BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 JUNE 2003

7:00 P.M.

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

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Bob Weidlich, Jim Squires, Fred Borden, Bob

    Apke, David Okum and Jane Huber

    Members Absent: Marjorie Pollitt (out of town)

    Others Present: William McErlane, Building Official

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 20 MAY 2003
  7. Mrs. Huber moved to approve and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

  8. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Zoning Bulletin – May 10, 2003
    2. Zoning Bulletin – May 25, 2003
    3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 13 May 2003
    4. 6/4/03 Letter to Ms. Beverly Kittaneh, 12027 Benadir Road
  9. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities – James Squires
    2. No Report

    3. Report on Planning Commission – David Okum

    Mr. Okum reported on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Dunkin’ Donuts proposed drive through. The applicant’s architect requested that it be continued one more time. We considered a Conditional Use Permit for Graeter’s to allow outdoor seating area at 11511 Princeton Road – they met with our staff and city planner and are trying to work out the landscaping. We considered a zoning change and preliminary plan for The Crossings Park at GEEAA Park (33 ˝ acres 10 ˝ retail and 23 senior housing) from GB, OB and RMH-1 to PUD. The intent is to build a senior home facility combined with outcare for the elderly and a number of condominium type homes. There will be no impact to the golf course and the existing picnic area will remain except for the area on the northwest corner, where they plan for a retail use. With a lot of conditions and limitations on access, the request was approved and recommended to Council.

    Mrs. Huber wondered what kind of retail they were considering, when across the street a lot of those stores were vacant. Mr. Okum responded there are accommodations for some intermediate size retail. There are limitations in terms of no drive throughs, no motor or automotive service.

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    17 JUNE 2003

    PAGE TWO

    VIJ B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - continued

    Mr. Okum added that trip generation is very critical. A traffic study has been completed which set guidelines, which were very specific in terms of access points and where the preferred traffic signal would go

    Mr. McErlane reported that the people who completed the traffic study did it for the applicant, and are recommending a signal on Crescentville Road. They would like to see a signal on SR 747, but the City has said that won’t happen. The major concern there is when the grade separation occurs, that is an uphill slope coming out of lithe underpass under the railroad and with all the truck traffic there, it will take a lot to get the trucks moving back up that slope once it turns green and it will impact to a great degree.

    Mr. Okum added that the developer would be responsible for dedication of potential future right of way on 747 north for a right lane, as well as a right of way contribution on Crescentville Road up to their driveway, which would be west of the existing golf course driveway but east of the intersection.

    Mr. Squires asked the status of CVS. Mr. McErlane reported that the plans are in for a permit. My understanding is that closing is to

    Occur by the end of this month. There is some environmental cleanup that needs to occur on the gas station property that they already have under contract. I think that may be a follow up from the previous owner’s requirements and not necessarily the new owners. The Police Department is working with the gas station ownership .to try to dispose of automobiles. Hopefully once the closing occurs and the permits are issued, they will go forward with the demolition on that.

    Mr. Okum reported that approval of minor façade renovation for Pier One Imports which is moving into where The Fashion Shop is was granted. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority was in for discussion and recommendation to Council and there was a concept review of a condominium project a 309 West Kemper Road and concept review for Grand Convention Center, former Roberds Grand and a dedication plat of the northwest corner of Springfield Pike and Glensprings Drive, which is the ditch in front of Perkins..

    Mrs. Huber asked the status of the condominium project on 309 West Kemper Road. Mr. Okum reported that it was a concept discussion. The comments from the commission members were that the density was too intense considering the fact that there currently are three residences there and they want to build 18.

    Mrs. Huber asked if this wouldn’t come before the residents on West Kemper so that we can vote on it? Mr. Okum answered that this would definitely come before the residents because it requires rezoning the land from single family residential to multi family. That requires public hearings. It did not get a lot of positive input from the commission.

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    17 JUNE 2003

    PAGE THREE

    VIJ B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - continued

    Mr. Okum added that there were some improvements from the previous presentation that the applicant had made. They had taken in another parcel, and took the entrance off Kemper Road and made the entrance off Hickory Street, and they changed the type of buildings. The City Planner and staff strongly recommended that if the City were to consider a change in zoning on that, the City should consider transition zoning which gives you design control similar to a PUD.

    Mrs. Huber said I would like to be informed as to what is going on with that. Mr. Okum said I’ll make sure that you are.

  10. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  11. OLD BUSINESS
    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 – tabled May 20, 2003

    Ms. Beverly Kittaneh, 12027 Benadir Road said I am here to request a variance to allow me to keep my shed in the same place, which is 1’-7" from my property line. There was an aerial photo that shows the shed. Mr. Okum said so the shed is in the right rear corner of your property, which would be the northwest corner.

    Mrs. Huber asked if the building was there when she bought the property, and Ms. Kittaneh answered that it was there when we bought it in 1999. There also is a poured concrete sidewalk in front of it and I’m not sure how long it’s been there.

    Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to allow an 8’-3" x 7’-10" utility building to remain in its present location, which is 1’-7" from the rear property line instead of the 5 feet which is required by code.

    A search of the record of permits did not show any permits issued for that, and the applicant has indicated that it was there when they purchased the property. We did have an aerial photo from the early ‘90’s that shows the utility building in its present location, so it has been there at least since the early ‘90’s and probably longer than that.

    Mr. Okum asked about the condition of the utility building, and Ms. Kittaneh stated that there is nothing wrong with it. It is a wood shed that is painted white with a shingled roof.

    Mr. Okum asked how they would access the 1’-7: behind the shed in order to maintain it. Ms. Kittaneh said my property line is actually 23 feet past the fence on that side. Mr. Okum said so if you requested your neighbor, you could access the back of the building to paint it or whatever maintenance might be needed. Ms. Kittaneh responded yes, I probably would have to check with my neighbor.

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    17 JUNE 2003

    PAGE FOUR

    VIII A 12027 BENADIR RD. UTILITY BUILIDNG 1’-7" FROM PROPERTY LINE

    Mr. Squires wondered if the shed was on a slab, and Ms. Kittaneh answered that it is a wood floor, and it seems to be elevated.

    Mr. Okum said I would encourage the board that if there would be a motion to allow the shed there, that it be conditional so that if the shed would be removed at any time for replacement, it should be held back to the proper property lines, and that this shed only shall have the setback variance.

    Mr. Squires wondered if that could be done legally, since the variance goes with the land. Mr. Okum said I believe we can grant a variance with conditions, can’t we?. Mr. McErlane responded I couldn’t tell you. You are basically putting a condition on it that when it is removed that the variance doesn’t apply any more, because if you move it five feet off, it doesn’t need a variance. Mr. Squires commented that the variance goes with the property. Mr. Okum responded right, but otherwise you would be granting a variance for a shed 1’-7" from the property line that would stay with the property line that would stay with the property. If you grant a variance with the condition that if the shed were to be replaced the standard setback requirements were to be met, it would only be conditioned on that specific shed and would have to go to the setback required by the code at the time.

    Mr. Squires said I understand what you are saying and I can support that. Mr. Okum said we have granted variances with conditions before that two sheds were allowed to remain on a property and after a period of time the other shed had to be removed. Timed variances are acceptable according to our law director, I believe.

    Mr. Borden added that we did something along the lines of if the shed became in disrepair, they couldn’t repair it but would haves to removes it and come into compliance at this point. Mr. Okum added that disrepair would be more in our Property Maintenance Code anyway, is that correct?

    Mr. McErlane responded that the reference is more to a legal non-conforming situation where if it is in disrepair beyond 60% of its value, you can’t replace it in its current location. You have to make it comply with the Zoning Code, but a variance isn’t the same thing as a legal non-conforming situation.

    Mrs. Huber moved to grant the variance to allow the existing utility building to remain 1’-7" from the rear property line at 12027 Benadir Road. If at a future time the existing building is to be removed and replaced, the new building shall be in accordance with the code at that time. Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

    B. Approval of variance for Tri-State Sleep Disorder Center, 1275 East Kemper Road to allow two sheds to remain at the rear of the building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.207(B) "The minimum rear yard setback shall be 34 feet.."

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    17 JUNE 2003

    PAGE FIVE

    VIJII B TRI-STATE SLEEP DISORDER CENTER 1275 E. KEMPER RD.

    Mr. McErlane reported that we haven’t seen anything new or heard anything new from the applicant. There are some issues that they have to address from the Building Code standpoint and I am sure they are evaluating those. At this point, I would either recommend that you table it or withdraw it and let them reapply.

    Mr. Okum commented that since it was separated out of the previous variance, I think it would be best to remove it from the agenda and let them reapply, but it is up to the Board.

    Mr. Squires moved to withdraw it from the agenda and Mr. Apke seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the item was withdrawn from the agenda.

  12. NEW BUSINESS
  13. DISCUSSION
  14. Mr. Borden said I noticed that the John Morrell sign had some dirt thrown down there. It has been like that for a couple of weeks; I guess they are working.

    Mr. Okum asked if the UPS is okay on their timing for their permanent sign? We gave them through the end of this month. Mr. McErlane reported that we have issued a permit; I don’t believe they have placed their sign yet.

  15. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Squires moved to adjourn and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion,. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,2003 _______________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,2003 ________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary