20 APRIL 2004

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

  4. Members Present: Robert Apke, Marjorie Pollitt, James Squires,

    Robert Weidlich, Jane Huber and Chairman Okum

    Members Absent: Fred Borden (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  7. Mr. Squires moved to approve and Mr. Apke seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 9, 2004
    2. Zoning Bulletin – March 10, 2004
    3. Zoning Bulletin – March 25, 2004
    1. Report on Council Activities – James Squires

    Mr. Squires reported that Council had the first reading of the Kemper Pond development which will include an IHOP, and a first reading on the Zoning Code amendment on the Springfield Pike Development Standards.

    Mr. Borden arrived at 7:05 p.m.

    B. Report on Planning Commission – David Okum

    Mr. Okum reported on the April 13th meeting. The approval of a conditional use permit and proposed development plan for Steak ‘N Shake was granted. Provident Bank requested relief from the condition to paint their roof at 11525 Springfield Pike, and applicant requested this be withdrawn. CVS Pharmacy requested approval of message board type sign on top of existing sign on West Kemper Road. Message boards are not permitted, and the height of the sign would be 12 feet and seven feet is what is allowed so this was denied. Approval of Tri-County Mall interstate identification sign was tabled at the request of the applicant, and approval of the final development plan for retail building in Cassinelli Square (where cinema was). After much discussion, the applicant requested it to be tabled.



    20 APRIL 2004


    1. Approval of variance to allow the construction of a 1,600 s.f. single family dwelling and creating a new lot of 65’ located at 445 Dimmick Avenue and to create a lot less than 80 feet wide. Said variance is requested from Section 153.069(A) "Single household dwellings. .shall have..lot width of no less than 80 feet" and Section 153.075(A) "The minimum area for single household dwellings..shall be 2,000 s.f." – tabled March 16, 2004

    Richard Hoekstra of 453 Dimmick Avenue said the property currently has 200 feet of frontage and is divided into four 50-foot lots, 50 feet by 125.

    Since we proposed this, we have additional information. We were told by the Building Department that we could build on one of the 50-foot lots as long as we met side yard restrictions and the 2,000 s. f., which we can. In talking with Mr. McErlane, he said if we could do something to adjust the lot to a larger width to accommodate more of a standard type home, 2,000 s.f. and meet the side yard requirements, we should try to do that.

    We had the property surveyed and we have created a 67 foot lot, which will allow us to build a traditional home. We build homes all around Cincinnati, and we have a standard plan that sells very well. This probably will sell between $170 and $185,000. It will have a two-car garage and will have approaching 2100 s.f., and we can meet the front rear and side yard requirements very easily with this 67 foot lot.

    So the only variance we need would be for the 67 foot lot (80 foot is required). Mr. McErlane had said if you can create a nicer lot and give us a 2,000 s.f. home and meet all the side yard requirements, we would much rather see that than try to fit an odd shaped home on that lot.

    Mr. Hoekstra added you can see that we have had the 67 foot lot surveyed off and it will accommodate a 2100 s.f. home (passed around a rendering very similar to what they will build). It has a two-car garage, nice front porch, four bedrooms and 2 ½ baths, and it is 2075 s.f. It will have a full basement, but that is not included in the square footage. We probably would have brick on the front first floor part of the elevation.

    Mr. Okum said for the record, the plot plan shows a 0.1923 acre site next to an existing 0.3817 acre site, a 60-foot frontage with a 125 foot depth. He also submitted a representation of the type of home the applicant would like to put on the site.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant proposes to construct a 2,000 s.f. ranch style home. The applicant also is proposing to split part of the existing 200 foot wide lot (four 50-foot parcels) to create a 67 foot by 125 foot lot. Clarification needs to be made by the applicant as to the proposed dwelling area. The applicant is proposing to construct a residence on a 67-foot wide lot that will be formed from the easternmost two parcels of the four which make up the property at 445 Dimmick.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Lohbeck added that although the 67 foot lot when consolidated improves the width of the non-conforming 50-foot wide parcel, a variance is necessary because the new lot would not conform to the current minimum of 80 feet. Staff supports this part of the application because it brings a 50-foot parcel closer to compliance.

    Should the board decide that a variance is appropriate, they may wish to condition the variance on exterior finishes, general building style and footprint.

    Staff also recommends that each of the parcels created by the lot split be consolidated, one 67-foot lot and one 133-foot lot.

    Mr. Okum asked the width of the home, and Mr. Hoekstra answered that it is 45 feet. I am consolidating the other lots. When I talked to Mr. McErlane I wasn’t sure what I had there until I had it surveyed. I will commit to you to go ahead and consolidate the house I live in and the remaining lots into one parcel. This probably will be the most expensive home on the street, and we think it will be a nice fit to the neighborhood.

    Mr. Okum said so you propose to consolidate the four lots into two, one 67 feet and one 133 feet. Mr. Hoekstra answered yes; I will have two parcels instead of four. Mr. Okum asked why he would retain the 133 foot lot. Mr. Hoekstra answered there is a house and a five-car garage, and it is better for the neighborhood for that not to be subdivided.

    Mr. Okum said the applicant has indicated that he intends to do an all brick face and the board can put that condition on the approval. Mr. Hoekstra responded I did say a brick face on the first floor. Because of the way it is constructed, there would be too much brick weight on the second floor.

    Mr. Okum said the applicant has indicated that the home will be more than 2,000 s.f. and a masonry face will be applied on the front first story elevation and meet all the other zoning requirements. It would be a reduction of four lots to one lot of 67 feet and the other to 133 feet.

    Mr. Squires moved to approve the consolidation of four 50-foot lots at 445, 453, 461 and 469 Dimmick Avenue. Mr. Squires withdrew his motion, and Mr. Okum opened the public hearing.

    Elizabeth Wolf, 462 Dimmick Avenue said you are talking about the numbers, and there is a house now at 447 Dimmick Avenue, which is next to the lot he is talking about.

    I object to any house being built on that lot. This would be the third house in three years where a lot has been sectioned off next to another house. Springdale has spent taxpayer’s money to keep green space around our public buildings. Why can’t you use the codes already in existence to keep green space around what you now call Springdale Park?



    20 APRIL 2004



    Mrs. Wolf added you keep putting more and more houses in this area, and it just doesn’t make any sense. The one at 447 was put on a 50-foot lot which had been cut off from the house next to that. Now there is one being put up at 468 Cloverdale and in order to get the 2,000 square feet, they look like skyscrapers. They are just trying to cram too many buildings into that area.

    No one else came forward, and Mr. Okum closed the public hearing.

    Mr. Squires said I’m not sure I have the numbers correct. Mr. Okum said you could reference 445 and 453 and the two adjacent properties connected to 453.

    Mr. Lohbeck said I would suggest that the board recommend to grant the variance per Section 153.069(A) for the 67 foot wide lot, with the condition that the lots be consolidated to one 67 foot lot and one 133 foot lot. If your intentions are to grant the variance, you grant it from Section 153.069(A). That is all that is required and you are putting conditions on it to consolidate the property.

    Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance per Section 153.069(A) to vary from the 80 foot wide required lot to allow a 67-foot wide lot and the other parcels to be consolidated into one 67 foot wide lot and a 133 foot wide lot. This is conditioned on it being a brick front on the first story and more than 2,000 s.f. living space, and the other properties to be consolidated.

    Mr. Lohbeck said I don’t think the condition for the 2,000 s.f. living space needs to be on there. Mr. Squires withdrew the more than 2,000 s.f. living space from his motion.

    Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

    Addressing Mrs. Wolf, Mrs. Pollitt said I can understand your concerns about some of the houses that have gone straight up on the 50-foot lot. We have had a lot of residents complaining, and I can appreciate this. I can also appreciate what this builder is trying to give you something that will not be as bad as a tall structure, not be a straight shotgun, and will be more pleasing and fit into the community better. I think we have to accept the best that w can get if we look at the alternatives, and I think this is the best we can get.

    Mrs. Wolf responded that 67 foot lot is still a lot less than the 80 feet. The structure doesn’t sound like it will be a straight up skyscrapers; I agree that it sounds a whole lot better than the one that is right next to it, 447 and the one that is being built on Cloverdale. But, it seems like you are setting a precedent that anybody can build on these lots. That is what is happening in our neighborhood, and I’m sure it isn’t just our square block, it’s everybody else’s too. That is what I object to more than anything, people selling off small portions. They are not sticking with these 80 feet.




    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Okum said we created the 80 foot requirement. Originally the lots were set at 50 feet. I don’t know if you have two 50-foot lots on your site. Mrs. Wolf answered I have five. Mr. Okum said that means you have the ownership of five 50-foot lots. The City can’t just arbitrarily go in there and consolidate those lots. That is your property. We had an applicant come in with a 47-foot wide lot and wanted to build a smaller home on it. The Board did not allow it, but he was able to build one of these 2,000 s.f. skyscrapers on that 47-foot wide lot in accordance with the Zoning Code legally and without a variance from this board.

    Mrs. Wolf responded I am saying that I don’t like it, but I understand it.

    Mrs. Pollitt said I appreciate your coming tonight and speaking; it is very important for us to hear from the residents.

    Mr. Borden asked that the motion be reread. Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance from Section 153.069(A) to allow a 67 foot wide lot with the condition that the front of the first story be brick and that the other properties are to be consolidated into a 133 foot lot.

    Mr. Borden asked if the motion needed to include what the other properties are. Mr. Okum said I don’t think so; you could say the adjoining properties to the west if you wanted to be more specific, but I don’t think that would be necessary.

    Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he understood the motion wand was in agreement with the requirements and conditions set forth. Mr. Hoekstra indicated that he was.

    On the motion, all present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative and one negative votes. Variance was granted 6-1.

    B. Angela Wilkinson, 1169 Benedict Court requests modification of Variance 23-2003 (granted 12/16/03 to allow utility building to be 3’ from the south and west property lines). Her request is to allow the utility building to be 13"-4’ from the south property line and 34"-22" from the west property line. The variance is from Section 153.067(B) "..must not be less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot line.

    Ms. Wilkinson stated when I originally entered my first variance request, I took a tape measure and put it against the side panel of the storage shed and measured it to my fence on the right side. Then I went to the back and did the very same thing in the middle of the back.

    You granted me the variance request and when the inspector came out to do the final inspection, he called me and let me know that there were four different measurements which he gave me. When I asked him how he got them, he informed me that I should have measured the storage shed from corner to corner to the fence. He gave me those measurements.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Ms. Wilkinson said that two of the measurements were in compliance, and he said that the other on the right side from the front of the door to the fence, and on the right side from the back., He told me that I needed to resubmit it. I asked him if these ware the measurements I needed to request, and he said yes, so I am here to ask for them.

    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

    Mr. Okum said we do have on file an aerial photo of the parcel and he showed it to Ms. Wilkinson.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.067(B) which requires an accessory building to be five foot minimum from rear and side lot lines. The applicant received a variance on 12/16/03 to allow the accessory building to be three foot from both the rear and side lot lines. The three foot dimension was represented by the owner as the existing setbacks to the accessory building, which had been placed illegally without a permit.

    The applicant at the December meeting represented that the location was necessary to place the accessory building at a higher point on the lot to keep rainwater from entering.

    After the permit was issued, Gordon King, Building Inspector inspected the building and found it to be considerably less than the three foot from the property lines.

    The applicant is asking the Board for a modification to the variance to allow the building to be 13" minimum from the south (rear) lot line and 22" minimum from the west (side) lot line. The applicant is stating that the variance is necessary for the same reasons as were stated in December for the three-foot dimension.

    The Board was charged in December with deciding that locating the accessory building five feet from the property lines presented a practical difficulty based on the topo of the lot. In deciding this request, the Board must determine that locating the accessory building three foot from the property line presents a practical difficulty based on the topo of the lot.

    Addressing the applicant, Mrs. Pollitt said you had the shed erected without a permit. Ms. Wilkinson answered I had a contractor come in and paid him to take care of all of that, and then I received a letter stating that I didn’t have a permit. Mrs. Pollitt said so when we saw you the shed had been constructed without a permit and we gave you a variance for the shed. You have an unusual shaped lot, an angled lot.

    Mr. Borden asked if the topography of her back yard had changed since two months ago. Mrs. Wilkinson said no, and Mr. Borden said so you still have the possibility of rain water entering your shed if it were placed at a lower level. Mrs. Wilkinson confirmed this.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Okum asked which way the land sloped. Mrs. Wilkinson answered it is like an inclined plain, higher in the back and lower toward my home, and on the side it slopes down. Mr. Okum said so the further you go towards your home the more water flows toward the shed.

    Mr. Okum asked how the shed was anchored, and Ms. Wilkinson answered with steel things going into the concrete. Mr. Okum said so there are bolts anchoring it to the concrete. Is the slab the same size as your shed or larger? Mrs. Wilkinson answered it is the same size.

    Mr. Okum asked her how she could remedy this if the Board would deny her request. Would you have the contractor back to expand the slab area and shift the shed to the approved distance?

    Ms. Wilkinson answered at this time it is not in my budget to do that. If it was denied, I don’t know what I would do. It is constructed and I would have to go through getting it unconstructed and remove the concrete.

    Mr. Okum said not totally; you can allow the concrete to remain and expand the concrete if you wished. Is the slab above your grade to help keep the water from getting into the shed and Ms. Wilkinson answered that it was.

    Mr. Squires asked the applicant what kind of expense there would be to move the shed. Ms. Wilkinson answered that she had no idea.

    Mrs. Pollitt asked if she had received any complaints from the neighbors about the shed and Ms. Wilkinson answered that she had not. Mrs. Pollitt asked if there had been any complaints to the Building Department, and Mrs. Webb indicated that there had not been any.

    Mr. Borden wondered if we would revoke the existing variance. Mr. Okum answered this would supersede it because it is a less restrictive variance. Basically both variances would apply, but the one closer to the property line would supersede the more restrictive variance.

    Mrs. Pollitt said the variance is not recorded to the deed but it is recorded in city hall and it does stay with the property. Is there any way that a variance can be granted with the condition that should the shed need to be replaced, it has to be moved to the appropriate location according to the topography?

    Mr. Okum said according to our law director that is setting time, and time is not an approved reason for a variance, based on the fact that if it is okay now, it would be okay then.

    I was not at that meeting, but when I reviewed it, I noticed the irregular shape of this site. The furthest corner from the home is on an obscure angle, which makes it very difficult to conform.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Okum added based on the drawing I have, the shed would be close to the home if it was five feet from the property lines. It is a very odd shaped lot, different from many other situations.

    Mrs. Pollitt moved to grant the variance to allow a 9’ x 10’ shed to remain in its current location. The right corner is 13" from the property line, the left corner is four feet, the left side corner is 34" and the left front corner is 22" from the property lines. Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

    Mr. Okum said I would encourage the board to add a condition, that the shed shall not exceed 90 s.f. because of its proximity to the property line. I feel that condition is appropriate, because it is a smaller shed than what is allowable, and that in addition to the obscure angles on the rear parcel would hold the situation.

    Mr. Squires moved to modify the motion to include that the shed shall not exceed 90 s.f. Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

    Mr. Squires wondered if it is necessary to be specific and state that the 13" corner is the south corner and that the others are the west corners. Mr. Borden responded I think the drawing will support that.

    On the amendment voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Apke, and Mr. Okum. Mrs. Pollitt, Mrs. Huber and Mr. Borden voted no, and the amendment was approved. On the amended motion, all voted aye and the motion was approved.

    1. Kurt Juengling requests approval of a variance to allow the construction of a 10’ x 14’ utility building at 467 West Kemper Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(B)(3) "..shall not exceed 120 square feet in area."

    Kurt Juengling said I want to put a shed that is two foot longer than what I am allowed to have. The purpose of it is I have an old convertible in the driveway right now that I keep a tarp on. Personally I think the shed would look better than the tarp. The car will go into the garage when I get my lawn equipment and patio furniture, roto tiller etc. into the shed. I did not know the size requirement when I bought it, and that is my error, I know.

    Mr. Okum asked if the shed is constructed, and Mr. Juengling answered partially. It was stopped when I found out the size requirement, and it has been setting for about a month now. I do have pictures, and he passed them around the members. It is in the middle of my lot, which is 75 feet wide and 435 feet deep.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to erect a 10’ x 14’ (140 s.f.) utility building on h is property. Section 153.492(B)(3) permits accessory buildings other than a garage to be a maximum of 120 s.f. The applicant has an existing detached garage on the property. The property is 75’ wide x 415’ deep (.71 acres).


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

    Mr. Squires said haven’t we granted something similar because of the extreme depth of those lots? I believe there is a history of us doing something like that.

    Mr. Okum answered there have been large garages and large buildings built on properties in that area.

    Mr. Weidlich asked if his garage was one or 1 ½ car garage. Mr. Juengling said it is 1 ½ car. Mr. Weidlich asked if the shed is five feet off the property line, and Mr. Juengling indicated that it is.

    Mrs. Pollitt asked if the shed was completely behind the garage so that it is not really visible from the street. Mr. Juengling responded that from one side of the house you can see part of it, but straight on it is not visible.

    Mrs. Huber moved to grant the variance to allow a 10’ x 14’ utility building at 467 West Kemper Road. Mr. Apke seconded the motion.

    Mr. Squires asked if the motion could be amended to indicate that the 140 foot shed shall be erected in compliance with code that is five feet from the property lines.

    Mr. Okum said if he was in violation, he would have to have a variance for that, but he is in compliance. Mr. Squires said that is not necessary then.

    Mr. Okum said I will be supporting your motion because of the fact that the site is an extremely oversized lot and extremely deep and that it currently has a garage that is well within the approved size.

    On the motion all voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

    B. Springdale Ice Cream and Beverage requests approval of request to extend for three months Variance 2-2004 to allow an office trailer on their property at 11801 Chesterdale Road (expires 4/20/04). Variance was granted 1/20/04 from Section 153.491( C ) "Storage or any other use in a trailer or non-permanent structure shall not be permitted."

    Paul Wilson, Plant Engineer for Kroger Manufacturing at 11801 Chesterdale Road stated the Springdale Ice Cream and Beverage is working on a major renovation in our facility. The office trailer that we received a variance for earlier provides office space for a project engineer and the Kroger division engineer while the modernization is taking place. The construction was originally scheduled to be completed in April, and the work is going slower than expected. We expect it to be completed by mid-summer which is why we need this extension. Maurice Tate has been working with the project since inception, and has prepared the original variance and extension that we requested.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a temporary office trailer to remain for an additional three months. The Board granted a variance on 1/20/04 to allow the office to remain until 4/20/04. The variance is required from Section 153.491 (C) which prohibits storage or any other use in a trailer or other non-permanent structure. The three month extension requested would equate to a date of 7/20/04 for removal. The trailer had been placed in advance of the January meeting of BZA. It is not clear how long the trailer has been in place. The first notice of violation was issued December, 2003. The applicant finally acquired a permit for the trailer on 4/1/04 after the issuance of another notice of violation.

    Mr. Wilson reported that we have gotten the electrical inspection completed and we have the trailer placement squared away finally.

    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

    Mr. Okum said I observed the unit and I noticed there were pressurized bottles in a caged area 20-24 feet from the trailer. If they are combustibles, I would be concerned about them and the proximity to the trailer. I think Mr. Lohbeck will look into that and it may require a relocation of the trailer or the bottles. Mr. Tate said so Mr. Lohbeck would be communicating with me.

    Mr. Apke asked how long the trailer had been in place on the site. Mr. Tate answered since the middle of November. Mr. Apke said according to this extension, it would go to the end of July; would that be long enough? Mr. Wilson answered it should be about the right time, but I personally would feel more comfortable with a 120 day extension, but I hate to ask for that.

    Mr. Tate the project engineer reported that we are working with the details land trying to finish up the project. We are looking at mid summer, but how much ice cream we sell and how much downtime we get to be able to finish up some things will have some effect on the timing.

    Mr. Apke said so you think July 20th would be an appropriate date. Mr. Tate answered if I had my druthers, I would ask for September 1st.

    Mr. Okum said the trailer is in an obscure location. It is not that noticeable from the public right of way. You can catch a glimpse of it on 275.

    Mrs. Pollitt moved to grant an extension to the variance until September 1, 2004. Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

    Mr. Apke said I would support the motion as September 1st sounds like an even more reasonable date and the fact that the trailer is in an obscure location.

    On the motion to grant the variance, all voted aye and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.


    20 APRIL 2004


    Addressing the board, Mrs. Pollitt said I thank you for supporting that variance. It is very important that we work diligently with our community partner, and Kroger and Springdale Beverage have been in our community for a long time. We need all the business in Springdale that we can get. The taxes we get from the businesses help us very much, and give us a way of making our residents’ lives a lot nicer by being able to provide more services.

    Board of Zoning Appeals recessed at 8:30 p.m.

    Board of Zoning Appeals reconvened at 8:42 p.m.

    C. Community Management Corporation requests variance to allow pet boarding suites in a Support Services Zoning District (241 Northland Boulevard). Said variance is requested from Section 153.246 Principally Permitted Uses.

    Greg Bullock of CMC Properties said I am the operator and agent for the location where we are asking for a variance. The building is 8,000 s.f. It is zoned Support Services and part of that use is a veterinarian animal hospital. We would like to be able to make a boarding facility for pets. Mark Gomer is with me and he is the existing tenant with the next door space. He is a professional dog handler and trainer. All the time he has been there, he has handled himself very professionally and we have not had any complaints about dogs going in and out and hopefully this relationship can continue.

    Mr. Okum asked if he intended to occupy both sections of the building, and Mr. Bullock answered yes. The space he has now is 8,000 s.f. and he wants to take the other 8,000 s.f.

    Mr. Okum asked if the boarding and sleeping accommodations would be inside the building, and Mr. Bullock confirmed this. Mr. Okum asked about restroom facilities and outdoor runs.

    Mark Gomer answered that I am the owner of the American Canine Performance Academy. I would like to reroute some of the system to the sewage in that building. This would entail ditch drains in the floor. Mr. Bullock added that he would have to go through the Board of Health and the Building Department to do this.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the boarding of pets on the property at 241 Northland Boulevard. Section 153.246 establishes a principal permitted use in Support Service Districts. Although pet boarding is not indicated as a principally permitted use and animal hospitals are. Boarding of pets is not indicated as a permitted use in any of the districts of our Zoning Code. Veterinarian offices and animal hospitals are the uses closest to the applicant’s intended use. These uses are permitted only in the SS and General Business Districts of the code. The prior edition of the Zoning Code pre-2000 permitted kennels as an accessory use for our veterinarian office or animal hospital. The applicant should clarify if exterior areas of the property will be utilized, such as dog walks, dog runs, and fenced areas or fenced exterior kennels. Sanitation for both the interior and exterior should be addressed.



    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

    Mr. Okum said when I think of veterinarian offices, I would expect animals to spend the night. Mr. Lohbeck said this is not an office or an animal hospital.

    Mr. Okum asked if this wouldn’t have been better to have gone through Planning Commission under a Conditional Use variance in that district. You might have noise issues and you could address them. Mr. Borden added that it could be regulated more if it went through Planning. Mr. Lohbeck responded it is not a conditional use for that district.

    Mr. Okum said this is where it gets to our zoning code issue on conditional uses. This is definitely difficult because I have a concern that the impact is more than just internal to the building and adjacent properties. Community Management owns the adjacent properties, but they don’t own the property to the northeast.

    Mr. Squires asked how the sanitation would be addressed. Mr. Gorman said the floors on the inside of the building we will put a drain ditch along the whole side of the wall which will run along each kennel. The kennels will be hosed into that drain ditch and at the end of the drain ditch plumbing will be put in to go into the existing sanitary.

    Mr. Bullock added that the applicant will submit a set of plans, and we will address the noise issue through the lease. That was a concern of ours as well.

    Mr. Squires asked the maximum number of dogs allowed. Mr. Gorman answered that would depend on the square footage existing in the back warehouse type area.

    Mr. Bullock added that the build out of the warehouse section is 5,000 square feet. Mr. Gorman added that each kennel would be roughly 3’ x 6’, so whatever comfortably fits within that space, or what zoning would permit me.

    Mr. Bullock said I believe that you would have to have an operating permit through the Board of Health. Mrs. Pollitt said I sit on that board, and this has never come up before. What are the industry standards? Mr. Bullock said I think they have to have a sanitary license to own and operate that. Mrs. Pollitt asked the industry standards. Mr. Gorman answered I do not know the specifics, but I would follow them. Mr. Bullock commented I’m not sure it falls under the Building Department, but I guess we could put some restrictions.

    Mrs. Pollitt asked when he planned on opening it, and Mr. Gorman answered I am not a builder, so I don’t know how long it will take, but I would like to as soon as possible.



    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Bullock reported that Mark approached me a couple of months ago and asked me to check if this use was permitted, I found that we had to come for a variance, so we have not entered into a lease. Probably it would be a couple of months out.

    Mrs. Pollitt said I think it would be very important to make sure that any animals that are boarded there are clean and treated humanely. Mr. Gorman responded we already have those standards and have a very good reputation.

    Mrs. Pollitt asked who he supplied his animals to, police officers? Mr. Gorman answered we work with a lot of police officers, usually more on an individual basis. We train mainly for the general public obedience, tricks, protection training and things like that.

    Mrs. Pollitt asked why the dogs would come to you for boarding and Mr. Gorman answered it would be for people going on vacations and also we would like to have a boarding and training program. Right now we do, but it is on an individual dog basis, where one dog would go home with one of my trainers and stay with him. We would like to be able to do more of that with the boarding that would enable us to get the job done with the dog a lot more quickly. It is a very popular program.

    Mrs. Pollitt said if this variance was granted and you opened your boarding, would there be someone there at night with the animals?

    Mr. Gorman answered usually not. Usually between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. the dogs would be by themselves, but they are usually sleeping at that time. Generally we do not have 24-hour supervisions, but most of the day.

    Mrs. Polllitt asked if two dogs are ever in the same cage, and Mr.

    Gorman answered that the only time that would happen would be at the owner’s request because the dogs can’t be separated because of separation anxiety.

    Mrs. Pollitt commented I don’t have any comments about the Board of Health. I think that is something we need to look into. I can imagine there would be standards that would have to be met, perhaps through the state licensing for boarding. Do you have to have a license from the state? Mr. Gorman answered I don’t believe so.

    Mr. Weidlich said what length of stay you anticipate for the animals. Mr. Gorman answered usually a couple of days to a week would be the average. Mr. Weidlich asked the number of kennels would be inside the building. Mr. Gorman answered I haven’t figured out the actual square footage per kennel, but I am thinking 50. Whatever the building would permit.

    Mr. Weidlich said so these dogs will have no outside access. They won’t be able to be walked or get out and get fresh air. Mr. Gorman answered we find that it is better that way because it is climate controlled. The dogs aren’t out in the heat or the cold.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Gorman added that a lot of people prefer it that way because it is a lot safer. There is no way that the dog can escape. Dogs can find a way out, even with the toughest fence. Our experience has been that keeping them indoors is the best way.

    Mr. Weidlich commented that where we board our dog he has the option to go out or stay inside and we also have it walked every day because it is used to being walked. So you won’t have the capability there with the limited grass area around the building.

    Mr. Gorman responded we would like to put an indoor play area in so the dog could go in with a trainer and have play time

    Mr. Weidlich asked how often the trenching around the perimeter would be cleaned. Mr. Gorman answered there will be somebody there specifically for that reason. I run a very clean ship, and coming down to the drain ditches would be a water spout. You would turn it on and it would shoot down that drain and clears everything out. Mr. Weidlich responded but you would have solid and liquid waste in various locations in the kennel. Mr. Gorman agreed, adding that is handled with the hose system. You squirt it from the front to the back to the back drain ditch and flush it out.

    Mr. Weidlich responded I wouldn’t want my dog with that around him for hours at a time which I can envision happening. Mr. Gorman answered not at my place it wouldn’t. There would be a person there specifically for that reason.

    Mrs. Huber said it seems like you are more of a kennel than anything else if you are boarding dogs two or three weeks. Mr. Gorman answered that is what this space would be mainly intended for. With my experience being in the field that I am in and with all the veterinarians that I know, we would be doing nothing different than what they would be doing in the boarding sense.

    Mr. Bullock added that as the operator of the building, I have visited his facility quite a few times and have never found it in any condition that was not sanitary. I was very impressed with the operation. We had concerns with allowing him to expand and trying to be a good neighbor, so we are going to address some of these issues in the contract.

    Mr. Borden said I am still not convinced that this is the right place or time to even hear this request. There are too many unknowns for me. What I would like to happen is for this to be forwarded to the city planner and get some input.

    Mr. Okum said my first thought is to refer it to staff, get comments back from the Health Department, comments back from the city planner and make a determination as to where this thing should go. There is no placement for kennels in the Zoning Code. The purpose of the use could be remedied in this Support Services District, since veterinarian offices and animal hospitals are there, and my understanding of veterinarian offices or animals hospitals is that pets spend the night.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Okum said I have to agree with you, Mr. Borden. This is one of those things that fall in the Board of Zoning Appeals area because it is a variance to the Zoning Code, but on the other hand, it is such a conditional use application that our code doesn’t really address it.

    Addressing Mr. Bullock, Mr. Okum said I don’t want you to lose a potential occupant of your building, but we want to have all our t’s crossed and i’s dotted if this is going to be a permitted use. I really am not sure how that would work. It is very complex as to how it should fall. In some ways I think it should go through Planning Commission and be referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals under what variances are needed but in other ways I think it really needs to have the opportunity to have a conditional use hearing, which is currently handled by the Planning Commission. Those are listed named types of conditional uses, and this is not one of them. WE need to work out the dynamics to make sure that the appeal is proper.

    If I were to vote on it this evening, I’d have to vote and deny it because of lack of knowledge and information. If you make a request that it be tabled, it would give us a month to see how it pans out. It may be that you will be at Planning Commission next month.

    I don’t want to discourage you from your opportunity to make a business prosper, but I don’t know what the code allows.

    Mr. Bullock responded as the owner I will respect the board’s decision. You don’t have to take too far a drive up Northland Boulevard to realize that the area is in demand of new businesses opening. If this restricts that we still have to honor the board’s decision, but as the operator there, I have no problem with waiting.

    Mr. Okum said so your request is for us to table it to get more information. Mr. Bullock indicated that it was. Mr. Borden moved to table and Mr. Apke seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the matter was tabled to May 18, 2004.0

    Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mr. Okum said you can go back to staff and tell them where we are. Mrs. Pollitt, since you serve on the Board of Health, we would appreciate some dialogue with the Health Department regarding this request. Mrs. Pollitt answered I think the Health Department should be in on the ground floor. I’ll give them a call tomorrow and have the Health commissioner phone Mr. Bullock.

    Mr. Okum said board members remember that this is a public hearing issue and ex parte discussions should be avoided except for comments and information received from staff.

    D. Steak N Shake, 11470 Princeton Pike requests variances for their proposed new restaurant. Said variances are for rear yard se6tback (18’ shown – 30’ required), pavement setback rear (5’ shown – 10’ required) and dumpster enclosure in front yard, which is prohibited. Said variances are requested from Section 153.222(B), 153.502(C), and 153.489(A)


    20 APRIL 2004



    Joe Scott, Project Manager for Steak N Shake said there are three items for which we are requesting variances. Two are pretty straight forward. In your packets is the site plan that was shown to Planning, and they requested a slight modification of the furthest west drive to accomplish two things. One was to save the existing 15 caliper inch tree, and secondly to make the turning radiuses more conducive for exiting.

    Our drive through projects to the rear (east) and there is a 25 foot access drive. We are having the area protected by a five-foot landscape buffer and the code requires 30 feet, so we are asking for a variance for 18 feet, or a 12-foot variance.

    In addition to that, the code requires a 10 foot setback for paving and/or drive. To keep our drive through off 747 and less visible, as Planning requested, we modified the layout and put the drive through at the rear of the building. We want to put a five-foot landscaping in and we are asking for a five-foot variance.

    The third item concerns the placement of the dumpster. We feel that the position we are proposing for our dumpster will appear to be an extension of the building itself to the average person. There will be an extensive amount of landscaping along the front side facing 747 as well as along the access road coming in off 747 and we felt this was the most advantageous for the restaurant associates to discard their debris. It also has access directly into the side of that dumpster, which will keep the gate closed except for service time.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is proposing to demolish their existing building and construct a new restaurant which will be located 18 feet from the rear property line. Section 153.222(B) requires the rear yard to be 30 feet minimum.

    A drive through lane is proposed to be constructed 5 feet from the rear property line. Section 153.502(C) requires pavement to be 10 feet minimum from the property line.

    The dumpster enclosure is proposed to be constructed directly against the southwest corner of the building, which places it partially in the front yard and partially in the side yard. Section 153.489(A) does not permit it to project into or be located in a side or rear yard.

    Planning Commission after reviewing several site plan configurations granted partial approval for this project on April 13, 2004 and referred the applicant to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the variances.

    .Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one remained in attendance, and he closed the public hearing.






    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Okum said speaking as a member of Planning Commission; the applicant came in a few months ago with a set of drawings. There was a lot of discussion and critical opinion. He took those opinions and brought back a plan that Planning Commission is very pleased with and has endorsed strongly.

    Mr. Okum added that there are approximately five or six conditions that were set by Planning Commission. One of them was to modify that south exit which created the need for a variance. The other items were incidental. The applicant has literally moved the drive through to the rear of the property, which is an absolute plus to the City and was recommended and endorsed by Planning Commission.

    The only thing I would ask if a motion would come from the board would be that it be conditional upon the applicant’s completing the project as it was approved by Planning Commission on 4/13/04 so everything ties together.

    Mr. Apke said in reading the Planning Commission meeting minutes from March 9th, there is a lot of issue concerning the owner’s affidavit. Typically that would be a part of our packet and we do not have that. According to the minutes, there are two owners involved.

    Mr. Okum answered that is correct, and we do have the affidavit on file because Planning would not have been able to hear it without it either.

    Mr. Borden said one variance we granted three years ago was to have the dumpster in the rear. Do we revoke that variance? Mr. Okum answered this will supersede that; by adopting the site plan, that variance becomes null and void. It stays an underlying variance, but by tying it to the conditions of Planning and this site plan, it is restricted to that.

    Mrs. Polllitt asked if Planning had approved this drawing, and Mr. Okum said this drawing is updated. It shows the modification to that south exit and allows turning radiuses that were needed. Mrs. Pollitt said so it was determined that this was the best we could do with this area and everybody is satisfied. Mr. Okum answered in my opinion this is probably the best thing we could do with this site. It is a little bit larger facility, but the applicant is treating it aesthetically. It has stone face on a good portion of the building, and all the mechanical units are concealed. There are a lot of positives to this. I am in favor of it and am pleased with what they have done. Mrs. Pollitt said I also would support this.

    Mr. Okum asked when they intend to begin the project. Mr. Scott said our plans are in review with the Building Department, and we are saying early to mid June, and it will take us 75 to 90 days. Ninety days is normal for a new out of the ground virgin lot, and the fact that this is an existing facility will speed it up a little bit. Our fiscal year ends the last Wednesday of the month in September, and the challenge is to have it done by the end of the fiscal year.


    20 APRIL 2004



    Mr. Scott added that with the previous Service Merchandise building occupied, we think the whole center will be reenergized, and we are very anxious to be a part of it. We do think the whole market has a great potential here.

    Mr. Borden asked how the new design in Forest Park impacts their business. Mr. Scott answered Forest Park started a little slow, but as the mall developed the row of restaurants, our sales have continued to grow. That building is a narrow building, quite similar to this one, and has done quite well. The signage out on the entry wall did a lot for it.

    Mr. Squires moved to grant the three variances for a rear yard setback of 18’ (30’ required), drive through lane at 5’ from rear property line (10’ required) and the dumpster enclosure partially in the front and side yards (not allowed). Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

    Mr. Borden moved to am end the motion to include all the conditions approved by Planning Commission on 4/13/04. Mr. Apke seconded the motion. On the amendment, and by voice vote all voted aye.

    On the amended motion, all voted aye and the variances were granted with seven affirmative votes.


Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:27 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,2004 __________________________

David Okum, Chairman



______________________,2004 __________________________

Jane Huber Secretary