to grant the variance, no one voted aye, and Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice and Mr. Nadaud voted no. The request was denied with six votes.

Mr. Nadaud commented I wish there was something you could do to work things out with the community and with the residents. I have noticed in the past two months since this was tabled that there was no improvement on the north side of that lot. I did notice the front of the building is very well kept and landscaped, but the north side is like a junkyard. I donít see any means of improvement as you go by this property. I would like to think there was something we could do, but at this point of time, you will have to look for other methods of storing your material.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Earl Burt, 954 Tivoli Lane (Heritage Hill) requests variance to allow the construction of a 10í x 16í utility building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 "A separate accessory building shall not exceed 120 square feet in area"

Mr. Burt said I am requesting a variance from the 10í x 12í limit to

construct a 10í x 16í building. I have contacted Heartland who would do the construction of it, so it wouldnít be something that I would throw together. I know I have to go five feet from the property line, and 20 feet from the building, and that is no problem at all. It wouldnít be an aluminum building. I have a building there now which is an eyesore and I am going to take it down. I have lived there 28 years, and these houses do not have basements. I have accumulated a lot of stuff over that period of time. I would like to put my yard tools, mower, tiller, edger and trimmer in there, and there also is a work bench that I would like to have in there.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the neighbors had any problem with this, and Mr. Burt answered no, I got four neighbors to sign this, and they didnít have any problem at all.

Mrs. Boice asked the size of his present building, and Mr. Burt answered I donít know. It is not this large. It might be 8í x 10í or 10í x 10í, but it is way too small for what I need. Mrs. Boice commented all we are considering is the size, because he has no problem with setbacks. I did not get over there to see your house, but I am familiar with the property.

Mr. Burt commented itís not noticeable from the street; you would never notice it from there or from any of the four neighbors. It is grown up; there are trees and shrubs back there. It is something that would not be an eyesore. My only problem was the size - 10í x 16í is what I am requesting.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Seven

VI A EARL BURT 954 TIVOLI VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT 10í X 16í SHED - cont.

Mr. Young commented for anyone that didnít make it over to his house, the neighbor to the west will never see the shed because of the foliage. From the back yard, the neighbor in the back cannot see either. I think it will be a big plus; the old one, as Gene said, needs to come down and he will be something new up, and I think it will be great.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance for Mr. Burt at 954 Tivoli Lane to go from a 10í x 12í to a 10í x 16í utility building. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mrs. McNear commented I drove by Mr. Burtís property, and you can only see a couple of feet of the utility building. I think the only reason I saw it was because I was looking for it. Iíve been by his home many many times and never noticed the building before. Most of the surrounding property is covered by shrubbery and trees, and I think it would definitely be a plus for your yard.

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

B. Kevin Puccini, 11994 Tavel Court requests a variance to allow the construction of a 10í x 12í utility building in the side yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(C) "...They shall not project into or be located on a front or side yard."

Mr. Puccini stated I am requesting a variance to put a shed up on the side yard. There is an existing shed at the back and Iíll show you pictures; it is an eyesore - it is leaning. The ground is low, and it sets on the lowest part so all the drainage comes down there and settles. I do not want to build back in the same spot because it is wet. If I want to increase it to 10í x 12í which I do for storage of outside things, I have to bring it forward. There is a small hill that comes up, so I have to build it even higher so could open doors, or on a slant which wouldnít be practical. I have pictures that show the shrubs which I intend to keep for the neighbors. From the point in the front that you can see the old shed, you still will be able to see the new shed, but it will be a lot better than the existing shed. I checked with the neighbors and got their signatures and none of them had any problems with it.

Mr. Nadaud commented Iím not clear on where you intend to put this. The old shed is in the corner and will come down? Mr. Puccini confirmed this and showed where the new shed would be. Mr. Puccini added I am going to move the fence. Mrs. McNear commented I saw where the old fence was; where will the new shed be? Mr. Puccini said it is not against the house; it is on this side of the house, and showed pictures.

Mrs. McNear commented I think the problem he has with the shed is because he is on an irregular shaped lot, and no matter where you sit anywhere looking into his property, you will see the shed. Mr. Puccini responded from the front, you cannot see it. The property line runs down beyond the bushes. Mrs. McNear said you have a tough lot to work with.

Mrs. Stanton commented I wanted to make it clear why you didnít want to replace it in the rear yard, because of the drainage? Mr. Puccini responded yes, it settles in and this one is rotting as you will see from the pictures.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

18 April 1995

Page Eight

VI B KEVIN PUCCINI-11994 TAVEL CT.- UTILITY BUILDING. IN SIDE YARD-cont.

Mr. Puccini continued also, I would like a 10í x 12í shed, and in that area I would have to bring it forward from the rear fence, plus the five feet forward, and either raise it up so I could open the doors or place it on a slant.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the new fence would extend beyond the front of the house, and Mr. Puccini answered no.

Mr. Young I was out there yesterday and we were talking about it. If you tried to put a 10í x 12í back where the existing shed is, you would be up against your property line back there. So if he did that he would be in here for a variance because he would be too close to the property line.

Mrs. McNear commented I have a picture that shows the fence flush with the rear of the house and the new posts are on the side. Are there any problems with that? Mr. Puccini stated this is the line, and it is not even up to the gas meter. Mrs. McNear continued so these new posts are 18 feet in front of the existing fence. How do we stand with that? Mr. McErlane responded it depends on where it angles. Mrs. McNear said so it has to follow this line here, and that would be considered back yard? Mr. McErlane reported the fence can go all the way up to the face of the building. Mrs. McNear responded but that would still be considered side yard. Mr. McErlane responded yes.

Mrs. Stanton moved to grant the variance and Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Young, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Richard Agar, 11823 Woodvale Court requests a variance to construct a 9í x 10í utility building 2 feet from his residence. Said variance is requested from Section 153.024(C) "..shall be located not less than 5 feet from the main building..They shall not project into or be located in a front or side yard."

Mr. Agar stated the proposed location is in a side yard, and I have a screening fence in bad repair and will remove and want to put up a utility building. The only flat location is in the side yard, and the side yard is less visible to the surrounding homes than our back yard. In our back yard you have a clear view from Glensprings Drive.

Mr. Nadaud asked if he had any problem with his neighbors, and Mr. Agar responded no, including Mr. Joe who is not here this evening. His property backs up to our house because of the way the lots are cut.

Mr. Young commented I stopped by, walked around and looked at the property, and the back yard slopes back. It would be pretty tough to put something there. When you bought the house, was the structure on the side, the fence that is up? Mr. Agar answered no, I put that up. Mr. Young said and you are talking now that if you put the shed up that will come down? Mr. Agar confirmed this. Mr. Young asked if he had gotten a variance for the fence since it is in the side yard, and Mr. McErlane reported there is no prohibition for fences in your side yard. You can extend a fence up to the front setback line of your house.

 

Board of Zoning Appeal Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Nine

VI C RICHARD AGAR 11823 WOODVALE CT. - SHED IN SIDE YARD - cont.

Mrs. Boice said you are talking two feet from your house? Mr. Agar answered approximately. Mrs. McNear asked if there would be enough space to get a lawnmower in there or would it be a concrete slab? Mr. Agar responded it would probably be gravel in the section between the house and the concrete slab where the utility building will be. It is gravel currently.

Mr. Nadaud asked if this were for storage of the usual garden items? Mr. Agar said it was. Mr. Nadaud asked if he thought it would be a problem with the storage of gasoline that close to the home, and Mr. Agar responded no, considering my gasoline is now in my garage attached to my home. I would consider it to be less of a problem separated.

Mr. Blake moved to grant the variance and Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion. Mr. McErlane commented it is not listed that way, but it also includes a side yard issue. Mr. Nadaud stated we are moving to allow the shed to be constructed two feet from his residence in the side yard. Mr. Blake so amended his motion and Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

D. Jerry Ash, Mid-Day, Inc. requests variance from Section 153.083(A) the GB (General Business) requirements at 11107 Springfield Pike to allow the residential use of the property

Mrs. Boice said before we consider this matter, I wanted a consensus from the Board. Over the years, I have done some business with Mid-Day, and I was wondering if any of you would feel uncomfortable if I participate in this or would you prefer that I step aside. The members stated they had no problem, and Mr. Nadaud added I also have had some work done by them.

Jerry Ash reported we have been on Springfield Pike for 16 years, and have acquired another piece of property and are attempting to fix up the properties down there. This gentleman who works for me has been with me for over a year said if he could rent that building from me, he would be happy to help fix up that building plus the other buildings we have down there. I thought it was a great idea. There had been people living there on and off ever since I have been there. When T. R. Gear Landscaping was there he had people living upstairs. I didnít know it was a problem, the gentleman moved in and within two weeks we found out we were in violation, that after six months time with it setting empty, you are not allowed to have someone move in there because it is zoned General Business instead of residential.

Mr. Ash continued I am asking for the variance because I feel it doesnít harm that area to have someone live there, considering that on both sides there are residences, and going all along Sharon Road, which abuts our property, itís all residences. I think it will be for the betterment of Springdale to have these businesses fixed up until a major player comes in and buys that property, whenever that happens. This gentleman and his wife would be there with no children; I know he will not cause problems and I think it is a good deal for everyone involved, if we can get the variance.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Ten

VI D MID-DAY INC. 11107 SPRINGFIELD PIKE RESIDENTIAL USE OF PROPERTY

Mr. Young asked his future plans for this building? Mr. Ash responded I would like to rent it out as a business; that would be my first choice. The business was extremely run down when we took it over. I had zero bites for almost a year. Maybe one day we will move in there; I donít know. We are in two of the buildings now and we started in one. Itís quite possible we might be in three, but right now I donít know that. I would like to fix the building up and have a business in there; that would be ideal for me. At this point in time, we have h ad to recarpet, we are striping doors and woodwork and getting it ready. The building has been painted and we have a new deck; we are making improvements.

Mr. Young said is the work you are doing for residential or business standpoint? Mr. Ash answered a combination of the two. Fixing of the upstairs could be offices or showroom for antiques or whatever.

Mr. Nadaud commented Iím not sure due to the General Business zoning, if we could adopt a variance. It would have to be on a limited basis, am I correct?

Mr. McErlane responded it is not automatic that it be on a limited basis, although I think if the intent is for it to go business totally, it probably should be handled on a limited basis. Mr. Nadaud said that would be to your benefit also, Mr. Ash, a limited variances for maybe a year. Mr. Ash responded we were hoping for two years. I thought it would take me that long to get the businesses in.

Mr. Young asked how long the businesses have been zoned that way. Mr. McErlane responded probably as long as the businesses started to build down there. Mr. Ash stated Iím guessing 1984; weíve been here since 1978. Mr. McErlane added it would be my guess that they zoned a number of those properties general business at the same time, and not just piece meal, so it may have happened around the same time your business went in.

Mr. Young continued the reason I ask that is at one time Springdale didnít have that requirement, because my mother owned a business and we lived on top of it where Provident Bank is.

Mrs. Boice commented she would have been grandfathered when the zoning came in. Mr. McErlane stated as it stands, if a property is rezoned to business and is currently used as a residence, it can continue to be used as a residence as long as it doesnít discontinue for a period of more than six months. Then it canít revert back to the nonconforming use. Mrs. Boice commented I think having it occupied is far superior to having it empty.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant a limited variance for a period of one year, to allow for this to have a residential flavor rather than business. Even though you have asked for two years, you can come back next year and talk with us about it again. I think we should begin with a one-year limited variance. Mr. Blake seconded the motion. On the motion, voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Stanton and Mr. Nadaud. A one-year variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Eleven

VI. NEW BUSINESS - continued

A. Zaring Homes requests variance for driveway at 465 Vista Glen Drive (Lot 41) in Glenview Subdivision. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(G) "Driveways shall be a minimum 19 feet wide from pavement edge to pavement edge at its narrowest point."

Mr. Mark Stenger stated we are asking for a driveway variance. The regulations require a minimum 19 feet from side to side. On Lot 41, that driveway is already installed. It is my understanding that the pavement is about 18 feet side to side. I have requested a variance of 17 feet just in case we are not exactly sure on the measurement. I canít tell you why this was installed at 18 feet. I was speaking with Bill McErlane earlier this evening and he thought maybe the builder wanted to avoid a temporary electric structure and narrowed it down at a certain point. Or it may be that we do have a new builder, and he may not have been aware of the regulation. It is my understanding that the purpose of the 19 foot wide driveway requirement is to alleviate onstreet parking. At 19 feet you can stack cars in your driveway side by side. Eighteen feet will allow that as well. Another element to Lot 41 is there is a 40 foot setback and that is deep enough to allow cars to stack front to back, and still not interfere with the sidewalk. Given that the purpose of the zoning code is met, I would ask that this variance be granted.

Mrs. Boice commented this is not the first driveway variance you have come in for, and the last time there had been a request for a blanket variance, and we all agreed that we preferred to see them on a one time basis. I made a point of going over the last time they were in to check how all this was working out, and from what I can see it is working out very well. So this is a standard request that we knew would be coming back in. I have no particular problem with it, and would move that the variance be granted at 465 Vista Glen Drive for a driveway that is less than 19 feet wide. Mr. Stenger reported I was told that it was 18 feet wide, but I would prefer to be safe and would ask for a variance of 17 feet. Mrs. Boice said then letís have the variance state between 17 and 18 feet; can we do it that way? Mrs. McNear asked if it had been measured and Mr. McErlane reported we have not measured it. Mrs. Boice said do we want to wait until we get a measurement? Mr. Young stated I looked at it yesterday, and it canít be off by much. You canít look at that one and the one next to it and tell much difference. Mr. Nadaud suggested granting it for 17 feet. Mrs. Boice changed her motion to 17 feet wide and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Young, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Stanton and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

F. Zaring Homes requests variance for driveway at 490 Vista Glen Drive (Lot 49) in Glenview Subdivision. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(G) "Driveways shall be a minimum 19 feet wide from pavement edge to pavement edge at its narrowest point."

Mr. Stenger stated this driveway has not been installed, but this driveway is in the ball of a cul de sac, and with pie shaped lots, they narrow in to the pavement. What happens is you can stack four lots around the cul de sac, and it looks like there is plenty of room to put your driveway in. But by the time you extend that driveway up to the pavement, things start to look tight. Additionally, I believe there is a C G & E transformer pad and maybe some other items. For those reasons, we want to avoid the infrastructure and make the lot more appealing, and we ask for a variance to allow a 16 foot wide driveway with a six foot flare.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Twelve

VI F ZARING HOMES 490 VISTA GLEN DR. DRIVEWAY VARIANCE-continued

Mr. Stenger continued we want the driveway to narrow 16 feet at its minimum width, and we want the apron to flare in to the actual street pavement. Mr. Nadaud commented at the street it would be 17 feet. Mr. Stenger asked if there were any requirements for the flaring of the apron, and Mr. McErlane responded the Public Works Department policy is they require the flare to be at least the depth of the grass strip between the sidewalk and curb, and normally that is no more than five feet. Typically you have to tack five feet onto your driveway width, and that is what the flare width is, which would make it 21 feet in this case. Mr. Stenger responded then we would not need to have a variance on a policy matter particularly. Mr. McErlane stated not necessarily, but is the consideration to make it 17 to a 16 foot driveway? Mrs. Boice commented he has 16 feet on the width of the driveway, coming up to 18 feet at the top and 17 at the flare of the apron. Mr. McErlane stated that will be the call of the Public Works Department; that really isnít a variance issue. The width of the driveway is. I think he may have a concern about only a foot difference in the flare.

Mrs. Boice said so basically we are looking at the width of the driveway, and the Public Works will have to zero in on the flare. Mr. McErlane reported the concern over squeezing it in there is there is a storm sewer inlet in the cul de sac on the left side as you face the house, and there is a subdivision regulation requirement that the apron cannot be any closer than five feet to that, so that pushes the driveway to the right. On the right side of the driveway behind the sidewalk are electrical transformer, maybe a cable box and a telephone box.

Mr. Young asked if they are looking at a figure of 18 feet at the house and 17 feet down here, why are we going in like an hourglass to make it 16 feet? Why donít you just use straight line and make it 16í 8" or whatever it turns out to be? I donít understand why we are going in and back out.

Mr. McErlane responded this apron happens between the sidewalk and the curb, and that is typical that it flares out.

Mrs. McNear asked the depth of the driveway. Mrs. Boice said this driveway is not in; what is your timing for pouring? Mr. Stenger answered soon. Mrs. Boice continued I was going to suggest I am wondering if it might be better if Public Works took a look at it. Mr. McErlane reported they have, and they wouldnít allow them to go ahead and pour the apron because they could not have their standard flare width and still squeeze it in. Mrs. Boice said so they are awaiting this variance? Mr. McErlane said yes, because that determines what the width of the driveway is at the back. Mrs. McNear commented we allowed the other one because the driveway was so deep that you could park two cars there without crossing the sidewalk, but we donít know the depth of this one. Mr. McErlane reported the minimum setback is 40 feet for the whole subdivision. That was something set under county zoning at the time, and we accepted that. Mrs. Boice asked the length of the driveway, and Mr. McErlane answered it would be 40 feet from the sidewalk. Mrs. Boice commented I hate to be in the position of granting a variance if our Public Works people have a problem with that.

Mr. Stenger stated as I understand it, the request for a variance is from the zoning requirement of minimum width and that is what we are asking for. Once that is secure, the designers and Public Works could figure out the best way to flare the apron.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Thirteen

VI F ZARING HOMES 490 VISTA GLEN DRIVE DRIVEWAY VARIANCE-continued

Mr. McErlane reported the width of the flare would normally be 24 feet at the curb, and there is not enough room to do this and still miss the transformer and everything on the other side of it and get the five feet from the catch basin. In order to reduce that and maintain their standard flare, they would have to reduce their driveway width or it would have to be offset in some strange fashion. They are holding up on the driveway apron based on whether or not they obtain a variance. Mr. Nadaud commented so they are saying they have to have a flare. Mr. McErlane responded they have to; itís probably not as critical in the case of a cul de sac because you are not approaching the driveway perpendicular to the driveway.

Mrs. Stanton commented we donít know though, that the flare couldnít be 18 feet Maybe Public Works could say the flare is 18 feet and still be within five feet of the sewer. We donít know if it couldnít remain at 18 and the driveway at 17. Mr. McErlane commented Iím sure they would want some kind of flare on the driveway. Mrs. Stanton stated if the driveway were 17 the flare would be 18. Thatís only about half a foot on each side, which isnít much of a flare. Mrs. Stanton responded but you are talking a two foot variance versus a three foot variance in the driveway width, from 19 to 16 to 19 to 17 which we allowed. We just donít know at this point what Public Works wants, and I think we need to know that.

Mr. Nadaud asked the objectives of having a driveway 16 feet wide? Mr. Stenger answered utilities were a problem, and we still could stack the cars so you could get the parking off the street. Weíll do it in the way we know best so it looks right in the subdivision and works for the homeowner, and Public Works will work with the builder to put the flare in given the driveway minimum. When it is all said and done, I think weíll have the best driveway for that situation. But, there is a zoning regulation on 19 foot minimum, so we have to start here.

Mr. Nadaud repeated my question to the Board is what objections are there to narrowing that driveway to 16 feet rather than 19 feet?

Mrs. Boice responded I donít have any objection on that. They are showing the flare as 17 feet, which is only a one foot variance. If Public Works is waiting for us to cut a variance, I donít see that you have any other choice with those utilities there; I think you have to go with the 16 foot driveway. How they are going to work out that flare, I have no idea. I have no problem with the 16 foot and thatís the issue we are looking at.

Mr. McErlane reported if I could give you a feel for the 16 foot, the typical double wide garage door is 16 feet, so it is physically possible to put two cars together on it. Mr. Stenger added and that is a minimum of 16 feet. My notes indicate that weíll build it 16í6" if we can.

Mrs. McNear commented the purpose of a variance is sometimes because their hands are tied, and the builderís hands basically are tied because of the utility poles and the sewer. They are trying to make an attractive property; they are very high level, costly exquisite homes, and I would move that we grant the variance for the 16 foot driveway. Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice and Mr. Nadaud. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Fourteen

VI. NEW BUSINESS - continued

G. Tim Hershner, Hershner Associates requests variance to Section 153.092(E)(5) for one 10 foot ground sign for project (OíCharleyís & Tumbleweed Restaurants and third tenant) at 11305 Princeton Pike. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092 (E) (5) "The height of a ground sign shall not exceed seven feet." (Referred by Planning Commission)

David Eyrich reported Mr. Hershner is in Florida, and I represent the current owner of the property, Greg Pancero. These two variance requests are the outgrowth of the Planning Commission process.

Mr. Eyrich continued this property is at Tri-County Parkway, Merchant Street and Princeton Pike in front of the old Cincinnati Financial Center. It is to be divided into three lots. OíCharleyís Restaurant is to be developed next to Cookers, Tumbleweed Restaurant is in the middle, and a third lot where the detention pond is has no contract on that currently.

Mr. Eyrich stated this variance is requested by all three potential property owners. They could put three separate seven-foot signs up, but rather than do that, there is one access in the middle of the three lots, and it would be better in their opinion and I think in the opinion of Planning Commission to have one 10-foot sign which would announce all three uses.

Mr. Nadaud said and the 10-foot sign would be over the maximum allowed by code? Mr. Eyrich responded yes; the code says seven feet. Mr. Nadaud asked if that was the square foot requirement? Mr. McErlane answered the variance is only for the height. It meets the maximum square footage requirements.

Mrs. Boice commented I donít know how many of you had a chance to peruse your Planning Commission minutes, but going through all this and watching how it has developed, I think Planning has done a super job on this, going with the ground sign and getting the placement for other signs to come. They even went into detail to have a decent looking color in he blank until the blank is filled in. I do not have a single problem with that; I think it was a nice job done by Planning, and agree with them completely.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variance for one 10-foot ground sign for the project at 11305 Princeton Pike. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Young, Mr. Blake, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Stanton and Mr. Nadaud, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

H. Greg Pancero requests variance to allow outside storage of mesquite firewood and cardboard at Tumbleweed Restaurant, 11305 Princeton Pike. Said variance is requested from Section 153.093 "...the open storage of products...is prohibited..." (referred by Planning Commission)

Mr. Eyrich reported this is on behalf of the middle user, Tumbleweed Restaurant. Their concept involves mesquite firewood in the cooking of certain foods. They do not store that firewood within the restaurant area. They have a separate outbuilding.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Fifteen

VI H VARIANCE TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE - 11305 PRINCETON PK - cont.

Mr. Eyrich continued in this case, it would be part of the outbuilding which is the dumpster outbuilding immediately behind the restaurant. Initially it was designed at the property line, but at the request of the Planning Commission, it was moved directly behind the restaurant. This is enclosed, and would have an appearance which would match the appearance of the restaurant.

Mr. Nadaud commented in reading the minutes of Planning, there also was a question about the cardboard. What was the purpose of the cardboard storage?

Mr. Eyrich answered the cardboard is simply a recyclable material, which they would hold it there and recycle that material. Iíll refer that to Scott Katz, who has been through the whole Planning process with Tim Hershner. Mr. Katz reported in the restaurant business, they have a lot of boxes and they use that for recycling.

Mr. Nadaud asked if this would be covered, and Mr. Eyrich answered yes, the wood would be covered; they want to keep it dry. I am not sure of the roof material, but the exterior is designed to match the restaurant.

Mr. McErlane reported there were several details shown for dumpster enclosure, and one of them indicated a red metal roof, but it did not show up on the other details. I donít know if that is typical. Mr. Katz commented it would be consistent with the materials used in the building itself.

Mr. Nadaud said what I was getting at is will the facility be completely covered, or just portions of it? Mr. Eyrich answered it is a dumpster, so just the firewood portion would be covered.

Mr. Blake commented let me say there was some discussion on Planning with regards to the storage of the cardboard. There were members on Planning who were not opposed to the storage of the firewood. There was quite a bit of opposition, and in my opinion the Planning Commission did not go along with the storage of the cardboard. They felt the cardboard should be put in the dumpster and disposed of.

Mr. Young asked do we have anybody else in Springdale that stores cardboard for recycling? Mr. McErlane responded as a matter of fact we did have a lot of recycling dumpsters show up, especially at food service operations. As part of that, we were requesting them to enclose them in a dumpster enclosure, and most of them removed them because it wasnít worth the hassle for them. At Wal-Mart they recently put an enclosure in back of their store to put bundled cardboard until it could be picked up to be recycled. By ordinance for trash container enclosures, it does require you to put those within an enclosed area, similar to a dumpster enclosure. It doesnít specifically say you can store them outside of a container, but the intent is to have it enclosed until you can dispose of them properly. I donít know that this is that much different from that as long as it is kept neat.

Mr. Young asked Mr. Eyrich if it is that advantageous to recycle the amount of cardboard that this business would take in? I can understand Wal-Mart doing it because they probably are taking in thousands of pounds of cardboard every week, but Iím wondering how much a restaurant would have and if it is really worth that kind of effort.

 

Board of zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Sixteen

VI H VARIANCE TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE - 11305 PRINCETON PK - cont

Mr. Eyrich responded I do represent a number of restaurants, and they do have a good amount of cardboard. They are getting shipments every day. I donít know how important it is to them. I know the Tumbleweed people are progressive thinking people, and I think they want to feel they are doing something for the environment. Mr. Katz added that is it exactly. It is more effort for them to do it. That is what they do in all the restaurants.

Mr. Nadaud commented I think this is something we will have to consider a lot more in the future too. Did I understand you correctly, the fire code would allow this? Mr. McErlane responded it wouldnít be any more of a fire hazard than a dumpster would be, although the dumpsters are metal. There is really not a restriction on outside storage from a fire code or building code standpoint relative to fire hazard.

Mr. Young said so what you are saying is the cardboard doesnít necessarily have to be put in a metal structure like a dumpster. They can just house it? I thought you referred to other restaurants before. Mr. McErlane reported the other restaurants instead of building an enclosure which would have cost them money, were actually getting a different color dumpster and Rumpke wanted to argue it wasnít a dumpster, it was a recycling receptacle. I guess they were kept a little neater because they didnít have garbage going into them, but they were a dumpster. They didnít have to put any expense out to enclose it at that time and in most instances where we told them they would have to enclose it, they did away with the recycling dumpster.

Mr. Nadaud asked Mr. Eyrich to estimate how much cardboard would be stored in there. Would it be a weekís supply or a monthís supply? Mr. Eyrich answered I suppose it would be a weekly pickup. There probably would be 40 or 50 boxes. Mr. Nadaud continued how will they be stored in there, bundled? How will they be kept neat and clean? Mr. Eyrich responded actually they break them down so they are flat and stack them and bundle them. Mr. Katz added they would be under the enclosed area.

Mr. Nadaud commented as you said before, it is more effort to do something of that nature. Just so it is not something that would not die out and later on become an eyesore; that would be my concern.

Mr. Blake said let me express my uncomfortableness with cardboard and firewood being stored in the same area. I would be more comfortable if they put they cardboard in some kind of dumpster or some kind of recyclable container. If somebody came by and torched the cardboard, then you would have the wood going too. If they could look at it in terms of having it put in some kind of container where if something happened it would at least be contained and wouldnít catch with the wood being stored there at the same time. Planning had no problem with the firewood in the storage, but it was the cardboard in conjunction with that where the problem lay with quite a few members, me included.

Mr. Katz stated we may be able to design something where the cardboard could be on one side and the wood on the other with the dumpster in the middle, just separate the two.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Seventeen

VI H VARIANCE TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE-11305 PRINCETON PK cont

Mrs. McNear commented my understanding was there was to be a roof over the wood; will this be the same enclosure as the dumpster? Mr. Eyrich confirmed this. Mrs. McNear continued how do you get the dumpster out to empty it? Mr. Katz reported the roof would be over the wood section. Mrs. McNear asked him to describe how this wood would be stored. Will it be a locked facility? Mr. Katz answered there is a gate; I am not sure it will be locked. Mrs. McNear asked what the materials that the walls would be?

Mr. McErlane reported it is a wood siding that matches the building. It shows a roof over a portion of it and double gates. Mrs. McNear said so all three of these things would be four-sided and there is a roof just over the mesquite section. Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Mrs. McNear continued but it is open in the front. How high is this? Mr. Katz answered six feet, and there would be a roof over the wood portion of it and the wood itself would be stacked.

Mrs. Boice asked how much wood the restaurant uses and Mr. Eyrich answered I donít know. That is what they cook with; I think they use it continually.

Mr. Nadaud asked if spontaneous combustion is something to worry about? Mrs. Boice commented if it is not covered, the recyclers are not happy with wet cardboard. Plus, it is outside storage, and we just turned someone else down on that. I have a problem with this one.

Mr. Katz asked if they could do it if they had a separate enclosure for the cardboard portion of it?

Mr. Nadaud commented I donít have as much problem with the wood as I do the cardboard being exposed to the elements and a possible fire hazard there.

Mrs. Boice added not only that, this is cardboard that food is being delivered in, and there is going to be residue in there. Mr. Nadaud commented like rodents. Mrs. Boice responded I would think so. Again, it is the outside storage.

Mrs. McNear stated I would not have a problem if they had another receptacle in there for their recycling. I applaud your efforts to do that; it is something we all need to be concerned about. I donít think you should have them lying around or bundled together because they will deteriorate with the weather. On the outside storage, we faced this several times with Wal-tek already and we didnít want to set a precedent there with outside storage, and I donít think we should make an exception here either.

Mr. Eyrich commented as a suggestion, if you would make a condition that the cardboard would have to be in a separate metal container or whatever you desire, I am sure they would either live with that or if it is not, it has to be in the dumpster.

Mr. Young said I was going to say basically what Marge and Kathy said. The metal dumpster makes more sense, but the other concern is while the intent is to save the cardboard neatly stacked, the reality of the world is it doesnít function like that every day. If you would walk in at any time, there could be cardboard thrown all over the place.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Eighteen

VI H REQUEST TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE-11305 PRINCETON PK-cont

Mr. Young continued if there were a storm there could be wet cardboard and wood everywhere, and we donít want to do something that will not work well for the city. I would think entertaining an idea with a dumpster would be better, but it is not something we could do tonight because what is in front of us is a variance to allow the cardboard and the mesquite wood. We can vote on it, or we can table it. Mrs. McNear added we also could handle it as separate issues.

Mrs. Boice said the wood is going to be totally enclosed, or will it be three sides and a roof? Mr. Katz answered it would be accessible from the dumpster. If you walked into the dumpster area, the dumpster would be on one side and the wood would be accessible. Mrs. Boice continued if you have a driving rainstorm will the wood still be dry? Mr. Katz answered itís to keep it as dry as possible. They might have something inside to dry wood if it would get wet. Mrs. McNear commented I also wonder about using the wood to cook my food when itís been stored next to the dumpster.

Mr. Eyrich commented the cardboard is obviously bothering the board. We could withdraw that portion of the variance if it helps. Mr. Katz asked if we kept it in a separate enclosure would we need a variance? Mr. McErlane answered no, as long as it was in the enclosure like the dumpster was.

Mr. Nadaud commented I think I would feel better with that. Marge brought up an interesting thought about food scraps being carried out with the cardboard and may attract rodents.

Mr. Blake I guess I am a little confused; I am hearing new things. You are saying the proposed storage area for the firewood would be enclosed on three sides, and if there is a blowing rain, itís going to get wet. My question is why not enclose it so you can guarantee that it will be dry if that is the purpose for the outside storage. I donít understand the rational of the three sides.

Mr. Eyrich answered I do not know enough about their operations. Apparently it works elsewhere and keeps the wood dry enough. I know I put my wood under my deck, and itís open on one side and does a pretty good job. Mr. Katz added I assume they put the cover on to keep out the majority of the rain.

Mrs. Boice said you have no storage inside at all for this mesquite wood? Mr. Katz answered they would have a small amount as they use it to keep some dry and ready to go. I donít know if they could store firewood inside. Mr. McErlane added there is probably a way they could do it but from a practical standpoint itís not a good thing to keep it inside. Not only from a fire code standpoint, but probably from a cleanliness standpoint. I realize it is being used in the food preparing operation, but if you keep a large stack of wood and if it has insect problems... Mrs. Boice commented I never heard of mesquite wood; I always heard of mesquite chips.

Mr. Blake commented I am looking at Mr. Youngís suggestion to table, and since they have a good way to go on this, it may be better to table for further information to make all of us feel more comfortable.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Nineteen

VI H REQUEST TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE-11305 PRINCETON PK-cont

Mr. Eyrich responded I think to table this further would be damaging. We have had a couple of closings scheduled. Weíve gone through a long planning process, and to table this project over some firewood would be damaging. This restaurant uses firewood, and they need to store it somewhere. This is what they do all over the country, and if they canít use firewood in their cooking, they wonít be here. Itís just that simple; that is their concept, and it is a successful concept.

Mrs. McNear asked if the company would be willing to completely enclose that firewood? Instead of having it open on one side have it closed up? That is my major problem with the storage of this. It is considered outside storage. If you completely enclose it, that would satisfy my major concern, that we set a precedent for outside storage. I know you have a very unique situation because this is the basis for the business, but again I want to make sure we donít have outside storage.

Mr. Eyrich asked a separate entrance for the firewood? Mr. Katz added or walk into the enclosure and have some kind of wall. Mr. Eyrich continued have a separation between the dumpster portion and the firewood portion, so they are like two rooms in effect. Mrs. McNear added so they would be completely enclosed.

Mrs. Boice so if you have your firewood, whether it be an aluminum deal you pull up like a garage door to reach in and get your firewood. You were in the audience when we were discussing outside storage with the other applicant. We try not to set precedents here. To you it probably seems like a very small item, but it is a precedent-setting type of thing.

Mr. Eyrich answered I understand, and I was here to hear that, but I do not see that it is anywhere comparable to that particular situation. There are no residents that will be looking at this, and it was designed by Planning Commission recommendation up against the building with wood to match the building.

Mrs. Boice responded I understand what you are saying; it is a different situation, but when an applicant comes in, they donít see it that way. They say down the street you did this and that. I am slightly concerned because I donít like the idea of it being open.

Mr. Eyrich commented I think that is a reasonable recommendation. I donít know what the company will say, but I donít see what they can say.

It sounds reasonable to me.

Mr. Blake commented Iím glad to hear Mr. Eyrich say it sounds reasonable. I was really getting a little annoyed, because we heard this same thing before Planning that if you donít do it, theyíll pull out and we had a special meeting and we really tried to work for their concerns. Mrs. Boice expressed it best when she said we try not to set a precedent. We are trying to work with you within a framework that we can feel comfortable with, so someone canít come back and say you denied us but you allow them to do this. If you are saying to us they are willing to work, then maybe we can come up with something that will please us so we donít have to get it thrown back in our face that we granted one variance and denied another, and I think Mrs. Boice expressed it very astutely. Mr. Eyrich responded absolutely.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Twenty

VI VARIANCE TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE-11305 PRINCETON PK-cont.

Mrs. McNear asked Mr. Eyrich if he thought the company would be interested in having it completely enclosed and having two dumpsters, one for recycling and one for garbage?

Mr. Eyrich responded I personally do not see why that would be objectionable at all. I canít speak for the company; I really donít represent them. I only know what they said, what their concept is and what they do elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely reasonable. Mrs. McNear added we are trying to work with you and I think that would be reasonable; you are here as their representative, and who else can we ask? Mr. Eyrich responded I couldnít agree with you more. Mrs. McNear said if you think you can sell this to the people you work for, then I would be willing to put this in the form of a motion. Mr. Eyrich answered weíll sell it; whatever you feel comfortable with. Let me say, this Board, Council, Planning - Iíve been to all three, is one of the most thoughtful groups of people Iíve ever seen. Every detail is thought out, and that is appreciated. We appreciate your listening to us, and we are willing to work with you, absolutely. And incidentally, it was Mr. Blake who was concerned about the color of the blank spot on the sign at Planning Commission. Mrs. Boice responded I read that with a bit of amusement and then a bit of pride that somebody was even concerned about that blank space.

Mr. McErlane reported if the firewood becomes enclosed, and the cardboard is held in a container, there is no necessity for the variance, unless you want to go on record as denying the request for variance which means they would need to go back and work on an enclosure for firewood and putting the cardboard in a dumpster. That just sends a message that no you canít have outside storage. Mr. Nadaud commented thatís a very good thought.

Mr. Blake commented I guess Iím a little concerned; we got burned one time with Walgreens when a fellow came up and said weíre going to do a certain thing and the company said something else, so Iíve been burned. What I am saying, Mr. Eyrich, is I hear you, and I know what you are saying, but Iím not comfortable unless we go Billís route of denying it unless somebody from the company says they are willing to do this. You are making it perfectly clear that you donít speak for the company; you agree with it, but you have to take it to them. I just wanted you to understand my position.

Mr. Eyrich asked Mr. McErlane if they can just go ahead and build an enclosed structure? Mr. McErlane reported if they decide to enclose the firewood, and decide to put the cardboard in a container, then they are within code and wouldnít need a variance. Mr. Eyrich asked if it requires a lot of modification from the current plan? Mr. McErlane answered probably not, just a wall and a door.

Mr. Eyrich stated what I would like to do then, rather than have it denied. In 20 years I donít like to have things denied, it kind of taints the projects. I would just withdraw the request for variance, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness; I really do.

Mrs. Boice said for clarification, this enclosure for the wood is a separate entity, not any part of that will be a part of the fence? The fence will be a separate part, am I clear on that?

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 April 1995

Page Twenty-One

VI H REQUEST TO ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE-11305 PRINCETON PK-cont.

Mr. McErlane reported I donít know if they can be part of the same unit. If they want to utilize the same type of design, I would picture it as built as an integral unit. It would just be that the firewood would be totally enclosed on all sides.

Mr. Young said it is chain link around the back sides of this, with slats? Mr. McErlane responded no, it is wood. Chain link is not acceptable to enclose dumpsters. There were several different details on the enclosure that were submitted. Mrs. Boice said so the entire enclosure is made out of wood. Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Mrs. Boice continued in other words you have to build something here to close off that wood completely, am I correct? Mr. McErlane said right. Mrs. Boice said so the actual structure will be used on three sides. As long as it is totally enclosed there is no problem and you can withdraw your request for variance.

Mr. Eyrich requested that the request for variance be withdrawn. Mrs. Boice moved to withdraw the request for outside storage at the request of the applicant, and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the request was withdrawn with six affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Blake stated there were a couple of places I did not know on the agenda, Mr. Pucciniís place and Mr. Burtís place. I was wondering if there was a possibility to put the phone number. Mrs. Boice said we could put the area in, like Heritage Hill, and Mr. Blake commented it was listed in Heritage Hill, but I didnít know where it was. I wonder whether we could put a phone number. Mrs. Boice responded I would hesitate to give out their phone numbers.

Mr. Young said actually our map needs to be updated; it doesnít have Glenview Subdivision. Mr. McErlane stated we do have a street locator map that has it laid out in a grid similar to what is in the back of the phone book and weíll see that you all get one.

Mrs. Boice commented I really was very enthused tonight. There was a lot more participation; everybody was jumping in there and swinging, and I really liked it. I thought this was a good productive evening. Mr. Nadaud commented good participation.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mrs. Stanton seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

_____________________,1995 _______________________

Ralph Nadaud, Chairman

 

_____________________, 1995 _________________________

Linda Stanton, Acting Secretary