BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

7:00 P.M.

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman James Squires.

  3. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilwoman Kathy McNear, Thomas Schecker,

Dave Whitaker, Councilman Robert Wilson,

David Okum and Chairman Squires

Members Absent: Barbara Ewing

Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 17 FEBRUARY 1998

Mr. Wilson moved for adoption and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

By voice vote, all present voted aye except Mr. Schecker and Mrs.

McNear who abstained. Minutes were adopted with 4 affirmative votes.

IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 17 MARCH 1998

Mrs. McNear moved for adoption and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All present voted aye except Mr. Okum and Mr. Schecker who abstained. Minutes were adopted with 4 affirmative votes.

V, CORRESPONDENCE

    1. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Ė 10 March 1998
    2. 3/27 letter to Robert Rolfes,151 Ruskin Drive re revocation of Variance 23, 1992 (Addition to Residence)
    3. 3/30 Letter to Michael Langhammer, Quality Gold re expiration of Temporary Variance1-1998 (office trailer)
    4. 3/30 Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Pfefferkorn, 1245 Wainwright Drive re expiration of Variance T-4-1996 (park RV on Driveway)
    5. 3/30 Letter to Alvin Ort, Maple Knoll Village re expiration of Variance 29-1997 Ė 18" x 24" Big Band Sign
    6. 3/30 Letter to Harold Burkholder, Maple Knoll Village re expiration of Variance 18-1997 Ė 18" x 24" Bingo Sign

Mr. Squires stated these people had variances that will expire. We will move those to Item G under New Business and take care of them at that time. He called out each name to determine if any were in attendance, and none were.

VI. REPORTS

    1. Report on Council Activities

Mrs. McNear stated there is an ongoing discussion about the recreation center expansion, and there will be a presentation alt the first meeting in June. Council also is considering redoing an ordinance regarding animals being required to be on a leash; this will be discussed at the next meeting.

B. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum stated this was the quickest meeting in Planning Commission history. The only other item of interest is the Urban Forestry Fund, to channel some of those monies to entry features in the community and urban development.

 

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE TWO

VII. STATEMENT CONCERNING VARIANCES

    1. A variance once granted will be referred back to the Board of Zoning Appeals if after the expiration of six months no construction is done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the variance.
    2. If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after the denial.

    3. Chairmanís Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board are to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this board is directed to sign in, take his place at the podium and state his name, address and the nature of the variance. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said variance is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.

VIII. OLD BUSINESS Ė none

IX. NEW BUSINESS

A. CMC Properties requests variance to allow the placement of a directional sign for Wimbledons Apartments at 11770 Springfield Pike ( Wimbledons Plaza). Said variance is requested from Section 153.133(A) ".The advertisement or message contained on any sign shall pertain only to a principal business, industry or other pursuit conducted lawfully on the premises on which the sign is locatedÖ"

Greg Bullock, representing CMC Properties stated I am asking permission to install a directional apartment sign on a plot that belongs to the same company but is not the same parcel. Community Management owns both the plaza and the apartments, and the section I would like to put the sign on would be on the plaza parcel. It is a directional sign, sandblasted out of redwood.

Mr. Okum asked the current occupancy, and Mr. Bullock answered it is 100%. Mr. Okum wondered how rarely they are under 100%. Mr. Bullock stated during the least active times, September through the winter months, they fall to 80-85%. If you are going up Springfield Pike, there is nothing to indicate that the apartments are there at all. It will help for identification and leasing purposes.

Mr. Okum continued I am having some difficulty determining where the sign would be located. Mr. Bullock reported it is a double faced sign and the location would be north of the entrance to the plaza, next to the plantings, on the north side of the sidewalk. The property that actually belongs to the apartments is on the other side of the sidewalk.

Mr. McErlane reported I copied those drawings to indicate the existing off premise sign that was permitted when Wimbledons Plaza went in. It identifies the apartments on the Glensprings Drive side. Mr. Bullock added that is the only sign we have up currently, plus a wood sign on Lawnview, similar to the sign we are requesting.

Mr. Schecker asked where the new sign would go with respect to Lawnview and Route 4? Mr. Bullock answered it would be on Route 4 next to the entrance to the plaza but closer to the apartments. It would be 28 feet from the entrance to the plaza on the grassy knoll. The sign on one side will have Wimbledons Plaza right at the light and coming south it would have left at the light.

Mr. Wlison commented I have a concern about how much traffic you would expect to get instead of putting the sign at the front. Mr. Bullock stated the sign is two-faced and the location because of the plantings done by the city would not be visible from Route 4. Since it is impossible to use the frontage that the apartments own, the only space would be on the plaza property. Mr. Wilson commented with the 85-100% occupancy you have, do you still feel you need a sign this size? Mr. Bullock answered I believe so, and because of the setback, the sign is not very large. We have plantings around it so it would be an asset.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE THREE

1998

IX A DIRECTIONAL SIGN FOR WIMBLEDONSS

Mr. Wilson asked if the plantings were included in his plans, and Mr. Bullock answered no, I discussed it with Bill; we would put seasonal plantings in, have it done professionally so it would blend in with what the City has done in the area.

Mrs. McNear said our ordinances are pretty specific about having signs off-premise. We already have another landominium complex requesting a sign at Route 4 and Glensprings, and we have had a church request an off-premise sign. If we approve this, I'm afraid we will have a line up outside the door. This is not something I am in favor of starting, so I will not be supporting this.

Mr. Squires said there is a monument sign out there that you will see going north on Route 4. Is that to stay there? Mr. Bullock answered it is not the apartment sign; it says Wimbledons Plaza. I donít know if the fact that Community Management owns both parcels would come into play at all. If we move it 10 feet on the other side of the sidewalk, we would be on the apartmentís right of way, but cosmetically it would look much better in the other area where there is no flower bedding.

Mr. Squires said as Mr. Wilson said, you are 100% rented now; do you feel you really need this sign? Mr. Bullock answered next month we have two apartments moving out. Advertising is very expensive, someone looking for the apartment and the building itself is very difficult. I took over the property three months ago and it was the first thing I asked for Community Management to do. I think it is very important that we have some type signage that indicates that Wimbledons Apartments are setting back there.

Mr. Squires said Wimbledons Apartments has a Lawnview address, and Lawnview Avenue is very easy to find. Mr. Bullock stated if you are driving down Route 4 it is hard to know that the apartments are setting back there.

Mr. Okum wondered why this variance request was before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. McErlane responded because the property the sign is proposed for is not the property of the apartments. Mr. Okum continued does Wimbledons Apartments have property on Route 4? Mr. McErlane answered I donít think it quite meets the roadway right of way on Route 4; it get truncated at the end by additional right of way that was picked up by the City of Springdale. It is my understanding that the City actually landscaped and built part of the wall on Community Managementís property, where it meets Route 4. The apartment property comes up behind that landscaping bed at some point on that hillside. The property actually comes into the landscaping bed. Mr. Bullock added the other option was to put it in the landscaping bed, which was no option at all. We wanted it on the other side because it would be very visible and something we could put plantings around and dress up the long walk area going up to the apartments.

Mr. Okum asked if they were utilizing the sign location at Glensprings Drive, the back entrance? Mr. Bullock answered there is a small monument sign with 5 inch letters. I think the sign could be removed and not affect the complex much. You would need some type of signage to give directions to turn right at the light or they would end up in Applebees.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Okum asked if Wimbledons Plaza fell under the Transitional Overlay District. Mr. McErlane stated the property itself is transitional zoning. Mr. Okum continued it is here for the variance, but being transitional zoning, it also could be an issue for Planning as well.

Mr. McErlane reported when Wimbledons Plaza was developed, the driveway out to Route 4 was cut off, and in consideration for that, the off-premise sign for the apartments was allowed on Glensprings Drive.

Mr. Wilson commented I can appreciate your desire to advertise your complex; it is beautiful, and I am aware that there is a waiting list, but the bottom line is that this is off site signage, and we do have an ordinance prohibiting that. Like Mrs. McNear, I feel we would be opening Pandoraís Box by allowing this, and I do not feel comfortable with it and will not be supporting it.

 

OF Z BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE FOUR

21

IX A DIRECTIONAL SIGN FOR WIMBLEDONS

Mr. Okum said I tend to agree with Mrs. McNear and Mr. Wilson. The Transitional Zoning that was approved in the approval of Wimbledons Plaza took a lot into consideration when we allowed the signage on Glensprings Drive. What is the occupancy at Wimbledons Plaza? Mr. Bullock answered we are losing Hi Tech Signs at the end of May and The Baskets at the end of June or July.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. No one voted aye, and Mrs. McNear, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mr.Okum and Mr. Squires voted no. Variance was denied with six negative votes.

B. Kenneth Pelzel, 12066 Benadir Road requests variance to construct an 8í x 8í utility shed 3 feet from his property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(C) "Any accessory building..must not be less than 5 feet from any rear or side lot lines."

Mr. Pelzel stated due to the slope of my yard, the left rear corner is the only viable place to fit the shed. It is compatible with all the other sheds in the area; I have the consent of all surrounding neighbors. They said it looks very nice.

Mr. Okum commented you couldnít have moved it south because you would have been in a tree. I donít have a problem with it. Mr. Schecker commented the privacy fence further isolates this from the rest of the properties, and it doesnít present a problem for me.

Mr. Wilson said you have a fence on the left side and to the rear of it blocking it. Both your neighbors behind and on the other side have no objections; they canít see it anyhow. You have three sides but only one actually sees it. Mr. Pelzel stated the one directly behind me sees the very top of it because they have a privacy fence. The one on the left side sees it, but she has a tree and shrubbery right there. Mr. Wilson said I donít have any problems with this.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Okum and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. James and Maxine Carroll, 115 Silverwood Circle requests variance to convert a portion of their garage to living space. Said variance is requested from Section 153.024(F) "A garage shall be not less than 240 s.fÖ"

Mrs. Carroll approached the board. Mr. Whitaker asked her if the home has a basement, and Mrs. Carroll answered no. Mr. Wilson asked how many cars are in the household, and Mrs. Carroll answered two, adding that the driveway will accommodate one car. The other car is on the street.

Mr. Squires asked if they had considered constructing something to the rear of the garage. Mrs. Carroll answered there was a time when we considered that, but because of our age, we decided not to pursue it. Mr. Whitaker asked how many people live in the home, and Mrs. Carroll answered three, our daughter lives with us.

Mr. Okum wondered how far away the driveway is to your neighbors, and Mrs. Carroll answered there are 8 or 9 feet between the properties, at least. Mr. Okum continued my concern is once a variance is granted and the conversion is made, it stays with the land. You do have the option of utilizing that garage, but with this variance you would be eliminating that use permanently. I feel uneasy about it unless there was adequate parking for two cars on the site comfortably. Had you brought this forward with an alternate plan for parking that would accommodate the situation, I might feel a little differently. At this time, I canít support it for that reason.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE FIVE

IX C. GARAGE CONVERSION- 115 SILVERWOOD CIRCLE - continued

Mr. Wilson asked if she had space to get widen your driveway to accommodate two cars. Mrs. Carroll answered we have not discussed that. I can take it up with my husband. Mr. Wilson added I would feel more comfortable granting the variance if we had more space to get the cars off the street.

Mr. Schecker commented as Silverwood proceeds toward Neuss Avenue, there is a fair amount of open space for additional parking. It doesnít seem to me to be that much impact on the street. Mrs. Carroll commented we havenít experienced difficulty with parking.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Squires asked if a driveway were added to accommodate another car, how wide must it be? Mr. McErlane answered typically 18 feet wide is reasonable. Under the current Zoning Code, you would be required to have a 19 foot wide driveway. With 19 feet that would leave 5 to 6 feet from the property line, expanded on the right side as you face the house.

Addressing Mrs. Carroll, Mr. Squires asked if she were willing to investigate the possibility of an addendum to your driveway for parking? Mrs. Carroll answered I am willing to investigate it. Mr. Squires continued the big concern is the parking and emergency and snow vehicles. If there is adequate room for expansion of your driveway, that might be more compatible from what I am hearing from these board members.

Mr. Okum stated if this board votes on it this evening and it is denied, you cannot resubmit for another six months. Another option would be to request that the board table this to the May meeting. That would give you an opportunity to research the driveway issue. I canít promise you that it would be a favorable vote, but you could bring it back here with some revisions. Would you like to do that?

Mrs. Carroll answered so if we investigate the possibility of widening the driveway to accommodate another vehicle, that will not cause us to wait six months to make this request again. I am willing to do this. Mr. Schecker said I want to make sure that Mrs. Carroll understands that if we table tonight, you go back and look at the possibility of putting a driveway in, you come back with a new proposal saying that you want to convert the garage to a family room and we also will make the driveway wide enough accommodate two cars. Not that it could be done, but that it would be part of the proposal.

Mr. Okum said by the request of the applicant, I move to table. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was tabled with six affirmative votes.

D. David Smith, 524 Cloverdale Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a 12í x12í utility building in his rear yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 "A separate accessory building..other than garage shall not exceed 120 s.f. in area."

Mr. Smith said I am requesting a variance to construct a 12í x12í shed in the rear of my property. Mr. Squires said you are the one that has a boat on your property? Mr. Smith answered yes. Mr. Squires commented the size is the concern, it is 20% more than allowed. Could you get by with a 10í x 12í? Mr. Smith answered it would be cutting it tight with some of the lawn equipment that I have and chairs and tables we use. My garage is so full now, the smaller shed would not accommodate everything appropriately. Mr. Squires wondered if his garage was only used for storage, and Mr. Smith confirmed this.

Mrs. McNear asked the depth of the lot, and Mr. Smith answered 160 feet.

Mr. Okum commented considering this is a double lot with massive space, I donít have concerns about the location or the size. He does have a single car garage and quite a bit of material. Additionally the house behind it is set further away from the rear lot line, so it wonít be a major impact on them. I donít have any problems with this.

Mr. Whitaker stated I drove by, and the way the house sets and the vast space at the rear, right now there is nothing in the back yard, and I donít think the shed would be a problem.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE SIX

VIII D DAVID SMITH 524 CLOVERDALE AVENUE 12í X 12í UTLIITY BUILDING

Mr. Squires said according to our records when you got a variance in 1996 to allow your boat to be stored in the side yard two feet from the property line, a condition was that a privacy fence and gate to be constructed in front of that boat. As of this date, nothing has been constructed. Mr. Smith answered we still are in the process of that. I havenít finished the concrete work on the side; I want to put a privacy fence along that side and come along to the front. I have to put that fence in there because the vines keep attacking my boat, so I do need it.

Mr. Wilson asked a time frame for the privacy fence. My concern is we gave you a variance two years ago and nothing has happened. I am looking at a pattern here. Mr. Smith answered it will be some time this summer. Mr. Wilson continued we canít make that a condition of our vote, but I am concerned that this be in compliance because if you would come back and ask for another variance, the fact that the first variance was not done in a timely manner obviously would prejudice our decision on something else. I think it is incumbent upon you to make certain that work is done. Mr. Smith stated someone else is building the shed and I am building the privacy fence; I work a little slower than most contractors.

Mr. Squires said it was not the intent of the chair, Mr. Wilson or any of the members of the board to make that a condition, but the point is well taken.

Mr. Whitaker said for the record, I drive up and down Cloverdale three or four times a day since I live on the street, and I appreciate the fact that Mr. Smith keeps boat toward the back. In the four years Iíve lived there, he probably has one of the most meticulous houses and yards on the street. Everything I have seen him do there has been top notch, and I am definitely in favor of what he is requesting tonight.

Mr. Whitaker moved for adoption and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

  1. Gregory A. Sandford, 591 Observatory Drive requests variance to allow a truss replacement for his garage to make the height 22í8". Said variance is requested from Section 153.025(D)(6) "The height of an accessory building or structure shall not exceed 16 feet or the height of the main building. whichever is less."
  2. Sue Sandford stated we are building a room for storage in the top part of our one car garage.

    Ken Williamson my brother in law will probably do most of the work. Mr. Williamson said the truss design adds space; it makes a 12-12 pitch instead of a 6-12. It will give them 14í x 28í storage without actually adding second floor onto the garage. At present the roof needs to be repaired and that is why we want to do this now.

    Mr. Wilson asked if their house had a basement, and Mrs. Sandford answered that it does not. Mr. Wilson wondered if there were any other place where you can store items, and Mrs. Sandford said we have a small shed t the back of the yard that is packed, and it leaks. Mr. Williamson added they have an above ground pool with a large deck so there is limited space in the back yard.

    Mr. Okum asked if any equipment would be stored in the upper area, and Mr .Williamson answered no; that truss is designed for a lot of weight, but there will not be a lot of weight stored up there.

    Mr. Schecker commented I appreciate your space problem, but as it is, that garage is a rather large structure. It seems to me with this high truss on here that will be quite disproportionate to the rest of the property and imposing on your next door neighbor. It looks like putting a skyscraper in the middle of your property.

    Mr. Williamson answered it is true that the 12-12 pitch will make it look taller, but it is not taller than their house; it is 4 inches shorter. Mr. Schecker continued the variance is from the requirement that it be no more than 16 feet tall, regardless of the size of your house, and we are talking about a significant increase. That structure looks very imposing tome as it is, and to put this trussed roof on top of it looked to me to be overwhelming.

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    21 APRIL 1998

    PAGE SEVEN

    VIII E. GREGORY SANDFORD 591 OBSERVATORY GARAGE HEIGHT

    Mr. Williamson stated there is no other way they can get any storage in their yard. They canít add on to the garage width wise ecause it is almost into t heir house now. They have no space to go to the left of the garage, and they really canít go out back because it would take up their yard; they donít have any yard as it is right now.

    Mr. Okum asked the depth of the lot, and Mrs. Sandford answered I think it is 150 feet. Mr. Williamson stated by his measurements, it goes 165 feet back. Mr. Okum asked how far back is it from the front door of the garage to the street? Mr. Williamson answered it is 80 feet. Mr. Okum commented this is misleading, because it makes it look like the garage is attached to the house, and the garage is back further and parallel to a garage on an adjacent property. How far off the property line is the garage? Mr. Williamson answered 8í-2". I think the neighborís is three feet off the property line.

    Mr. Wilson said I am looking at the signatures, and the neighbor on the left is on vacation, and you did not get a response from the neighbor on the right. Mr. Williamson said the neighbor on the left is back and we talked to him and he doesnít care. Mr. Wilson asked if it were possible to extend the house in the back for storage. Mrs. Sandford answered no, we built onto the back of the house in 1985. Mr. Wilson said so you are saying this is your only resort.

    Mr. Whitaker wondered if the front elevation would have a window. Mrs. Sandford answered I am hoping it will. Mr. Whitaker continued I am asking because from the top of that overhead garage door to your peak there probably is 14 to 15 feet, and that is a lot of siding. Mr. Williamson stated we will put a window in the front of the garage. Mr. Okum suggested shutters on the front also to balance it out. Mr. Williamson agreed with this.

    Mr. McErlane stated while they are improving the garage itself, should there be some consideration in terms of paving the little bit of gravel driveway that they have? The question has been raised by the building inspector as to whether or not that has been there prior to the Zoning Code requirement for paved driveways. Mrs. Sandford said we bought the house in 1971 and the gravel was there at that time. Mr. Squires wondered if they had considered paving it, and Mrs. Sandford answered at one time we were going to, but when we talked to the City they said there wasnít enough room between our property and the neighborís. That was years ago.

    Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the addition of two windows and shutters on the front facing and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker, Mrs. McNear and Mr. Squires. Mr. Schecker and Mr. Wilson voted no, and the variance was granted with a vote of 4 to 2.

  3. Rhodes Furniture, 12000 Princeton Pike requests variance to allow them to float 4í balloons 15í in the air along property line. Said variance is requested from Section153.160(C)(3)(b) "Balloons shall be of the fan inflatable type and shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the street right-of-way line."

Terry Huber representing Rhodes Furniture said we would like to float 4 foot helium balloons along our fence line. Mr. Squires asked how long these balloons would be up, and Mr. Huber answered we have one day sales probably six to eight times a month. They would occur on a Thursday and Saturday, and would float during our business hours from 10 to 9.

Mrs. McNear wondered if the balloon you have here is an example, and Mr. Huber indicated that it was, adding that it doesn't actually fill up to four feet; it probably fills up to 2-2 Ĺ feet. Mrs. McNear said and that would be suspended 15 feet from the top rail of the fence. Mr. Huber said it would be coming off the exit ramp off 275 onto 747 along our fence line. Mrs. McNear wondered if it would be blocking the vision of the office supply business, and Mr. Huber stated that it would not. Mrs. McNear asked the number of balloons, and Mr. Huber answered there would be 10-15 balloons, six to eight feet apart. Mrs. McNear wondered how high the fence is, and Mr. Huber stated it is four and one-half to five feet. Mr. Wilson said you are saying six to eight times a month, or twice a week. Is this throughout the year? Mr. Huber confirmed this. Mr. Wilson continued so the balloons could be up two days a week, 52 weeks a year. Mr. Huber added we probably would have a minimum four times a month and a maximum of eight times a month.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE EIGHT

VIII F RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE Ė HELIUM BALLOONS

Mr. Wilson said to be honest, I do not feel comfortable with this. I donít want to call it a circus atmosphere, but I am struggling for another word to use for 10-15 balloons being up twice a week perhaps 52 weeks a year. As a board member and because of the frequency, it could be considered part of signage which probably is in excess of what you are allowed. I have a concern about the balloons in bad weather being separated or vandalism.

Mrs. McNear wondered if you would be able to see the balloons travelling on I-275. Mr. Huber answered no. Iím concerned about the safety issue; it is such a busy spot with people coming off that exit ramp. I think 10 to 15 balloons is a lot of distraction plus the number of times you want to use it. To me itíd overkill, and after the first month or two the people will ignore the balloons; they will become a fixture. I also would look at the advertisement on the balloons to be similar to that of a banner, and we only allow banner use two weeks at a time four times a year. I am concerned about the duration as well as the number of times this would be up.

Mr. Okum said I also have a very big concern that it becomes a moving sign, and flashing/moving signs are not permitted in the City of Springdale. Therefore it is a major departure on signage, and I will be voting against it. In terms of precedent, I can see everybody and their brother wanting to do balloon advertising in the City. Mr. Huber said are we permitted to use balloons for two weeks under this Section 3? I donít know how you could use a balloon and keep it from moving back and forth. Mr. Okum said but without lettering it is not a sign. In my opinion a balloon with lettering on it is a sign.

Mr. McErlane reported there is a provision in the Zoning Code that allows for fan inflatable balloons which are ground mounted or roof mounted to be used on a site for a two week period, and they can have a message on them. However, the Zoning Code doesnít allow for tethered helium balloons.

Mr. Wilson commented I can appreciate your desire to have a competitive edge, but the flavor of the board at this point is to reject your request. If you are looking at a two week period, and sometimes we have extended that, and if you want to do that for two weeks or when you have your major sales, we might not have a problem with that. But when you are talking about 10 to 15 balloons going up once or twice a week for up to 52 weeks, we have to look at the effect it would have on other businesses. The frequency is the key issue. At this point, it wonít pass. To deny this you wold have to wait six months to come back. I would offer you the option to come back with a different plan, and have this tabled, but Iím not sure that whatever proposal you would have to use balloons would be in compliance. Maybe it would be better not to table and go to a vote so that you would know where you stand and maybe next month you could bring in another idea for advertising.

Mr. Huber stated I would like to table it and maybe come back with a different proposal. Mr. McErlane said I think the fence that you want to attach these balloons to actually belongs to the Ohio Department of Transportation, and you would need their permission to attach them to it should you decide to do that with your future application. There could be a consideration that he might find some other way to anchor them rather than tie them to the ODOT fence.

Mr. Okum commented my understanding is that the Code does not consider tethered balloons to be permitted, so no matter what the resubmission is, we still would be considering tethered balloons, is that correct? Mr. Huber answered yes. Mr. McErlane added there are several issues. One is the fact that it is not a fan inflatable balloon. . Secondly there is a setback requirement for fan inflatable balloons of 15 feet from a right of way. Thirdly, it only allows one balloon per zoning lot for that two week period with a month between.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE NINE

VIII F RHODES FURNITURE 12000 PRINCETON PIKE Ė HELIUM BALLOONS

Mr. Okum continued frankly, whether you request to table or not I will not be voting in favor of any tethered balloons in the community. It is your decision whether you want to bring it back or withdraw it from the agenda. I did notice that these were in place the 9th and 10th of April and were removed. I hope you understand that even if it is tabled, that does not give you the right to put them back up.

Mrs. McNear commented perhaps you should request that this be withdrawn, given that there are so many open items on here. To get permission from ODOT would take a very long time, and other items you need to comply are so far away I donít think tabling is appropriate.

Mr. Huber requested that this be withdrawn.

G. Revocation of Variances Granted and Not Acted Upon within Six Months

Mr. Squires stated all of you have copies of letters from the Building Department to residences where variances were not acted upon within six months. The first one is Robert Rolfes, 151 Ruskin Drive, variance granted in 1992 to allow the construction of an addition to the residence. That has not been done and for the record, he does not intend to do it. I spoke with him today and we need to revoke this variance.

Mr. Okum moved to revoke the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and Variance 23-1992 was revoked.

Mr. Squires stated that the following temporary variances have expired:

Quality Gold, 75 Tri-County Parkway Ė temporary office trailer;

Mr. & Mrs. Pfefferkorn, 1245 Wainwright Ė parking RV on driveway;

Alvin Ort, Maple Knoll Village Ė 18" x 24" Big Band Sign;

Harold Burkholder, Maple Knoll Village Ė 18" x 24" Bingo Sign

  1. Discussion

Mrs. McNear wondered if the temporary trailer had been moved from the Quality Gold property. Mr. Okum stated it has not been moved. Mrs. McNear said weíve given him two variances and he is still there; what happens now? Mr. McErlane said I will have the inspector stop by and find out when it will be removed. If it is not fairly immediate, we will have to cite him to court. Mrs. McNear commented he had two variances and we have been more than lenient. Itís like we are being ignored. Mr. McErlane said I had an anonymous call from an attorney requiring about the maximum penalties for not complying with the Zoning Code relative to a variance. They didnít specifically say this project, but I thought it was the case. Mrs. McNear asked the fine amount, and Mr. McErlane answered it is $100 maximum and it could be cited for each day. Mrs. McNear commented I feel he lied to us from the start, saying it was going to be out of here in a couple of months. In our last meeting he said absolutely no way would this be extended again. Perhaps we could make the fine $100 per day. Mr. McErlane reported our prosecutor has advised us not to make it per day. All I can do is cite them, unless I go to a Hamilton County judge and ask for an injunction to remove the trailer.

Mr. Wilson stated Champion is parking their truck in front of their building. That did that once before and I called the Building Department and suggested that Bill call them and tell them that if the truck sat more than 24 hours, it would be considered as signage and be in violation. I noticed yesterday or the day before that the truck was there again. Is there anything we can do about that? Mr. McErlane responded at this point we donít have anything in the Code that says the lettering on the truck is a sign. Mr. Squires wondered when the new Zoning Codes would be complete, and Mr. McErlane reported that the city planner stated there should be a joint work session with Planning Commission in June. Right now there is a draft of the total code before the committee to review. Hopefully after that meeting, they will be able to repackage everything and set up a work session.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 APRIL 1998

PAGE TEN

DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Squires said the signs in front of the residences indicating a public hearing certainly got some attention. In terms of communication, I think it is tremendous; I wish we had done it earlier. Mrs. Webb indicated she has gotten numerous phone calls regarding those signs, some apprehensive, but if it gets people out to these meetings, fine because these variances affect a lot of people.

Mr. Okum complimented Mr. McErlane on the site plan attachments to the applications. They were really helpful and we appreciate that. Mr. McErlane stated keep in mind that is off the CAGIS information and it was taken from aerial photos from probably 1990. That is why the house next to 591 Cloverdale didnít show the addition on it.

Mr. Whitaker said I have had some neighbors asking what the duration is allowed on job advertisement signs at a residence once a project is finished. The case was an Air-Tite Window sign that was in a yard for six months, and when it would blow down or degenerate, overnight they would install a new one. Mr. McErlane reported they are allowed there for the duration of the construction, that is all. We issued this in April of last year; I guess weíll have to reissue it.

Mr. Okum said it seems these things come up on the weekends and evenings when staff if not available. I donít know if it is in the Cityís budget for someone to work part time in the summer, but if it is, I think it would be good for the overall appearance of the community to consider someone to do four hours on Saturday looking for signs. Mr. McErlane stated that the Police Department can yank them if they are in the right of way.

Mr. Whitaker commented speaking personally, I frown upon them; I am in the business, but I donít use job signs because I feel if somebody wants to know who did the job, theyíll ask the resident. I look at it strictly as advertising.

Mrs. McNear commented the weekend signs really irritate me too, and I hate to call the police for that because they have a lot of things to do. Is it illegal for us to take them down and deliver them to the police station? At the corner of Ray Norrish and Route 4, every weekend there are real estate signs, open house signs, advertisement signs, etc. The rules are supposed to be for everyone.

X Adjournment

Mr. McNear moved for adjournment and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_______________________________,1998 _____________________________

James Squires, Chairman

 

 

_______________________________,1998 _____________________________

David Okum, Acting Secretary