BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman David Okum.

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

    Councilwoman Marjorie Pollitt, CounciIman

    Jim Squires, Robert Weidlich and Chairman

    Okum

    Others Present: CeciI W. Osborn, City Administrator

    Richard G. Lohbeck, Inspection Supervisor

  5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  6. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 18 JUNE 2002
  7. Mrs. Huber said on Page 6, "Mr. Borden said" was there twice. Mr. Apke stated on Page 7 at the bottom of the page it should say "quite a few window signs instead of quite a few of. Also it should say I don’t really support it.

    Mr. Squires moved to approve the corrected Minutes and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye and the Minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.

  8. CORRESPONDENCE
    1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11 June 2002
    2. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2002
    3. Zoning Bulletin – June 25, 2002
    4. 6/26/02 Letter from Joe Chambers, Steak ‘n Shake to BiIl McErlane requesting that Variance 21-2001 be revoked
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on CounciI Activities – no report
    2. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum reported Planning had to elect a new secretary since Mr. Whitaker moved out of the city and Robert Sherry was elected. We reviewed the preliminary plan for the proposed CVS Pharmacy at 11601 Springfield Pike. That had been tabled, and the applicant agreed to request it to be tabled again.

We reviewed the proposed parking lot expansion for Tuffy Muffler, 370 Northland Boulevard. The expansion is proposed into the vacant lot to the west and this was approved contingent on their getting a variance from this board tonight for the side yard setback.

We also had a revision to the approved development plan for Vineyard Chapel addition at 11340-Century Circle East.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE TWO

REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION – continued

Mr. Okum added that they changed the buiIding layout and there is a little bit different shape to the buiIding to make a more traditional look for the chapel, and that was approved.

We also reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through and outdoor eating area for the United Dairy Farmers at 11620 Springfield Pike. UDF is here this evening for several variances. This was a preliminary concept presentation. They are purchasing property from the City of Springdale and are going to make an entire new development. Very positive comments came from Planning; they have done a fine job with the project. There are a number of variances required because it has four streets surrounding it.

We also reviewed the buiIding elevation modification for HH Gregg, 650 Kemper Commons. They are moving into the old Home Place area and approval was granted.

  1. CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS
  2. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Revocation of Variance 21-2001 extended to June 18, 2002 to allow a 39.57’ front yard buiIding setback and 18.37’ rear yard buiIding setback for the redevelopment of the Steak ‘N’ Shake located at 11470 Princeton Pike
    2. There was no representation, and Mr. Okum opened the public hearing, asking if anyone wished to speak. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

      Mr. Okum reported that we have a letter from Joe Chambers of Steak ‘N’ Shake, which I wiIl ask Mrs. Huber to read into the record.

      "Dear Sir:

      Please accept this letter as the request by the Steak ‘N’ Shake Company to drop any further action on the above-referenced variance and remove this matter from the agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting scheduled for July 16, 2002.

      If you have any questions, please call me at (317) 388-4400.

      Yours truly,

      Joe L. Chambers

      Senior Manager

      Architect and Engineering"

      Mr. Squires said in light of this letter, I wiIl move to revoke Variance 21-2001 and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the variance was revoked.

       

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 JULY 2002

      PAGE THREE

       

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

There was no representation and the item was moved to the end of the meeting.

Mr. Apke said under New Business, I would like to make Item B the first item under New Business, Item C the second item, Item A the third and Items D and E the fourth and fifth items.

  1. NEW BUSINESS
    1. WiIliam & Michelle Hock, 12093 Mallet Drive requests variance to allow his above ground pool to be located 14’-9" from the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.488 ( C )(1) "..shall be located 15 feet from the rear or side lot line."
    2. WiIliam Hock said my pool is three inches to my side property line than it is supposed to be. I was shocked to find that out when the inspector came out so I would like a variance to keep it there so I don’t have to tear it down and move it three inches away from the property line.

      My guess as to what happened is I had some trouble during installation of the pool where my liner caved in and I lost about ½ a pool of water. I think my pool shifted and I faiIed to recheck it when I refiIled it. I know I had measured it several times to make sure that it was 15 feet. I have a six-foot fence all the way around my rear yard with a locked gate, and it doesn’t interfere with my neighbors.

      Mr. Okum asked if there had been a survey done to determine his lot lines were. Mr. Hock indicated that there was not and that the placement was based on where the fence is.

      Mr. Okum opened the public hearing asking if anyone present wished to speak. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

      Mr. Apke moved to approve the variance and Mr. Squires seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

      B. Marsha David, 494 West Kemper Road requests variance to allow the construction of a fence in the front yard of the side street. Said variance is requested from Section 153.482(A)(3) "Fences on corner lots shall not be located in the required setback for the buiIding from the side street line."

      Matt David said I would like to put the fence on my lot. I have a fence on all three sides, and a dog and two kids. I have an orange construction fence, and my dog has realized she can eat through it and she is getting out. It would be a lot safer for the kids and dog.

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 JULY 2002

      PAGE FOUR

      MATT DAVID 494 W. KEMPER FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF SIDE STREET

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

      Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting a variance to erect a section of fence on the southeast corner of the house to an existing non-conforming fence at the right of way line of Rose Lane. Fencing is not permitted in the required setback for the buiIding from the side street line (Section 153.482(A)(3)). The existing fence is permitted to remain but cannot be replaced in its present location or expanded. The applicant currently has orange construction fencing in place.

      Mrs. Huber asked the type of fencing he wanted, and Mr. David answered I wiIl put a chain link fence up if I can. Mrs. Huber asked how far behind the front of the house it would set. Mr. David answered that it would go from the corner of the house to the fence that is there already, but if you want me to set it back off to the corner of the house, I can. I have a small porch (8’ x 8’) in the front of my house, but it wouldn’t be on the porch; it would be on the corner of the house going to the existing fence on Rose Lane.

      Mrs. Huber commented this diagram that you presented shows it to be back from the front of the house. It shows that you are putting it not to the edge of the house. Mr. David answered if that is what you want, that is what I wiIl do, but I also have a big six foot window right there that offsets off the corner of my house. If you want me to set it back, can I at least set it back to the window frame? Mrs. Huber commented sounds good to me.

      Mr. Apke wondered if he was going to try to get a chain link fence that is the same height and size? Mr. David answered the thing with that fence is that side of the land must have caved a little bit because our fence has a big dip in it. I can try to fix that dip if need be; I’d like to at least get it to the same height.

      Mr. Borden asked if he was the owner and Mr. David confirmed that he was.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said if you were not granted this variance, what would you do? Mr. David answered I guess I would have to keep replacing the orange fence that is there every time the dog chews a hole through it. I would have no other choice.

      Mr. Okum wondered if it were necessary that the fence be that far up on the front of the applicant’s property. Mr. David answered not really, but it would give the kids more play area in the back. Mr. Okum asked where they normally play, and Mr. David answered if you let them out in the back yard, they wiIl stay inside the fenced area.

      Mr. Okum commented on the other side where the garage is drawn there is an existing fence, and is it a chain link fence? Mr. David answered that it is actually a chicken wire type fence. It has been there for years. I’ll replace that too if you want me to.

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 JULY 2002

      PAGE FIVE

      MATT DAVID 494 W. KEMPER FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF SIDE STREET

      Mr. Okum commented I personally would like to see it back further from the front of the lot, but I can’t tell you exactly where that would fall. Certainly I don’t think the orange construction fence is the right way to go either.

      Mr. Okum asked if the fences would be to keep the pet inside the yard and Mr. David answered that it would be to keep the pet and the kids inside the yard. Mr. Okum continued and the existing fence is approximately 3 feet high? Mr. David answered roughly, 3 to 4 feet. Mr. Okum asked the condition of the existing fence around your property and Mr. David answered some areas need to be repaired and other areas are in good shape, except for that big dip.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Weidlich said you said you would be wiIling to put the new fence back to a picture window you have on the side. How far back is that from the corner of your house? Mr. David answered I have two picture windows; one that is by the corner and one that is 15 feet off the corner. Mr. Weidlich answered let’s say the near one; how far back would that one be? Mr. David answered one to 1 ½ feet from the corner.

      Mr. Weidlich asked the size of the back yard, 35 feet behind the house? Mr. David answered from the back of our house to the side of our neighbor’s house it is 15 feet, but we also have the garage and ¾ of it has concrete on it. Mr. Weidlich commented you have a rough back yard; there is no room for the kids except for the play set.

      Mr. Squires asked if chain link fences were allowed in Springdale. Mr. Lohbeck indicated that they were allowed. Mr. Squires said I thought fences had to be wooden and a minimum four feet high. Mr. Lohbeck referred to the Zoning Code, reporting that it says that fences cannot be electric charged, barbed wire but it doesn’t say anything about chain link.

      Mr. Okum wondered if it would be possible to move the fence further back from the corner. Mr. David answered I wiIl do whatever it takes to get a fence up, just to get that orange fence down. Mr. Okum asked where he would place it, and Mr. David answered probably between the two big six-foot windows. That would split the house along the side.

      Mr. Okum added I think it would be more appropriate to move it back from that front lot line. On the other hand if a motion were to be made, it should be very clear as to the type of fence that is being approved, because that easiIy be changed out to a six-foot high stockade fence. The maintenance issue with the rest of the fence may be something that needs to be considered also.

      IN order for this gentleman to have some enclosure to his yard, it is obvious he needs something in that general area.

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 JULY 2002

      PAGE SIX

      MATT DAVID 494 W. KEMPER FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF SIDE STREET

      Mr. Okum asked if it were necessary for the old fence to continue that far up to the front. If you were to come out to it, instead of a t go to that point and abandon the other part of the fence to bring it back to that point between the two windows. Mr. David answered I can do that if you like; actually it would make it easier to cut the grass.

      Mr. Okum said my feeling is that because of the Rose Lane side, if there were a new fence going in, that fence that flows up to the front should be brought back to where this intersection point is. If the applicant were wiIling to do that, it would pull that fence in off Rose Lane.

      Are there safety issues that would warrant needing to keep that fence there? Mr. David answered if you want me to put it back in between the two windows, I would be losing at least 30 feet of that fence, too. Mr. Okum responded it isn’t dong anything for you, is it; it doesn’t serve any function. Mr. David commented not really, no. Mr. Okum added the purpose of the fence is to get an enclosure for your chiIdren, and I would rather that be a safety issue for your chiIdren. The necessity of the fence to run up towards the front along Rose Lane isn’t as critical and it is a maintenance issue that the gentleman has to deal with. Certainly by pulling it back to this connection point would be appropriate. You could find a corner post and work from there in towards the house and hit between the two bay windows. That’s just my suggestion.

      Mr. Borden asked Mr. Lohbeck if the fences that extend to the street impact on the right of way and Mr. Lohbeck answered no.

      Mr. Weidlich asked if a lot of people walked on Rose Lane out to Kemper, and Mr. David indicated that he did. Mr. Weidlich continued I have a corner lot and for years I had problems with people cutting across my yard and I wish I could have had a fence there. You have a dip coming into your yard and in terms of safety, people cutting across the yard could fall into that depression along the road and get hurt. Mr. David said the fence stops just on the other side of the culvert.

      Mrs. Pollitt commented in light of the safety of your chiIdren and being on Kemper Road, I do believe you need something there, and I would much rather see a four foot chain link fence than the construction plastic you have there. I agree with Mr. Weidlich on the problem with traffic crossing over into your property. You might want to put a bush or something there to deter people from doing that after you move that existing fence back.

      I wiIl move to grant the variance for a four-foot chain link fence that wiIl be placed toward the middle of your house between the picture windows, to the closest existing chain link post. Then you would move the fence on Rose Lane back to meet that, and that you would do the maintenance and repair on the rest of the fence as needed. Mr. Weidlich seconded the motion.

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 JULY 2002

      PAGE SEVEN

      MATT DAVID 494 W. KEMPER FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF SIDE STREET

      Mr. Squires asked Mrs. Pollitt if she intended for the applicant to remove the orange fence on the front? Mrs. Pollitt answered I assumed that to be part of the motion. Mr. Oakum commented if the fence is being brought back to that point, the orange construction fence would go because there wouldn’t be a place for it.

      Mr. Okum said the motion is made with the understanding that the orange construction fence would be removed.

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

    3. David Nguyen, 83 SiIverwood Circle requests variance to allow the extension of a famiIy room 9’ into the garage. Said variance is requested from Section 153.090 (B) "A single two car garage..is required..minimum floor area of 400 s.f…maximum floor area of 600 s.f."
    4. James Engle, contractor for the project reported that Mr. and Mrs.

      Nguyen need more famiIy space in their home. Our first option was

      to add a room addition in the back, which was more than what their

      budget would allow. Our next option would be enclosing one of

      the garages that is existing. I noticed that in that neighborhood that

      seems to be an option that most people took. They have the only

      two car garage in that area. There are 156 homes on that street

      and 76 of them have single car garages and one has none. On

      Neuss Avenue, the street behind him, 13 of the 19 homes have

      one car garages. I convinced the owners to go with brick rather than vinyl, so it wiIl look more attractive at the front of the home.

      He does use the driveway for parking; they have two vehicles.

      They wanted more room, but nine feet into the existing garage was as far as they wanted to go.

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

      Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is requesting to convert part of their garage into a living space to expand their existing famiIy room. After the proposed expansion, a 10’ x 19’-6" garage wiIl remain. The remaining garage wIl be 192 s.f. The minimum garage size required by Section 153.090(B) of the Zoning Code for this district is 400 s.f. Prior to the adoption of the 2000 edition of the Zoning Code, properties in this zoning district were allowed to have a garage with a minimum area of 240 s.f.

      Mr. Okum commented one important item is that prior to the new Zoning Code, the minimum requirement for a garage area was 240 s.f. The applicant’s request is less than 200 s.f. of garage space.

      I have a problem with that, because it basically turns it into almost a storage room instead of a two-car garage. Ten foot wide is fairly narrow, considering that the normal garage door opening is eight foot, and that would leave two feet on each side to open your door and get your items out. That is fairly tight.

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 JULY 2002

      PAGE EIGHT

      IX. DAVID NGUYEN 83 SIVERWOOD CIR–FAMIY ROOM 9’ INTO GARAGE

      Mr. Engle suggested bringing the wall in. He needs the famiIy space very badly. Mr. Engle asked the applicant if he minded bringing the wall over less than nine feet. Mr. Nguyen indicated that he did not mind it.

      Mr. Weidlich asked the applicant if the garage is used for parking of cars. Mr. Nguyen answered that parking is just on one side. The other car is on the driveway. Mr. Weidlich said if this variance were granted, would the one car garage be used for parking or wIl that become a big storage area? Mr. Nguyen indicated that he would continue to park one car in the garage.

      Mr. Weidlich asked the size of the current famiIy room. Mr. Engle answered that it is 19’-6" deep the same as the garage, and 15’ wide. Mr. Weidlich wondered if the home has a living room and Mr. Engle responded that the famiIy room is their living room.

      Mrs. Huber commented that last year the Board issued a variance for a storage buiIding, so the applicant could put anything you might have stored in the garage in that buiIding.

      Mr. Squires asked if there would be sleeping quarters out there, and Mr. Nguyen answered that they were not.

      Mr. Okum said I appreciate the front being brick and I would encourage that. How is the match of the brick? Mr. Engle answered that the brick contractor said he could get a pretty good match. I saw two of them that looked very good.

      Mr. Okum said I would encourage a planting area in front of that wall, instead of the concrete driving going right up against the wall. Do you see any problems with cutting a slab out and creating a minimum three-foot planting bed? You stiIl would have a doublewide drive. Mr. Nguyen did not have

      Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck if the records indicate simiIar situations in this neighborhood regarding single car garages. Mr. Lohbeck answered there are a lot in that area, but I don’t know exactly how many.

      Mrs. Pollitt commented I looked at this in a totally different way. Would it be possible to leave the garage door there and leave that front part of the garage for a storage area so that from the street it would look like a two-car garage? Also you would be reducing quite a bit of the cost.

      Mr. Engle responded I know what you are saying; I have done that before. Let me pass around a copy of the front elevation. I was trying to keep the rest of the lines the same, bringing the brick all the way to the soffit as the existing windows are.

      Mrs. Pollitt asked the number of residents in the house, and Mr. Engle answered there are Mr. Nguyen, his wife and two chiIdren.

       

       

       

      BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      16 JULY 2002

      PAGE NINE

      IX. DAVID NGUYEN 83 SIVERWOOD CIR–FAMIY ROOM 9’ INTO GARAGE

      Mr. Engle added that the front elevation is very much the same design that has been done in that neighborhood. I have been in construction for 20 years, and I try to make things look like they belong there rather than something that is added.

      I was happy that they chose to go with brick. I know they were weighing out the cost difference between brick and siding. We wiIl try to keep the same window size as the existing window on the far left of the home.

      Mrs. Pollitt said if this variance is granted and you are down to the 10-foot wide garage, we have that and it is a very small garage. To pull a large car in there and open the door is almost impossibiIity and to walk around to the passenger side is not a possibiIity at all.

      Mr. Okum reported that the applicant agreed to go to 12’-3" or 12’-6" to have 240 s.f.

      Mrs. Huber said landscaping is fine. My daughter lives in The Terrace, and her neighbor has a mobiIe home in the garage, and four cars on the street. If we let him retain his two-car driveway, we would get a car off the street.

      Mr. Okum said the applicant has agreed to a planting bed only in front of the door and not to vacate the entire concrete.

      Mr. Borden said I don’t have any problem with the proposal, other than to achieve the 240 s.f.

      Mr. Okum said the applicant has agreed to meeting the 240 s.f. requirement with the remaining garage space, and to remove a portion of the driveway in front of the masonry wall to allow for a planting bed a minimum of three feet, or the width of the brick area. I think the motion should include as submitted in the attached drawing so that the brick is a part of that motion and the applicant’s request.

      Mr. Weidlich moved to grant the variance to extend the famiIy room into the garage, maintaining 240 s.f.. The right hand side of the garage wiIl remain as a garage and there wIl be a brick front toothed into the front of the home along with the window as presented on the elevation presented this evening and a three foot wide planting bed the width of the new brick on the front of the home. Mr. Apke seconded the motion. All voted aye and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

      Mr. Okum swore in the remaining applicants.

    5. Kurt Klosterman, 370 Northland Boulevard requests a variance to allow expansion of the parking lot 8" from the property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.502( C ) "In no case, however, shall the parking area or access drives be located closer than..ten (10) feet from any non-residential property line…"

Delbert R. Ogle, Professional Engineer, and representing Mr. Klosterman came forward.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE TEN

IX D 370 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD – PARKING LOT EXPANSION

Mr. Ogle stated that this plan is to add additional parking space to the Tuffy Muffler property. Their lease is due to be renewed, and they are reluctant to do that unless they can get a minimum of eight additional parking spaces.

We actually are eliminating four spaces and adding 12 for a net gain of eight parking spaces. To do this, two of the parking spaces are within 10 feet of the side property line, and that is why we are here tonight, to get a variance.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Ogle to address the height of the wall. Mr. Ogle responded that the height above grade is about three feet at the highest point and tapering down to one foot at the other end, so it is an average of two feet high, because the property increases in elevation from the street back. Mr. Okum asked if he had made arrangements with the adjacent property owner on the tree replacement issues.

Mr. Ogle answered we studied that in a little more detaiI, and I

think we can actually buiId the retaining wall around the tree, so we don’t have to take that nice tree out. It is about 12 inches in diameter, and is a beautiful tree.

The tee backing area comes in between those two trees.

The one tree that is there is probably seven or eight feet from the parking area, so I think we can just extend the retaining wall around that tree and not have to disturb it.

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

Mr. Lohbeck reported that the applicant is proposing to construct a parking lot expansion to accommodate a net increase of eight parking spaces. A short retaining wall is being proposed at the west property line and pavement wiIl but up to the wall, placing it eight inches from the property line. Zoning Code Section 153.502 (C) requires parking areas to be 10 feet from the adjacent property line. Planning Commission approved the development plan for his project on 7/9/02, contingent on the applicant’s obtaining a variance for this setback. The applicant must provide a copy of an access agreement from the adjacent property owner to allow access during construction of the wall. This wiIl be necessary before we can issue a permit.

Mr. Okum said the wall originally showed a notch for the landscaping to be cascaded over it and you would be making changes to that to give it support. Mr. Ogle reported that the notch wIl be eliminated and the planter wiIl come on top of the wall so that the planting material wiIl drape down over he wall and there won’t be that ledge on the front side that could be broken off.

Mr. Borden asked where the Board of Zoning Appeals application was. Mr. Klosterman stated that he had fiIled it out at the same time that he applied to Planning Commission.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE ELEVEN

IX D 370 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD – PARKING LOT EXPANSION

Mr. Apke said in staff comments it said that the applicant must provide a copy of an access agreement from the adjacent property owner. Do you have that?

Mr. Klosterman responded that the gentleman said that he would send it out to me next week. He is having his lawyer draw up a letter of agreement. Mr. Ogle added we would have that before the buiIding permit application. Mr. Apke asked if he anticipated any trouble with getting that agreement, and Mr. Klosterman said no. Mr. Ogle added that he agreed to do it; he just wants his attorney to do the wording.

Mrs. Huber asked if Mr. Klosterman was the owner of the property and the business? Mr. Klosterman answered I am the owner of the property and the business is leased to Tuffy.

Mr. Okum said so you own both the Tuffy Muffler parcel as well as the parcel that is currently vegetation, and the front part of the vegetation is the area where they are adding the parking spaces. Mr. Klosterman confirmed this.

Mrs. Pollitt said if the variance is granted, how many total parking spaces would you have, and do you know Tuffy’s policy on allowing cars to stay in the lot? Do they move them in and out pretty quickly, or is something that wiIl enable to store them there?

Mr. Klosterman answered they move them in and out quickly. They have people drop them off in the morning, give them a ride to work and the car might be there during the day, but then they come after work to pick them up. They don’t have people drop them off and leave them there for two or three days at a time. They don’t want to have cars taking up the spots; that is why they want more spots.

Mr. Pollitt asked how many slots would this give you for parking? Mr. Ogle answered a total of 21.

Mr. Okum asked if the applicant had any problem with putting some hedges across the Northland Boulevard side as parking lot screening. You have head in parking that is going directly against the public right of way. Typically there would be some row hedges or some types of shrubs that would be used to buffer that. I think there are some on your drawing but I’m not clear what they are.

Mr. Ogle answered that those are hedges that are on four-foot centers and a two-inch tree every 30 feet. It is continuous.

Mr. Okum said since there is an access agreement with the neighbor, I think there should also be conditions that the tree be protected and in the event that your development would impact that tree, it would be your responsibiIity to replace it. Mr. Ogle said that wIl be a part of the agreement with the neighbor. Mr. Okum responded I think it needs to be a part of our variance because of the tree being in that setback area. At this time it is not being impacted, but maybe five years from now the tree would die because of the root system being impacted or something of that nature. It would fall upon you as the affectee of it to take care and make it right. Do you understand that Mr. Klosterman?

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE TWELVE

IX D 370 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD – PARKING LOT EXPANSION

Mr. Klosterman answered I understand that. How long am I obligated for this tree? Locusts could hit in two years and decimate the tree. Mr. Okum responded I understand that. My feeling is that you are really getting on this property line and impacting that and as such if it was in its natural state, it may not have ever been impacted. I understand what you are saying, but I also want to make sure that the tree is a survivor. Mr. Klosterman responded what if the ones next to it die. Mr. Okum answered that is a very good point. If the other two trees die also, and you haven’t been near them, then obviously there would be something going on like locusts affecting the trees. But, if that one tree that is closest to your encroachment dies and the others are stiIl green and flourishing, then I would say that your expansion affected it.

Mr. Borden asked where on the drawing the tree was, and Mr. Ogle showed him, addling that the tree is actually on the neighbor’s property.

Mr. Weidlich asked if the 21 spaces would be used for customers or employees as well. Mr. Ogle answered that employees would use them as well; they use the current spaces. Mr. Weidlich commented Saturday I counted 10 cars on the north side of the buiIding by the dumpster, and I was thinking that was employees.

Mr. Klosterman said along that back area, there is some shared parking with the adjacent properties of the strip center. It is not designated; it is firsts come first served. Mr. Weidlich said so five or six of these 21 wIl be used for employees.

Mrs. Huber moved to grant the variance for the parking lot expansion and 21 parking spaces. There wiIl be a retaining wall placed around the two existing trees on the adjoining property line. If at some future date because of the expansion those trees should die, the owner of the Tuffy Muffler property would replace those trees. The retaining wall wiIl be from three feet to one foot high toward Northland Boulevard. There wiIl be hedges four feet on center as well as a tree every 30 feet in the additional parking area. Mr. Apke seconded the motion. I would like to make an amendment that Mr. Klosterman is the owner of the property on which Tuffy Muffler is located. Mr. Okum said we wIl consider that a clarification on the motion.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said if by chance the trees die as a result of your work or your expansion at any time, you are responsible for the replacement, and that wiIl be on the variance so you wIl be held responsible for those. Mr. Klosterman answered okay, as long as the other ones don’t die from locusts, that’s fine. Mr. Okum responded I think it was clear that it had to be impacted by your expansion or due to construction. I think it is necessary for it to be part of the motion and tie that responsibiIity back to you. They may ultimately do the same thing, because the trees are on their property and they are responsible for maintaining them, but there are exclusions from the Tree Preservation Ordinance and the fact that if locusts or something of that nature impacts those trees, there are exclusions for 100% replacement.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE THIRTEEN

IX D 370 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD – PARKING LOT EXPANSION

Mr. Okum said that because of their size, if you would have impacted that tree, you would have been required to do 100% replacement and not the standard 50%.

Mr. Borden asked if the motion needed to include the access agreement. Mr. Okum responded the access agreement is required before they get their permit.

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

Board of Zoning Appeals recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:47 p.m.

E. United Dairy Farmers, 11620 Springfield Pike requests the following variances for their proposed redevelopment (referred by Planning Commission)

    1. Setback from drive-thru canopy to Pear Street right of way (23’ – 50’ required) Section 153.424(B)(1)(a)
    2. Setback from buiIding to Walnut Street right of way (13’ – 50’ required) Section 153.424(B)(1)(a)
    3. Setback to pavement from Springfield Pike right of way – (16’ –30’ required) Section 153.424(B)(1)(a)
    4. Setback to pavement from Pear St. right of way (8’-30’ required) Section 153.424(B)(1)(a)
    5. Setback to pavement from Walnut Street right of way (6’ – 30’ required) Section 153.424(B)(1)(a)
    6. Setback to pavement from West Kemper Road right of way (9’-30’ required) Section 153.424(B)(1)(a)
    7. Setback – monument signs 5’ from Springfield Pike for 2 signs and 6’ for UDF sign and 3’ for bakery sign from West Kemper Road Section 153.423(B)(3)
    8. Four monument signs (2 are permitted) Section 153.531(D)(5)
    9. Impervious surface ratio of 79% (75% allowed) Section 153.531(D)(5)
    10. 44 parking spaces (51 required) Section 153.504

Mr. Osborn, City Administrator stated that I wanted to appear here because this is a very unique situation for the city, because the city owns 50% of the property that makes up this proposed development.

This project has been in the works three to four years. The development of the site is uniquely difficult. If you read Anne McBride’s letter, you can appreciate some of the things we are faced with. This is not just a corner lot; this is a lot that has four right of way frontages, so it has four front yards. A strict application of the Zoning Code would require that only 35% of 1.45 acres are avaiIable for development off the entire site.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE FOURTEEN

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

 

Mr. Osborn added that many of these variances would not be here but for the fact that it is a lot with four public streets. And if it were south of Kemper Road, in District C of the Springfield Pike Corridor District, we also would lose a lot of these variances.

Another factor is that the front yard setback affects not only the buiIding but the parking. That is why we have such a number of variances.

Another variance needed is for the number of ground signs. That is something that we negotiated with them. They have the right to two larger ground signs, but because we have a supersized block for the downtown area, we suggested that instead of the two larger ground signs, one on each street, that they use four smaller ground signs. If you look at some of the ground signs we have in the city now, I really feel they have gotten out of proportion to human scale. They are nine feet tall and they are almost biIlboards.

We suggested that they use four smaller ground signs spread across the frontage of the property on both streets. There wiIl be one ground sign in front of Busken’s, two at the corner of each street for UDF, and one at the far corner on the north end of the project for the bank.

I would like to review some of the history of this site. In early 1997, the city undertook an urban renewal study for the area bordered by Orange Street on the north, Kemper Road on the south, Walnut Street on the east and Springfield Pike on the west. Our city planner’s report determined that this area did qualify as a blighted area. Later that year, the report went to City CounciI. and CounciI declared the entire area as a blighted area and authorized the preparation of an urban renewal plan, which was eventually adopted.

One of the things that the urban renewal plan suggests is the acquisition and consolidation of the property between the elementary school and where UDF is currently located.

The city attempted to negotiate with the property owner, probably the most frustrating negotiations we have ever been through. A number of times we thought we had an agreement with the owner, only for him to walk away from the table after a hand shake but before the signature was on the paper. We negotiated in good faith for over three years and finally acquired the property through condemnation.

WhiIe we were negotiating with the property owner and felt that we might be able to close the deal through regular acquisition, we started looking for a potential developer. Between our city planner and myself, we talked to bout four or five potential users for the property.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE FIFTEEN

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Osborn said I had heard that UDF was looking to remodel their site because they were holding some of their tenant spaces open. I called Clare Evers the director of real estate for UDF, and suggested to her that if they are looking for an opportunity to remodel their site, we had an urban renewal plan and told her there might be an opportunity for us to negotiate with her for UDF to acquire the property and expand their faciIity.

. Of all the people we talked to, UDF is the only one that showed a strong interest so we continued to talk to UDF as this acquisition process went along. During this acquisition period, we initiated a phase 1 environmental study of the properties in question that we acquired. That was done because there used to be a dry cleaner on the site. It turned out that phase 1 identified perchlorethylene in the soiIs. We went on to phase 2 and did a ground water study and other evaluations. It turns out that there was not perchlorethylene or its derivatives in the ground water but there is in the soiI at a level where it has to be addressed.

IN order to address that, we initiated a voluntary action plan to the Ohio EPA. Essentially that means that because of the rather low volume of the perchlorethylene we were able to work a vap in which we hire an environmental consultant to evaluate the site, look at the conditions on the site, identify ways to remediate the site with the least impact and least cost.

What was determined was that there would be certain restrictions on construction on that site, such as a vapor barrier and venting system under the slab of any buiIding that would be buiIt there. There would be a deed restriction that it never could be developed as residential. There could not be a water well on that site. The hard surface had to cap a certain part of it where the perchlorethylene is the most intense.

We have worked that through with the environmental consultant and submitted that VAP to the Ohio EPA in ApriI. Our consultant contacted the EPA and we probably wiIl get it back with comments later this month, which means that we didn’t make it on the first try, and we wiIl respond to those comments and turn it back to them within a month after getting it back. Hopefully they wiIl promptly review it and we hope to get a favorable review out of EPA by end of September or early October.

When it became clear that we were going to acquire the property through condemnation, we started negotiations in earnest with UDF as to what our interests might be if they wanted to acquire that site, and what their interests might be. Clearly one of our interests was to try to insure that we have a high quality development on that corner. That intersection is the heart of our community, so we want the project to come out first class.

As part of the negotiations we required that the city have architectural control over the appearance of the buIding and certain input on the site itself.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE SIXTEEN

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Osborn added that they agreed to that and we examined about half dozen different types of UDF faciIities. We found one on Old State Route 74, which has a very residential character to it. It has a pitched roof and asphalt shingles. The buiIding also had many other architectural features that we liked.

Some of the things that we have been able to incorporate into the architectural style of this project is a pitched roof with asphalt shingles to give it a residential look, and there wiIl be high end treatment on all four sides of the buiIding, because this buiIding does not have a back door in the alley. The gabled ends wiIl have a very nice treatment, I call it a reflected gable. You would have a true gable and a little bit out from that a false gable, which gives you a really nice architectural feature. There are other architectural amenities on the buiIding; it has a lot of great detaiI like dental molding for the trim on the buiIding, brick on all four sides and the color combinations are great. They have concealed the HVAC units on the roof even though it is a pitched roof.

If you look at the plan, you wiIl notice the low number of pump items. For a site this size, six pump islands is very much of a concession for UDF, because a lot of their business is drive up gas. In order to make this site work with the tenants they wiIl have, they had to reduce the number of pump islands. I think that wiIl improve the appearance of the buiIding.

We even required them to do certain things to the canopy over the pump islands. They wiIl have the same architectural detaiI that the buiIding has, including rock and brick finish and a pitched roof in the middle of the canopy. Overall, I think the pump islands have been handled very well.

The typical model for UDF includes a car wash, and we told them that we couldn’t live with that, so they have eliminated that. Another thing we asked them to do was consider reducing the size of their ground signs and having four instead of two so that it wiIl be back in scale. We really want Springfield Pike to have a people scale to it. I think it is important to note that they did that whiIe staying under the allowable square footage for this site.

They also did some excellent work in terms of restricting access to the site. We have a real concern on any corner lot like this about where the curb cuts go. They limited their access off Springfield Pike northbound to one driveway in only. They use Pear Street for the exiting traffic. In addition, the site has been well landscaped. We worked with them and they also conceded to our request to donate right of way for improvement to Pear Street.

They also have agreed to donate a landscape easement to the city at the corner. We are doing a streetscape project out there right now. The corner as it is laid out right now calls for about a 16-foot circle of pavers with a center, which would contain a planter.

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE SEVENTEEN

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Osborn added one of my visions for this work that we are doing is to bring some public art or types of improvements that might be considered art to various points on the corridor through either grants or donations from foundations.

I have asked the city’s architectural consultant to give us information on a seven-foot three-tiered Spanish style fountain for that corner that would fit in the middle of the paver area. This of course wIl only happen if we can find the money through some sort of funding opportunity. Lacking that, it wiIl be a nice landscaped area.

They do have a number of front door deliveries that wiIl occur any time during the day, but any deliveries doming into the rear of the buiIding off Walnut Street wiIl occur when school is not in session.

They have agreed in writing to this.

They have shown good faith in this process. We have been working on this project at least three or four years, and they have continued to hold tenant spaces open. UDF and Busken are the only ones occupying that strip center; the rest is vacant. We are very close on the site plan. We received very favorable comment last week from Planning Commission. We are coming before you this evening to get consideration on the variances that are required, and then the project would go back to Planning Commission for a final site plan review at their August meeting.

We came to the table with a long list of things we wanted to see on the site. We ended up with a lot of things we hadn’t even thought of because we weren’t smart enough to put them on our list, but UDF came to the table with them and it really made a quality type project. We are very excited about it, and hope that you can give the variances favorable consideration. I would point out the unique nature of the site as a source of a number of these variances.

Clare Evers, Director of Real Estate and John Johnston, Architect for UDF came forward.

Mr. Okum said the variance identification markers on the drawing that you brought in this evening, are not the exact representation of the list on the agenda.

Ms. Evers stated that there are three items that we would like to modify. Under Item 4 on your list, off Pear Street there was a request that we widen the drive up area for the bank to faciIitate vans. Planning Commission suggested that if we needed to take more grass area here, they would highly recommend that we do so.

So Item 10 should Item 8.

Under #5, the 3’ should be 6’.for the setback from Walnut Street. The other thing that I see is #7, it should be "two" monument signs instead of to.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE EIGHTEEN

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Ms. Evers added that under #10, I believe we were required to have 51 spaces and 54 spaces are indicated. Mr. Okum said I don’t think it makes much difference, but staff’s calculations and recommendations at Planning Commission was 54 spaces. Mr. Johnston added that we would like to have 44 parking spaces.

Ms. Evers said according to our little map that we have given you this evening, our variance 5 is your variance 1. Our variance 6 is your variance 2. Our variance 4 is your 3 and our 1 is your 4. Our variance 2 is your 5 and our 3 is your 6. Our 7 8 9 and 10 are your 7 and 8.

Ms. Evers commented that Mr. Osborn has done an excellent job of giving you the historical background of the fact that last week Planning approved our concept plan and the conditional use on the drive up area for the bank and the outside area between Buskens and United Dairy Farmers. We are hoping to pull in people who are pedestrian oriented to our neighborhood conveniences bank and bakery shop.

The element out here is your future sidewalk streetscape plan, so we wIl be the first on this intersection that wiIl have that.

We are here asking for the variances that we are required in order to be able to do the project. We have four streets, so all of the 30-foot setbacks for pavement apply on all four streets, and the 50-foot setbacks for buiIdings would apply on all four streets.

On the pavement, variance #1 is the north side on Pearl Street, and we are asking for eight feet. Our number 2 is six feet off Walnut Street and our number 3 is nine feet off Kemper Road. Our number 4 is 16 feet off Springfield Pike.

On the buiIding setbacks, (50 feet required) on the north side, it relates to the drives up window for the bank. The actual buiIding has no problem with the setback, but the canopy that would go over the drive up windows is what we are looking at, and that is 23 feet. On the east side, on Walnut Street we are looking at 13 feet. I also would like to point out that we have landscaping fairly extensive here, and between our property line and the curb line there would be more grass area, so it is a little wider than we have just on our property.

Rather than have two large signs we thought it would be beneficial for the community and the tenants to have the identification on what we would like to propose to be the bank and Buskens here and here with small ground signs, so anybody on Kemper would know that there is a bank on Route 4 and anybody on Route 4 would know that Buskens is around the corner. UDF would be in these two spots, and we are looking at signage variances on the setbacks for the signage, but we are under your allowable size in total composition. We are looking at four small monument signs rather than two large ones, so that is a variance.

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE NINETEEN

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Ms. Evers added that we have 44 parking spaces provided and you are suggesting 51 spaces. I would point out that a lot of the bank customers would come through the drive up window rather than parking and entering the bank.

We took out gas pumps in this area to provide more parking for the bank customers.

You require 25% impervious area and we are at 21.1%.

Ms. Evers added that we have very extensive landscaping on the site that should make it look much nicer than today. The buiIding itself is lovely (passed around the board showing the buiIding materials board), and wiIl have brick all the way around it. The columns on the gas canopies wiIl have stone and brick and we wiIl have new sidewalks, which are a part of your future streetscape plan. There wiIl be a pitched roof and canopy that wiIl bring character to the development, more of a oneness in design.

For the record, Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck if there were anything that the applicant has presented that is different from what is in the staff notes, and Mr. Lohbeck indicated that there was not.

Mr. Okum asked what the color marquee is, and Mr. Johnston answered that the marquee lettering is a red block lettering, which is internally iIluminated. Mr. Okum asked if they had a drawing of the monument sign and Mr. Johnston responded not with me, but it is six feet high and 7 feet wide with a stone base. It has the United Dairy Farmer bright colored logo. The other two signs for the bank and Buskens wiIl be identical in size and presentation.

Mr. Okum said at Planning Commission, the applicant agreed to change the column configuration on the pump islands and the drive through as well so that they would blend with the buiIding, stone and drivitt.

Mr. Okum said for clarity, on our sheet we need to make an adjustment, the setback to pavement from Pear Street right of way should say 8 feet and we also should change setback to pavement from Walnut Street right of way to 6 feet instead of 3 feet.

For the record, if this wiIl be an exhibit we should renumber it to have correct cross-references. If the applicant could supply that to us, it would be very helpful. Fifty-four is the correct number for parking spaces required, and you are providing 44.

Your comment regarding the greenspace around the site of city-owned property is accurate. There is an area of green that is stiIl there that is not showing up on their requirements.

Mr. Borden asked the number of handicap spaces proposed, Mr. Johnston answered that there were two on the Route 4 side and one on the Kemper Road side.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE TWENTY

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Squires asked how the bank drive through would be accessed, and Mr. Johnston answered either Walnut or Pear Street. One of the requirements was for a minimum of five vehicles to stack but essentially there are 15 vehicles in that stacking. He added that there were multiple exits avaiIable.

Mrs. Pollitt commented I am thriIled with this; the concept and quality is wonderful; it is a first class job. Ms. Evers responded we have been in this community for a long time.

Mr. Squires added the administration has been working overtime on this, and we are anxious to get this thing moving. If things go well, we are hoping for an October construction. It wiIl be an asset to Springdale.

Ms. Evers responded we have to get all our buiIding permits, but I am hoping we wiIl close before year-end with construction probably in the spring.

Mr. Borden asked if this development were dependent upon a favorable report from EPA. Mr. Osborn answered yes; the site requires numerous variances, and without those variances it is very limited in terms of how it can be developed. If we would have to observe the setbacks for the four frontage streets, you would have a postage stamp left in the middle that you could use for development. They are not going to want to buy the property from us to do that because they would end up with a smaller project than they have already. Clearly by consolidating the properties, we are doing a lot to improve the community. I think the whole intent of the zoning board is to look at how these variances impact the community, both the neighbor’s quality of life and the over all community. Our city planner speaks positively in both of those areas.

Mrs. Pollitt said I wanted to comment on the covered outdoor eating area. That fits in very nicely with what we are looking at for the rest of the Old Town feel that wiIl be happening to the south of Kemper Road. Is the outdoor eating area for the bakery and UDF? Ms. Evers answered yes, they would be able to exit the bakery or UDF and use the tables. We wiIl have an inside ice cream parlor, but you could exit it and sit outside.

Mrs. Pollitt said there are three oblong blocks by the buiIding setback lines right by the pumps. What are they? Mr. Johnston answered they are underground storage tanks. Storm water detention wiIl be underground as well, and wiIl meet the 100-year storm.

Mr. Weidlich commented the front elevation appears to be mislabeled as the West Kemper Road. Mr. Johnston said that is right, thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE TWENTY-ONE

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Apke wondered what the current impervious surface ratio was on the site. Mr. Johnston answered I didn’t calculate it, but if you would look at it in terms of what it was before the buiIdings were removed, it probably would be equal to or greater than what we wiIl have now. Typically for a site like this, we would collect about 2,000-2,500 cubic yards of storm water. This wiIl calculate out to about 7,000. There wiIl be a substantial amount of water that we wiIl store before we discharge it on the site. I don’t know specifically, but almost everything on out lot and the lot behind us was paved.

Mr. Apke responded that was the point I was trying to make. It looks like you actually have more landscaping than was initially there. Mr. Johnston answered that is correct. If you would look at just our site, we have more landscaping here than we have out there right now.

Mr. Apke asked the current number of parking spaces. Mr. Johnston answered I don’t really know. I would say may 25 spaces. Mr. Lohbeck estimated 30 to 35.

Mr. Osborn commented that the bank has indicated that they intend to park their employees off site, and that is not uncommon for banks. So, we wiIl have some offsite parking of employees that wiIl help the ratio here. Also if you look at the UDF operation, a greater percentage of their footprint is occupied by non-public areas, the coolers, refrigerated storage areas, etc.

Mr. Okum asked if UDF would stay in operation whiIe the new buiIding is being buiIt behind it. Mr. Johnston answered that they cannot answer that. There is a real good possibiIity of that at least for a period of time, but then there would be a point where we would have to take that buiIding down to get everything prepared because there is a tremendous amount of underground infrastructure that has to be put in..

Mr. Okum commented if I were to look at this strictly as a zoning issue, and a developer wanted to come in and buiId a box and throw it on the site and want these setbacks, I would do it with conditions. I think both the city and UDF have addressed the conditional issues that I would have imposed upon the variances request very well, and I am extremely pleased with the presentation and what wiIl ultimately happen. I do not have any objections to any of the requested variances, and I wiIl be supporting this.,

Mr. Apke said we have a list of questions we need to have answered in order for us to grant variances. The first one is that there are exceptional circumstances or extraordinary conditions. I think with four front yards you definitely make cut number one. The second one is that it is necessary for preservation and enjoyment to substantial property rights, and I think that also would be met. Also that it would not be a detriment to adjacent properties and I think this is nothing but a plus. The fourth is that it is not general or recurrent in nature j- I think it definitely meets all those tests, and if nobody objections, I would like to make a motion at this time.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 JULY 2002

PAGE TWENTY-TWO

IX UNITED DAIRY FARMERS REDEVELOPMENT 11620 SPRINGFIELD PIKE

Mr. Apke said I would like to see the package of variances, 1 through 10 as a whole, in #4 the right of way corrected to 8’ and #5 the Walnut Street right of way as 6’ and with those changes, I would move that those variances as requested by the applicant be granted. Mr. Squires seconded the motion. Mr. Apke added that we should reconciIe your diagram of the variances with the numbers in our packets. Mr. Johnston stated that he would get that to the buiIding department tomorrow.

Mrs. Pollitt commented on the parking slots, I don’t think it is an issue because of the type of customers that would be visiting that location. They won’t be shopping for ½ hour or one hour to do their grocery shopping. Most of them would be 15 or 20 minutes. Mr. Johnston added usually it would be less than five minutes.

Mr. Okum said they commented at Planning Commission that their display and the merchandise in the United Dairy Farmer is much different from a CVS or Walgreens.

Mr. Borden asked if they would have an ATM inside the UDF and Mr. Johnston answered that they would. Mr. Okum added that they are putting the pay phone inside the buiIding if they have one.

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

The Board moved back to Old Business, the request by Tri-County Pontiac Buick, 169 Northland Boulevard to replace the Walker sign with a Buick sign.

There stiIl was no representative present, and Mr. Squires moved that due to lack of representation the request be removed from the agenda and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. All voted aye and the item was removed. A letter wiIl be sent to the applicant informing them of the action.

  1. DISCUSSION
  2. Mr. Squires said I would like to thank all of you for your support on the UDF project. This has been a long struggle.

    Mr. Okum reported that he had brought up the issue of front yard fencing and requiring permits for fences and the BuiIding Department wiIl look into it.

    Mrs. Pollitt commented my neighbor brought that over to me. She lives at Harter and Van Cleve and would like to put a new chain link fence up. If she would try to do that, it would be considered to be a new fence in a front yard and would not be allowed. It is a high traffic area and she has a swimming pool. If she took that fence down, there would be a real issue with people crossing over her yard.

    Mr. Okum said I could take that back to planning also.

     

     

    BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

    16 JULY 2002

    PAGE TWENTY-THREE

     

  3. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Apke moved to adjourn and Mrs. Huber seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:56 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

___________________,2002 ________________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

 

___________________,2002 ________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary