BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

18 JUNE 2002

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2.  

    The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

  3. ROLL CALL
  4. Members Present: Robert Apke, Fred Borden, Councilwoman

    Marjorie Pollitt, Councilman James Squires,

    Robert Weidlich, Jane Huber and Chairman

    Okum

    Others Present: Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6.  

  7. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 21 MAY 2002
  8. Mr. Squires moved to adopt and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye and the Minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.

  9. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 14 May 2002
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė May 10, 2002
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė May 25, 2002
    4. 5/22/02 Letter to Edward Shaffer, 1080 Castro Lane from David Okum, Chairman re denial of variance request
    5. 5/30/02 Letter from William McErlane to Michael Murdock, 12172 Greencastle Drive re expiration of Variance 1-2002
    6. 5/30/02 Letter from William McErlane to Joe Chambers, Steak ĎNí Shake re expiration of Variance 21-2001
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities Ė Jim Squires

Mr. Squires reported that at the June 5th meeting Council had the first reading on an ordinance modifying the Zoning Code, mostly housekeeping, plus the article on fences. Council denied the ordinance to increase the number of domesticated pets to three. The last ordinance was to declare a portion of Route 4 as an Urban Renewal Area (between Springdale-Glendale Animal Hospital and the Nazarene Church) which presents a blighted appearance.

Mrs. Pollitt said on the fence issue, we discussed it last month and my understanding and the understanding of people on Council is that they donít have to have a permit for a back yard privacy fence. Mr. Lohbeck said they still need to call us to make sure it is in the right place.

Mr. Okum said I have a problem with that; I know it is putting a burden on the Building Department to add an inspection process but I think Planning needs to look at that. I think fences are structures and affect light and view and air issues

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

18 JUNE 2002

PAGE TWO

VI A REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIVITIES Ė CONTINUED

Mr. Okum said I think there should be inspection and approval for fencing, even fence replacement. I think it is something that should be required.

Mr. Borden wondered if it would affect the Property Maintenance Code, and Mr. Okum responded it does when they become in a blight condition.

Mr. Lohbeck said if somebody wants to put up a fence, they should at least call us and tell us where they want to put it before they put it up and it is in the wrong place.

Mr. Okum said we donít charge for most residential building permits, and if the permit were required, at least what occurred on Tivoli would not have been an issue.

Mr. Borden asked if the Building Department would survey the property? Mr. Okum said I donít think the Building Department is responsible for the property lines, but frankly we probably have a lot of fences that are on the wrong or right side of the line.

Mr. Squires said I am afraid people will put them up incorrectly and then come to us for a variance. I am the point that I think Mrs. Pollitt is correct; perhaps we should require a permit so we can tell people the way it has to be.

Mr. Borden suggested communicating it in the newsletter. Mr. Squires said we do that anyway. Mrs. Huber said the old code said that any fence four to six feet needed a permit, and that was payable. It should be no charge, but you still should have a permit.

Mrs. Pollitt said there needs to be some flexibility on a situation. I can see where it is not appropriate to have a fence in the front yard between your house and the neighbor, but if it is protecting someoneís property from the general public, because of a city right of way with high traffic, that should be considered.

Mrs. Squires said I will report to Council tomorrow night that this board feels that a permit should be required for fences to prevent errors.

B. Report on Planning Commission Ė David Okum

Mr. Okum reported that Globe Home Furnishings, going into the section between the dome entrance of what used to be Roberds and the eastern corner of the facility. There will be some changes in square footage for warehousing and the distribution of offices and showroom. With a number of conditions it was approved.

There is still about half of the Roberds facility space left.

We reviewed the proposed CVS Pharmacy at Route 4 and West Kemper Road. There are a number of issues and still a lot of planning to go.

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

18 JUNE 2002

PAGE THREE

VI B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - CONTINUED

Mr. Okum added that because of the complexity of the site, they have requested to have the zoning changed to PUD, which normally is for 3-acre sites. This site is 1 Ĺ acres, and Planning decided to allow it to go PUD for better control of the development.

We looked at a parking lot expansion for Tuffy Muffler at 370 Northland Boulevard. The owner of the property appeared and there were a number of items to be resolved so it was tabled.

  1. CHAIRMANíS STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  2. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Terry Miller, 546 West Kemper Road requests a variance to allow the construction of a 768 s.f. garage. Said variance is requested from Section 153.075(B) "A single 2-car garage..is required ..maximum floor area of 700 s.f."
    2. Terry Miller said we stated everything we are doing, and I know our neighbors have gotten letters and none of them are here so I assume no one wants to contest this. It is up to you.

      Mr. Miller said as soon as you grant the variance, we will be ready to start on this. I have a boat that I want to store in the garage, and that is why I want to make it a little bit larger.

      Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting to build a 24í x 32í pole barn style garage. The area of the garage is 768 s.f. which exceeds the maximum of 700 s.f. permitted by Section 153.075(B). The applicant received a variance from BZA on 5/19/98 to remove his existing garage, with the condition that he construct a new garage within three years. Because the applicant did not construct the new garage by the specified date, the applicant appeared before BZA on 2/19/02 to ask for an extension. BZA granted an extension to February 19, 2003. On 5/10/02 the applicant submitted a permit application to construct a 24í x 32í garage, 768 s.f. The applicant was advised to revise his drawings to a maximum 700 s.f. garage or apply for a variance. The applicant made no effort in his application to explain any unusual circumstances or any other reasons for needing a structure that exceeds 700 s.f. The site plan shows the demolition of the existing shed and additional driveway to the proposed garage. The applicant should be advised that the new driveway addition must be paved.

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

      Mrs. Huber said on the diagram of the barn, is it going to be the economy or deluxe version? Mr. Miller answered it is a little bit of each. It will have the metal siding with a 16í x 7í overhead door with a shingled roof.

       

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

      18 JUNE 2002

      PAGE FOUR

      IX A TERRY MILLER 546 WEST KEMPER Ė 768 S.F. GARAGE

      Mrs. Huber said your site plan is not dimensioned. How far from the rear property will the shed be? Mr. Miller answered approximately 150 or 175 feet from the back. Mrs. Huber said and you will be parking your automobiles in this and walking 59 feet from the rear of your house to the garage? Mr. Miller said yes; I donít understand the concern. Mrs. Huber commented 59 feet is pretty far to walk. .

      Mr. Squires asked if this were the only size pole barn available? Mr. Miller answered there are all different sizes; you can get about anything you want.

      Mr. Squires said going back to staff comments, in your application you have made no effort to explain any unusual circumstances for needing such a large structure. Iíd like to hear from you on that.

      Mr. Miller answered first, I wasnít aware I had to do that, but I will. The one thing is if I want to work on the boat, which I am going to probably, I would like to have a structure to put it inside. The boat is about 27 feet from front to back. I donít think I could get it in any smaller garage without tearing something. And Iíll probably store it in there this winter. I could make it a 24í x 28í garage, which would be within the allotted square footage, but there would be less than a foot on each end. Mr. Squires said so the primary reason for this size is your boat. Mr. Miller added that he also wanted to put a workbench and lawnmower in there. Mr. Squires asked the next size down from this, and Mr. Miller answered 24í x 28í, as far as I know.

      Mrs. Pollitt said the garage doors is on the 24í side, and you are going to put a 27í boat in there. That would take up about 12 feet of that. Mr. Miller said it is 10 feet wide and would take up half of the size. Mrs. Pollitt asked if he would be able to get cars in there and Mr. Miller answered I could get one car in. By then, we will have gotten rid of a few cars.

      Mrs. Pollitt said I noticed when staff comments were made, you had a surprised look on your face about the driveway. Werenít you aware that would have to be paved?

      Mr. Miller answered no. I thought since I had a gravel driveway, I was granddfathered. Mrs. Miller asked if the whole driveway had to be paved, and Mr. Lohbeck answered whatever isnít paved now has to be paved. Mrs. Pollitt said he has a gravel driveway now, and he isnít allowed to extend onto it?

      Mrs. Miller asked what paving had to do with the garages. Mr. Lohbeck said you lost your non-conforming status, and you are creating a new garage so you have to pave the driveway. Mrs. Miller commented this is the first we have ever heard that. It will cost an arm and a leg; none of you have said that to us.

       

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

      18 JUNE 2002

      PAGE FIVE

      IX A TERRY MILLER 546 WEST KEMPER Ė 768 S.F. GARAGE

       

      Mr. Okum said it is not our responsibility to tell you the requirements of the code. Your hearing process to allow a non-conforming use according to the code. The garage you want to build is larger. If you had gone to the Building Department with a 700 s.f.. garage, this board would not have been involved at all.

      Mrs. Miller asked why that wasnít mentioned the last time we were here? Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, she asked why he hadnít said something, and Mr. Lohbeck responded that he wasnít here. Mrs. Miller said it was somebody else and they didnít mention anything like that. We didnít know it.

      Mr. Lohbeck said the applicant should be advised that the new driveway addition must be paved. Iím not sure what Mr. McErlane meant. We can clarify that before we issue the permit for the garage. Mr. Okum added I read it that if you are expanding the driveway, the new expansion will need to be an improved surface. Mr. Miller said so it wouldnít be the total driveway. Mr. Okum responded I can Ďt say that. Mr. Miller commented I was told 20 years ago that I was grandfathered on the driveway. We were asked to pave our driveway and I came up and talked to someone and was told that it was grandfathered.

      Mr. Lohbeck said your old garage was closer to the house, so it could be that he means the part from the old garage to the new garage would have to be in concrete or asphalt. Thatís what I am thinking, but I will check it.

      Mr. Weidlich asked if the shed you are going to tear down the only shed on your property? Mr. Miller answered yes, it is an extension of the old garage. Mr. Weidlich said so everything in that will go into your new garage.

      Mr. Okum said you have indicated that the garage will be large enough to eliminate the need for you to have a storage shed on your property in addition to the garage. If a motion were made to condition your variance on that basis, that the overage of 68 square feet is permitted in lieu of an outdoor storage building being placed on the site, would you understand the reason for that? Mr. Miller said basically yes.

      Mr. Okum added that the reason you have indicated is because you want to demolish the old garage and storage building and put those items in the new garage. What size is your property? Mr. Miller answered it is over an acre. Mr. Okum commented considering your willingness to do that and the fact that you would be willing to eliminate the need for an outdoor storage building in addition to the garage by allowing this variance, I would support that request with the additional items of moving the garage further back from the street and the narrow part of the garage facing the street portion.

       

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

      18 JUNE 2002

      PAGE SIX

      IX A TERRY MILLER 546 WEST KEMPER Ė 768 S.F. GARAGE

      Mrs. Huber moved to grant the variance with the conditions that there will be no additional storage building on the site and that the drives from the existing shed to the new shed be paved either with asphalt or cement surface

      Mr. Squires said and that should include the removal of the existing shed/garage.

      Mrs. Pollitt seconded the motion.

      Mr. Borden said the conditions are that the existing storage shed be removed, that the additional driveway be paved

      Mr. Borden said the conditions are that the existing storage shed be removed and that the additional driveway be paved. I thought that was a building permit issue, not a variance issue.

      Mr. Okum responded I think our purpose is to tell the Building Department in a way that the board would want to see the new drive section to be paved. We are not addressing the existing drive.

      Mr. Borden said so we are precluding them from ever constructing a storage shed on the site. But that doesnít mean that they canít come and request an additional shed in the future. Mr. Okum said right, but this variance would prohibit that construction by permit process. It would require a variance.

      Mr. Miller said you are saying that 10 years from now if Lord willing I am still here, if I wanted to put up a shed I could come in and ask for a variance.

      Mr. Okum said the reason it is conditioned to this variance is to justify the additional 68 s.f. Therefore that board would understand why this board allowed the additional 68 s.f. originally.

      Mr. Weidlich said even though Mr. & Mrs. Miller said that they would use an overhead door on this garage, should that be in the motion also? Mr. Okum said you can so amend. Mr. Weidlich moved to so amend the motion and Mrs. Huber changed her motion and Mrs. Pollitt amended her second.

      Mr. Borden asked the material the garage would be constructed with, and Mr. Miller answered a metal siding, and it will match the house, white with green trim.

      All voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

      Mr. Miller asked about the condition that the driveway has to be paved. Am I on the same timetable as I am to get this garage done? Mr. Lohbeck answered you wouldnít be able to use it until it is paved.

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

      18 JUNE 2002

      PAGE SEVEN

    3. Tuffy Auto Service Center, 370 Northland Boulevard requests a variance to allow a temporary promotional window sign. Said variance is requested from Section 153.531(D)(9)(a) "Painted and internally illuminated window signs shall be regarded as permanent signs."

No one was present representing Tuffy Muffler.

Mr. Okum said I believe that this sign is in place.

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requested a variance from the total permitted sign area to allow a painted window sign to remain. It was observed on 4/9/02 that the property was in violation for not obtaining a permit for a painted window sign. The applicant applied for a sign permit on 4/16 and on 4/17 the applicant was advised that a permit could not be issued and that the signs must be removed by 4/26/02. On 5/20/02 we received an application for a variance. One of the two painted window signs was removed. The property currently has a variance for 104.87 s.f. of total sign area, granted on 6/20/95. Although no dimensions for the window sign were indicated, the sign appears to be 2.5í x 10í, or 25 s.f. The total sign area including this sign is 129.87 s.f. The total permitted sign area is 100 s.f.

Mr. Okum said we have color pictures of the sign. Mr. Squires said according to the application, this is for a temporary promotional sign. We only allow two weeks for these signs, donít we. Mr. Lohbeck responded that painted window signs are considered permanent and require permits, and are counted as part of the total signage. Temporary banners are only allowed for two weeks.

Mr. Borden said if the applicant were to get a banner type sign on a temporary basis, that would be approved. Mr. Lohbeck reported for 14 days and then you have to wait 30 days before you can have another banner.

Mr. Okum said the applicant has a message board out on the street that has information regarding their business. They have been given notice and have extended it now by virtue of the request for a variance. They obviously donít find it very important to be here, and at this point, I canít support this variance request.

Mr. Squires said I couldnít support a variance request on this either. I would move that we vote to have him remove the sign. Mr. Okum said it should be a motion to deny the request, and then the Building Department will take action. Mr. Squires said so I move to deny the request for a variance and Mr. Borden seconded the motion.

Mr. Apke said going to the applicantís answer for number two, "Would denial of your request prevent you from reasonable use of your property, such as your neighbors enjoy?" He says, "Our neighbors in the strip center adjacent to our building all enjoy similar painted signage." I made it a point to drive by there and I saw quite a few window signs, and I know they have been there for months. I think this applicant makes a good point, and while I donítí really support allowing him the variance, I think we need to be consistent.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

18 JUNE 2002

PAGE EIGHT

IX B TUFFY AUTO SERVICE 370 NORTHLAND BLVD. WINDOW SIGNS

Mr. Lohbeck said we are very consistent. They do have permits on the other window signs. The problem is that the applicant is already over on square footage for signage. The others are within their square footage requirements.

Mrs. Pollitt said I didnít notice the other signage in the strip mall, but they were just in here recently for signage for that mall. That was the pole sign. If the neighbors were here for the pole sign, so each individual business is allowed their own signage in addition to the pole sign, and none of those exceed their allowable.

Mr. Okum said just so we all understand the reason that this business is separate is because he is already in excess of his allowable signage so the window signage is an excess of excess.

Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, Mr. Borden asked if the applicant reduced the window sign, would he be in compliance? Mr. Lohbeck answered no, he is still on a variance now. He is only allowed 100 s.f. and he has 104 s.f. right now. Mr. Borden said so heís not allowed any window signage.

Mr. Squires wondered what the present variance was for and Mr. Lohbeck answered that it was for total signage; he has 104.87 and is allowed 100.

On the motion to deny, all voted aye, and the variances request was denied with seven votes.

C. Revocation of Variance 1-2002 extending the variance to June 1, 2002, which allowed Michael Murdock, 12172 Greencastle Drive to allow the construction of a 12í x 16í utility building on his property

No one was present to represent Mr. Murdock, and no one was in the audience to speak in this regard.

Mr. Borden moved to revoke the variance and Mrs. Pollitt seconded the motion.

Mrs. Pollitt said for the record, I would like to indicate that we would like the Building Department to request that he remove the poles, and Mr. Lohbeck said that would be done. All voted aye and Variance 1-2002 was revoked.

D. Revocation of Variance 21-2001 extended to June 18, 2002 to allow a 39.57í front yard building setback and 18.37í rear yard building setback for the redevelopment of the Steak ĎNí Shake located at 11470 Princeton Pike

Mr. Okum said we have a letter requesting that this be continued until next month and there is no applicant here so we need a motion to table this. Mr. Apke moved to table and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item will be considered on July 16th.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

18 JUNE 2002

PAGE NINE

E. Tri-County Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc. 169 Northland Blvd. Requests variance to allow them to remove the Walker sign and replaced it with a "Buick" sign on the building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.531( C ) (1)(b) "maximum gross area of signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 s.f."

 

Mr. Okum said the applicant has requested that this be continued until the next meeting. Let the record show that there is no one in the audience. Mrs. Pollitt moved to table the item and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye and the item was tabled until July 16th, 2002.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
  2. DISCUSSION
  3. ADJOURNMENT

By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________,2002 __________________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

____________________,2002 __________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary