20 MAY 2003

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, Robert Weidlich, James Squires, Marjorie Pollitt, Fred Borden,

    Jane Huber and Chairman Okum.

    Others Present: Richard Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  7. Mr. Squires moved to adopt and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

    1. Zoning Bulletin – April 10, 2003
    2. Zoning Bulletin – April 25, 2003
    3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 8 April 2003
    4. Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 15 April 2003
    5. "Basics of Variances" Article from Planning Commissioners Journal
    1. Report on Council Activities – Jim Squires

    Mr. Squires said at last council meeting, we passed two ordinances relative to the Board of Zoning Appeals and copies of those ordinances are in front of you, Ordinance 12 and 14-2003.

    Mr. Okum said there is a business on the east side of Springfield Pike next to the old Gold Star that has a lot of signs behind the stock. It is a real mess and trashy looking. It almost looks like they are storing the signs against the window, and I would like to have staff look at that.

    B. Report on Planning Commission – David Okum

    Mr. Okum stated that a conditional use permit for a proposed drive through for Dunkin Donuts had been continued from the March and April meetings. There are a number of items still not resolved in the presentation so this was continued until June.

    Also there was a conditional use permit for outdoor seating at Graeter’s, 11511 Princeton. The hearing was continued from the April 8th and is still unresolved. There still is a portion of the parking area that they are currently using that is not on their property and also there is no landscaping on the site at all. We tried to work with the applicant to get some landscaping, and this was continued. It has been very difficult, so I don’t know if they will come back or if they will give up on the outdoor seating area.




    20 MAY 2003



    Mr. Okum added that we considered an extension of the temporary banner for the UPS Store (former Mailboxes, Etc.) in Princeton Plaza. They asked that it be extended to June 30th to allow time to get their permanent sign which was approved.

    A building addition for the Tri-state Sleep Disorder Center was approved with conditions, and is on our agenda tonight for variances needed.

    Zoning change and preliminary plan for The Crossings at the Park which is 36 acres of the southwestern portion of GEEAA Park for elderly housing and landominium development, with approximately 14 acres along S.R. 747 retail at a later time. There was a lot of positive discussion. It meets our Comprehensive Land Use Plan criteria for that area, but there are things that need working through. They have maintained the golf course face and park and recreational facilities. What they would be losing is a little of the park picnic area and some unused tennis court area and some outdoor open area that is not used. According to the trustees for the GEEAA Park, if this occurs, they would be able to maintain the remaining park area for 50 years.

    1. Approval of variance to allow a utility building to be located 1’-7: from the property line at 12027 Benadir Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.492(D) "shall be at least 5 feet from the side and rear lot lines."

    Mr. Okum said that the applicant phoned and is very ill and would like to have this tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Squires moved to table and Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the matter was tabled until June 17, 2003.

    B. Approval of variances for the Tri-State Sleep Disorder Center, 1275 East Kemper Road to allow 38 parking spaces instead of the required 59 (a continuation of the previous variances) and two sheds at the rear of the building. Said variances are requested from Section153.504 "office, medical/clinic – Six spaces + one space per 200 square feet of net floor space in excess of 1,000 square feet" and `153.207(B) "The minimum rear yard setback shall be 35 feet…"

    Stan Ladrick of RSL Architecture approached the board. He stated that the first variance relates to the parking, and our request is to continue the variances previously granted for the original construction of the building and the addition in 1989.

    The addition we are proposing includes additional parking spaces based on the current zoning requirements for the addition area.


    20 MAY 2003



    Mr. Ladrick said that we are adding the number of parking spaces that correspond to the office space that we are adding to the building. We are simply requesting that the number of spaces allotted to the original building and the previous addition remain.

    There are two non-conforming utility sheds at the rear of the property that the center has used for record storage. They didn’t obtain the necessary permits and documentation to erect these sheds. They would prefer that they be allowed to keep them. They are located behind the building. The rear of the building is the required 35 feet from the property line and the sheds are located within that 35 foot setback. If approved, I will go through the Building Department and deal with their issues, because there are no building permits for the sheds.

    In the staff comments, they mentioned a couple of other existing conditions relative to the site. They were not anything that related to any of the new work. The existing parking spaces on the east property line are only eight feet from the property line instead of the required 10 feet. We would just like to maintain them the way they are. I think that the existing building addition on the east side was also too close to the property line. In Ms. McBride’s comments, number 5, "The Board of Zoning Appeals approve a variance for the proposed parking area to reduce the setback from 10 to 0 feet." I think she is referring to the east side where some of the existing spaces are closer to the property line than allowed.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the staff comments the board received are the same as were given Planning Commission. In Item 4, the proposed parking was 38 spaces and the required parking is 59 spaces. A variance was granted 5/21/85 to allow 25 spaces instead of the required 45. Another variance was granted 4/18/89 to allow 27 instead of the 47 required. In item 7, the sheds at the rear of the building to be removed with the construction of the addition. The Building Department has no record of permits issued for these sheds. If they are to remain, a variance is necessary for the rear yard setback. Item 8 indicates that variances will be required for the total number of parking spaces.

    Mr. Okum said we do not have the variance request for the sheds in the title of the request. Mr. Lohbeck commented we would just have to put that in. Mr. Okum asked Mr. Ladrick if he wished to have the storage sheds stay where they are. Mr. Ladrick answered that the owner would prefer to be allowed to keep the sheds.

    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one was present in the audience, and he closed the public hearing.

    Mrs. Huber asked how many patients are there at one time and Mr. Ladrick answered there are 13 exam rooms in the addition, and Mrs. Hubert said and that is one patient per room. Mr. Ladrick reported that there are two types of examinations. There is the typical doctor-patient exam, and sleep studies with people being monitored while they are sleeping.



    20 MAY 2003



    Mrs. Huber asked the number of employees and Mr. Ladrick responded that he did not know that, but the current number of parking spaces for the center is sufficient. With the addition of the 11 spaces for the offices (we are adding seven offices) we feel it is adequate for the number of employees and visitors.

    Mrs. Huber asked if some of the storage in those sheds could be moved into the new offices. Mr. Ladrick answered that is a possibility and if you choose not to allow the sheds, the doctor will have to accommodate that in some other manner. The number one priority is the addition and the variance for the parking number. The sheds are a secondary consideration that came up because they are an existing non-conforming situation..

    Addressing Mr. Ladrick, Mr. Okum said on an average day, how many parking spaces are utilized? Mr. Ladrick answered about 2/3 of the parking lot is utilized. The lot has never been completely full and there always have been several open parking spaces.

    Mr. Okum said if we put a condition on the variance that if at a later time parking became a problem, additional parking spaces would be constructed, would that be a problem for the doctor? The variance goes with the land, and if another clinical application would come into that space that needed more parking spaces, it might be a problem.

    Mr. Ladrick answered I believe that the original variances were for the specific use as the sleep treatment center. If it is tied to the use as a sleep disorder clinic, I don’t see that we would have any big concerns about that. Broader kind of language might be difficult to enforce; who determines if there is a problem? If it changes to another use, that would be pretty obvious.

    Mr. Weidlich said there are 13 examining rooms. Are those the rooms where the patient would also sleep, or are they separate? Mr. Ladrick answered that is including the regular exam rooms and the sleeping rooms.

    Mr. Weidlich commented I just went through your floor plan, and counting the two exam rooms, I counted 23 rooms with doors on them that look like they could be used for patient evaluation or sleeping or whatever is needed.

    Mr. Ladrick responded that the majority of those rooms are staff research areas. The doctor does a lot of detailed research studies with several different entities. The smaller rooms along the rear wall and the west wall are the ones for patient examination or sleeping. The entire addition on the east side is the office space, and most of the larger rooms within the existing space on the east and north are office space also.

    Mr. Weidlich asked how many employees would be in each of the new offices and Mr. Ladrick answered I understand that it is one. Mr. Weidlich commented that it seems like an awful lot of rooms for so few parking spaces.


    20 MAY 2003



    Mr. Ladrick responded keep in mind that not everything is happening at the same time. The sleep studies are done at night and the people coming in for their screening exams are there during the day, so there is a lot of overlap. There is overlap in staff also because some of the researchers are there during the day and others are there at night monitoring the patients.

    Mr. Squires asked the setbacks of the sheds. Mr. Ladrick responded I would say one is about 10-12 feet off the property line and the other is more like 18-20 feet. If they are not allowed within this setback, they will have to be removed. There really isn’t any other location suitable for them on the site. There is a hillside on the west and there is no property to work with on the east side. Also the east side is basically like a second front.

    Mr. Ladrick added that there is a tree line along that back line so there is some screening and cover there, and they are behind the dumpster enclosure also. One of the conditions of Planning was that we put the proper gates on the dumpster enclosure.

    Mr. Squires said when we consider the variances on the sheds, will we have to consider each separately since there are different setbacks. Mr. Okum said I would hope that the site plan submitted is accurate and represents the existing sheds and their locations. I think it would need to be amended to show the distance from the rear lot line.

    The conditions of the variance could be structured to state that the site plan should be updated to show the exact location of the existing sheds so that could be verified and the motion could say that the existing sheds as they are located shall be permitted.

    Most of the conditions of this variances request should be structured to the specific use of the site. If this were to be a 11,489 s.f. office building, 38 parking spaces wouldn’t handle it, and the zoning is OB. So this is a special situation.

    My recommendation at Planning Commission was to incorporate a small addition onto the back of the building that would enclose those, because there are non combustibles next to a combustible structure. Mr. Ladrick reported that the owner has records stored in there.

    Members of the board studied the site plan, and Mr. Okum stated that they are adding 11 parking spaces for seven office spaces. There were other variances granted in the past that justified the reduction of the parking for that use. Mr. Ladrick added that we are only asking that the number for the existing building stay what it was, and we are providing the required number for the additional area.

    Mrs. Pollitt said he is actually allowing enough parking for the new addition. Why would he have to have a variance? Mr. Okum answered because the number of spaces does not conform to the requirements for the overall site


    20 MAY 2003



    Mrs. Pollitt wondered if they had enough room for future parking expansion if they would be required. Mr. Ladrick said that they did, indicating that there is quite a bit more area in the front yard if we needed to.

    Mr. Borden said you are adding more spaces to the front, and you are taking out spaces also. Mr. Ladrick confirmed this, stating that there would be a net gain of 11 spaces. We are taking some of the existing seven spaces away and we are addling those spaces back plus an additional 11 spaces.

    Mr. Borden said on the sheds, what kind of construction is that? Mr. Ladrick answered that they are wood. Mr. Borden continued and all you have in there are paper products and records. Are there any x-rays? Mr. Ladrick responded I don’t believe so, but I don’t know that for a fact. Mr. Borden asked if there were any combustibles in the sheds, and Mr. Ladrick answered that the wood structure of the shed and the paper.

    Addressing Mr. Okum, Mr. Borden said in Planning, you recommended that they enclose the sheds. Mr. Okum answered that his recommendation was in the consideration of adding 2,000 s.f. to the building, incorporate enough space internally into the building to get these records and this storage into the building itself, so we don’t have these sheds. Another option might be to dig a basement under this new addition and make an entire section of storage beneath the building.

    We are talking about two storage sheds at the back of the building, and they are fairly well screened, but there are still other businesses looking at them. Mr. Borden commented I drove past there, and they are behind the dumpster; you could barely see them.

    Mr. Okum said I don’t believe that the applicant has indicated that the sheds are a critical issue. We could handle the parking variance, and then deal with the sheds after the applicant has had some time to look at it. I would like to hold on making a decision on the sheds. I am very much encouraged by this development and I would not like to delay that process, but I would like the applicant to look at other answers to the storage problem, but be able to get their project underway. Mr. Ladrick commented that we would prefer that.

    Mr. Squires concurred with that. He asked about the property to the north, which is grassland. Mr. Okum said it is a part of the same parcel, but I don’t think you could subdivide it. It might be possible that you could fit something else in front, but I don’t know. Mr. Ladrick commented that it seems unlikely, given the location of the building. At some point in the future, the property could be redeveloped in a different manner. The front building setback is 50 feet and that leaves almost another 50 or 60 feet to the proposed parking lot, so there is quite a bit of area left there. Currently it will be landscaped.



    20 MAY 2003



    Mr. Okum said they are keeping the building as it was, and holding everything back. Staff had good comments to make on this.

    Mr. Squires moved to grant a variance to Tri-State Sleep Disorder Center at 1275 East Kemper Road for a net increase of 11, and a total of 38 parking spaces. This is conditioned upon it remaining as a sleep disorder center. Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

    Mr. Okum said in Ms. McBride’s report to Planning, #4, "A variance will be needed from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow the parking area access to be located within the required 10 foot setback from the east property line. The setbacks to the north and west are provided.

    Mr. Squires moved to include that in the motion, and Mr. Borden seconded the amended motion.

    Mr. Okum said so to clarify the motion, it is for the allowance of 38 parking spaces for the site, including the addition, and a variance to be located within the required10 foot setback on the east property line.

    Mr. Ladrick explained that a portion of the drive to the additional parking area passes through the 10-foot setback. The parking spaces themselves are more than 10 feet, but the access driveway passes within the10 feet.

    All voted aye, and the variances were granted unanimously.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said the sheds were not a part of the motion; they were not voted down – they just were not considered. Mr. Ladrick asked if they had to be officially continued, or should we reapply. Mr. Okum responded I think you need to look at the plan. They were not a part of the motion and by virtue of their not being a part of the motion, they would have been denied, but I don’t want to say that they have been denied. They just have not been considered yet.

    Mr. Borden suggested tabling the shed portion of the request and Mr. Okum said the applicant has requested that we table the portion of the request on the rear yard setbacks for the storage sheds. Mr. Borden moved to table and Mrs. Pollitt seconded the motion. All voted aye, and this was tabled to June 17th.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said if you resolve the issue and you don’t need to come back, contact staff and let them know.

    C. Approval of extension of a temporary sign permit for Tri-County Dodge, 1280 East Kemper Road. Said variance is requested from Section 153.533(D) "

    Mr. Okum swore in Henry E. Highland, General Manager of Tri-County Dodge, formerly Performance Dodge.. Mr. Highland reported that we took over May 1st and had a banner permit from the 1st to the 14th of May, and we had a second one from Mr. McErlane for the two week period after that.


    20 MAY 2003



    Mr. Highland said we are at Chrysler’s mercy, because they are responsible for taking Performance’s name off the building and putting our name up. They have a national account with Cummins Sign Company out of Knoxville Tennessee. I talked with Tonya Jones of Cummins Sign today, and she indicated that they would be in within seven days to take Performance off the fascia of the building and they would have our name on the building within 30 days.

    I have been a dealer with the Chrysler group in three cities, and these people are pretty reliable but their 30 days could end up being 20 or 30 or 40. I have worked pretty diligently with Mr. McErlane to be a good citizen to determine what we can or can’t do. All I need is for you to let me leave my banner up to cover up Performance until I get a real sign.

    Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 153.533(D) to allow an existing 3’ x 40’ temporary banner to remain on the building for a period of 60 days. The Building Department issued a temporary sign permit for the period of 5/1/03 through 5/14/03. The banner is necessary to a change in the name of the dealership. The applicant needs to clarify the 60-day period as to when the period starts.

    Mr. Okum said so your 60 days is from the date you made the application? Mr. Highland answered that was a guess at that point. I am a little surer today on when this will be done than I was on May 1st.

    Mr. Okum opened the public hearing. No one was present to come forward, and he closed the public hearing.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Squires said your 60 days would be up on June 30th; could you handle that? Mr. Highland answered if they are telling me the truth, it will be done and you will never see me again. We should be good with 10 days to spare.

    Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance to extend the banner permit from May 1, 2003 through June 30, 2003. Mr. Apke seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the variance was granted unanimously.

    Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said so you are aware of it, there is a permit required for your permanent sign, so you should make sure that the sign company handles this.


Mr. Borden said on the drive to jTri-County Dodge, wasn’t the John Morrell sign supposed to be a mounded sign? It is on sticks now. Mr. Okum responded I voted against it, but I believe that the conditions of the variance indicated that it be mounded and landscaped. The only thing I see is a pole sign in front of John Morrell.



20 MAY 2003


X DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Weidlich commented that the structure inside was poles, so hopefully they will finish the construction on it. Mr. Borden said maybe they will mound it to cover up the poles. Mr. Okum said I am disappointed with what is there. The motion was very clear that it was to be mounded. Mr. Borden asked that the staff check on this.

Mrs. Pollitt stated that she will not be at the next meeting; she will be in Portland Oregon.


Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_________________________,2003 _____________________

David Okum, Chairman



_________________________,2003 _____________________

Jane Huber Secretary