20 AUGUST 1996

7:30 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman William Mitchell.


Members Present: William Mitchell, Councilwomen Marge Boice and Kathy

McNear, James Squires, Thomas Schecker and Barbara



Mr. Mitchell stated that since the chairman has resigned, and as vice chairman,

I will take the seat of the chair, the position of vice chairman is now vacant. Do

we have any nominations? Mrs. McNear nominated Mr. Squires and Mrs. Boice seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Squires was elected by acclamation.


Mrs. McNear moved to adopt and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative



A. 7/19 Letter of Resignation from Barry Tiffany

B. 7/25 Letter to Donald Kidd, 557 Observatory Drive re expiration of

variance to allow truck to be parked in driveway

C. 8/5 Letter to Springdale Ice Cream & Beverage, 11801 Chesterdale

Road re expiration of variance to allow trailer in front of the building

D. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 9 July 1996


A. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice said Iím sure you all received in your packets copies of Ordinances 20, 42, 43, 48 and 49. That is my explanation of some of the things that Council has been doing. These of course do relate to some of the items we deal with here.

B. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. McErlane reported that one item was a concept discussion for

Furrows contractor type warehouse supply operation at the west end of the former Roger Candy Plant. There was a lot of discussion on traffic and surface they would use for outside storage and the visibility. Generally there was positive feedback, but they asked them to go back, evaluate those items and come back to Planning with more information.

There was one item that might be of interest to this Board, and that was Ethan Allen had come in and requested their separate sign. If you recall, this Board had acted on a variance to combine the three properties on one sign for Tumbleweeds OíCharleyís and the third tenant. Ethan Allen wanted to have their own sign and we brought it to

Planning Commission because Planning had referred it to this body initially, and Planning denied that request.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Two



Mr. McErlane reported there was another request for a concept discussion of Air Tite Windows facility at the Renaissance Property. It is the property along I-275 directly west of Avon. It is the piece of property originally involved in the Pictoria Island development. Pictoria Island let their option on the property lapse, and Air Tite Windows has an interest in it. Although I think Planning Commission would like to see the Pictoria Island development go, it would not be right to hold up another developerís right to develop the property if they have an option on that property. They received some favorable comments and will need to put together a formal preliminary plan which we feel will be referred to Council for a modification to the PUD Plan.

Mr. McErlane continued there was a revision to Charing Cross Estates, which is a condominium development that is planned to occur across the street from this building on Springfield Pike. The modification entailed increasing the number of units from six to 12, and each building would have the same footprint as it previously had only it would be a four unit two story building instead of a single story two unit building. The concerns Planning Commission had were the minimal amount of parking that was being provided; each unit would only have a single car garage and a single car driveway with no additional parking, and they werenít as enthusiastic about the architectural features of the proposed new two story building. The applicant actually withdrew his request after he received some comments.

Mr. McErlane reported there has been a kind of continuing saga with Home Quarters on their outside storage and loading and pallet storage in the back. They have come up with what they think as a solution for the pallet storage and Planning agreed with that part of it. They still think they need to work on their outside sales storage because it gets kind of unruly at times, so they will be back in for that part of it.



A. Edith McCabe, 725 East Crescentville Road requests variance to allow a garage conversion. Said variance is granted from Section 153.025(F) "Each single family dwelling in a R-1-D District shall have a one or more car garage."

Mrs. McCabe stated the conversion is already done. In 1980 we moved here and I started a business, and my garage has been an office ever since then. In 1989 my husband put a French door in there, and I thought he took care of all that; he passed away in 1990.

Mr. McErlane added personally I noticed the door was there in the last six or seven years, but itís hard to have a handle on what items have been nonconforming over the years in some of the subdivisions, and which ones have popped up from time to time. He asksed Mrs. McCabe what the business entails? Mrs. McCabe reported that it is a sales force, selling steam traps and steam valves, and ultrasonic test equipment. Mr. McErlane continued so it is a sales office for you and family members? Mrs. McCabe answered yes, my son works there too.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Three


Mrs. Boice asked if it were used as an office rather than a family room. Mrs. Boice asked if there were only family members involved in the business, and Mrs. McCabe confirmed this. Mrs. Boice said you converted that previous to 1990 and Mrs. McCabe responded we moved here in 1980 and we were using it as an office then. He didnít put up the doors until probably 1989. Mrs. Boice continued this came to light during our city wide inspection? Mr. McErlane said no, Mrs. McCabe came in and applied for a permit to put a small shed roof over that area where the garage was, and we looked through the records and could not find a record of a variance.

Mr. Squires wondered if there were a problem with the zoning, since she is running a business in a residential area. He asked Mrs. McCabe if she did most of her business over the phone and if she delivered. Mrs. McCabe confirmed that most of the business was phone business, and they buy from the factory and they do the delivering. Mr. McErlane reported you are permitted to have home occupations and home offices in residential districts if they donít occupy more than 25% of your house, you donít attract more than two vehicles to the residence at any point in time, only family members can work in the business and you canít detract from the residential character of the neighborhood. There are some specific restricted businesses such as barber shops and automotive repair and those type of things.

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

B. Mildred A. Meyer, 11817 Neuss Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a porch roof to extend eight feet into her front yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.037(D)"...may project six feet into a required front yard..."

Carl Vanover approached the Board, stating that Mrs. Meyer and I got married last October and she elected to retain her name; the house is still in her name only. We had requested a permit to build a porch across the front of the house, not knowing that there was a limit to the size of the porch. I have a picture of the type porch that we want. Our builder is also here if you have questions. Those are pictures of the porches he has built, and this one is the one we propose to build.

Mr. Mitchell commented when I went by, I noticed that on the street there are no houses that have a porch that projects out more than probably two to three feet, which is pretty much of an overhang. Is there any stipulation in the Code regarding that street and whether or not they can have something like this, regarding setbacks?

Mr. McErlane reported only within the specific setback requirements of the zoning Code, the typical setback, plus it allows for the projections of a porch six feet into that required front yard, or if it were on a side yard it would be three feet and in a rear yard you can go as much as half the required setback. A lot of the architecture on that street doesnít lend itself to putting those type things on it. Mrs. Boice commented so we are looking at a two foot difference, and the length would be 22 feet. Mr. Vanover confirmed this. Mrs. Boice wondered if they would do this untreated wood and Mr. Vanover indicated that they would.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Four


Mr. Schecker asked if six feet which is allowed inadequate for you? Mr. Vanover responded we feel like it is, because we want to put some nice furniture on the porch. Mr. Schecker continued I am concerned in the normal line of the houses that it will jut out quite far. No doubt it would improve your own property quite nicely, but it looks like it would be quite an obvious jut into the area. Mr. Vanover answered there nothing else on that street that projects out like that, but I canít see where it would detract from the rest of the street. Mrs. Meyer added up in the next block there is one.

The contractor added from what I understood on a 20 foot clearance from the deck porch to the sidewalk, we can only go six feet. It would take 30 feet to build an eight foot and right now we have 25 feet and four and one half inches, so we are only four feet five and one half inches. For clarification, Mr. Schecker wondered if he were saying that if you were building a 30 foot wide porch. The contractor answered from what I understood, if we had 30 feet from the deck porch to the sidewalk, it would be past Code and at 20 feet, we could only build a six foot porch. We have 25 Ď 4 1/2". Mr. McErlane reported when the applicant first came in with an eight foot deck porch, I had indicated that the only way he could build that was if the front yard setback on the house was further back than the required setback, because you can project six feet into a required setback . In essence the house would have to be two feet further back than its required setback in order to build an eight foot deck, and that is not the situation.

Mr. Squires confirmed that this would be pressure treated lumber and it will be sealed and kept nice. Mrs. Meyer confirmed this, adding that it will be painted white.

Mrs. Boice added you are absolutely sure that six feet would not workable. Mr. Vanover responded at this point we are really not interested in building six feet.

Mr. Mitchell stated one of my concerns is that to grant you a variance to build something more than six feet, it is kind of like a chain thing. Two months from now you could have another neighbor come in and request a porch going out 10 feet then 12 feet. We have to look at the overall picture and try to determine the best interests of Springdale. We would hate to have someone come in here and say that we allowed Mrs. Meyers to go eight feet; why canít I go 8í6"? I would like to stick as close as possible to six feet with this issue. Mr. Vanover responded if you are going to stick to the six feet, we will cancel the plan. Mr. Mitchell responded that is your option.

Mr. Schecker wondered if there were any other neighbors in the audience that wish to speak to this. There were none.

Mr. Vanover reported the only comment weíve had from the neighbors is can they come over and sit on it. Everybody signed the notice willingly and seemed to be enthusiastic. They thought it would be an improvement to the neighborhood.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variance, adding that she is putting this positively, but she will not be supporting an eight foot variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. No one voted aye and Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell voted no. Variance was denied with six negative votes.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Five

C. Springdale Ice Cream & Beverage, 11801 Chesterdale Road requests extension of four month variance allowing the location of a 10í x 30í trailer in front of their building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.082(C) "No main or accessory use shall be permitted in a trailer or other nonpermanent structure."

Mike Smith Facility Engineer stated we do have a variance, and we are asking that it be extended for two months.

Mr. Mitchell commented since you didnít meet your original schedule, how sure are you that you will meet this next schedule? Mr. Smith responded we think it will be less than 60 days, but I am asking for the two months to cover it.

Mrs. Boice stated I reviewed the minutes from four months ago, and you were very positive at the time that you could do it in four months. In fact, Mr. Squires and myself opened it up for you at that time because in our minds knowing how things go when somebody says four months, it generally means eight. We were questioning whether you could complete it in four months, and Iím going to ask you the same question again that Mr. Mitchell has just asked. Do you really honestly and sincerely think you can have it done in two months? I donít see any point in our going through the paperwork or your coming back for another appearance. We know you are in the process and that you intend to get it completed, but are you setting yourself on too tight a deadline as you did last time?

Mr. Smith responded I am the new engineer, so I canít comment on what was expressed at that meeting, but I have reviewed with the people who have another project to go to and they said 60 days from today that there will not be a trailer out there and they would have to use alternative means in the building.

Mr. Squires said for the sake of your business and everything else, I honestly feel that if you canít complete this in two months, asking for another extension probably wonít be possible, you wonít get it. Mr. Mitchell stated he said if it isnít done, he will move the trailer out. Mr. Smith added we have an alternative.

Mr. Squires moved to grant the variance for two months, until October 20 and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Squires, Mrs. McNear, Mr.Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Temporary variance was granted with six affirmative votes.í

D. Lloyd Dick, 332 Cherry Street requests variance to allow the construction of a 12í x 16í utility building. Said variance is requested from Section 153.036 "..shall not exceed 120 square feet..."

Mr. Mitchell asked if he had a utility building in the back and Mr. Dick answered that he has an old one that he plans on tearing down to put up a new one. I have a $1100 lawn mower setting out right now, and I would like to put it in the building.

Mr. Squires commented that this is a rather large facility. It isnít that we have not approved something that large before; are you going to store any hazardous materials in there? Mr. Dick indicated that he was not. Mr. Squires wondered if the material would be wood or metal and Mr. Dick stated it would be wood with a shingled roof.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Six


Mrs. Boice stated I did not get up to see the property today but I am very familiar with that area. On the plan we have here there was no indication of the depth of your property. Mr. Dick stated it is 135 feet.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the variance as requested and Mr.Squires seconded the motion. Mr. Mitchell stated the motion has been made and seconded with the understanding that you will remove the existing building. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr.Squires, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

E. Kim Chan, Dragon City Restaurant, 330 Northland Boulevard requests variance to the parking requirements. Said variance is requested from Section 153.j091(A)(5)(c) "...restaurants..shall have one space for every three fixed seats and one space for every nine square feet of assembly area.."

Ted Wu reported I am speaking for Kim Chan and we submitted a formal plan and request for variance for the parking situation and usage of the parking lot. Dan Comer the owner indicated that everything could work out between the tenants, especially since The Boulevard is not open until 7:30 p.m. That means that in the daytime there are 79 spaces available. After 5:30 or 6:30, the parking lot is empty. so it would work just perfectly.

Mr. Mitchell said you say that this was something worked out between the tenants. Mr. Wu reported according to the minimum requirement for parking spaces, we need 24 more spaces. In the meantime, that parking lot is not fully used.

Mr. Mitchell stated that one of my concerns is that I donít see anything in writing to inform me that the tenants agree with this. These are their operating hours now, but what would happen if these operating hours would change a week from now? Mr. Wu responded we can have Mr.Comer talk to the tenants. If there is any change, we can make arrangements in the future.

Dan Comer, owner of the property reported most of the tenants have been in there for a good many years, some going back as far as 1969 and 1970. There is a very minimal turnover of tenants there. The tendency is mainly retail service type of tenants versus the full fledged retail. Fore example, the dry cleaner, lock shop, shoe store, electric store, pony keg, barber shop, all are in and out type stores. There is about 8,000 square feet that does not use parking after 5 in the evening. The Boulevard which requires a good many parking spaces does not open until 7:30 p.m., so there is no problem there. We have never had a parking problem down there. I have owned the center since 1968 and it is designed for an equal balance for retail type service business. 90+% of Donatoís business is delivery; they only have at most 20 eat in spaces. The newest tenant is the sun tan parlor at eight years, so I am not looking for a turnover. Most of the stores are 1,000 to 2,000 square feet.

Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. McErlane to explain the variance and the number of additional spaces being asked for. Mr. McErlane stated that the total number of parking spaces was 156. If you base it on the square footage, it would provide for 14 parking spaces. Based on seating in the proposed restaurant, it requires 38 parking spaces. In essence, you are looking at an additional 24 parking spaces.

Baord of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Seven


Mr. McErlane reported when Mr. Chan came in, he explained the differences in operating times for the different businesses, but our Zoning Code doesnít provide for those type things. We have looked at those mixes of uses on Cassinelli Square, because of the theaters restaurants and shopping, and I think we also looked at it relative to the Outback because Outback doesnít open for lunch business, and most of those are service type businesses that close before the dinner crowd comes in, so there is no real precedence to set here. There is nothing in the Code so that I can make a decision to allow him to vary from that.

Mr. Mitchell said regarding the handicap parking spaces, do we have a sufficient number and where are they located in relationship to the proposed restaurant? Mr. Comer reported we have sufficient, and the building is 330 feet long so they are divided to make it convenient.

Mrs. Boice asked the percentage of take out versus eat in. Mr. Wu responded we anticipate at lunchtime 100 dine in and for dinner about 50. Take out might be varied. It depends; take out is not occupying a lot of space. That area is not very busy; we don expect it to de a very busy location, so that parking space is quite enough for a small restaurant like that. Mrs. Boice asked the seating number and Mr. Wu reported 116. We might be able to reduce it if there is trouble with the parking spaces. Mrs. Boice responded if you are talking about 100 diners over lunch hour thatís a fair amount of traffic in and out.

Mrs. McNear said I am wondering if a lot of your business is carryout. Do you deliver? Mr. Wu indicated right now two restaurants deliver, Wok N Roll and Chung Dynasty, and most of their business is delivery. In that space we would like to provide our customers a fine facility. Mrs. McNear commented if you do deliver, that would reduce the parking even further. It makes me very nervous to issue a variance for reduced parking, because we have a few places in Springdale where we have reduced the number of parking spaces or we have reduced the width of parking lots and it ends up being a real problem in the future.

Mrs. Boice wondered how many parking spaces short they are, and Mr. McErlane answered 24. The 24 is based on the number of seats that they have. Mr. Comer had indicated about 8,000 square feet is closed around 5 or 6 oíclock, which equates to about 36 parking spaces that would become available at that point of time. The Boulevard itself generates a need for about 79 parking spaces, and it doesnít open until 7:30. Mrs. Boice asked the hours for the evening, and Mr. Wu indicated that they would be open until 9 or 10 p.m.

Mrs. Boice stated lunch hour is what I think could be a real problem. That is my only concern, and I am very familiar with that area. In all sincerity, I have never been in the area when all the parking spaces were full. I am not there in the evening or lunch or dinner hours. I would agree with Mr. Comer as far as Donatoís is concerned; their business is basically a take out or pick up. At 7:30 when The Boulevard is opening and many couples donít go to dinner until 8 or 8:15 so that is a matter of concern, and particularly the lunch hour. I have some worries for you, because this will not be successful if your clients cannot get there. I have found that people will avoid an area if it presents a parking problem.




Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Eight


Mrs. Boice added I have found that people will avoid an area if it presents a parking problem. It isnít just that we are going by the book; it

is that there is no point in putting a business in there if itís not going to succeed and be accessible to your clientele. I do think that is a concern; I guess you could go through the configuration of reducing your tables and work around it that way. Mr. Wu stated we can reduce it by 16 to 100. Mrs. Boice said so it would still be 19 parking spaces short.

Mr. Comer commented that is based on the full retail operation. Mr. McErlane added the comparison of the additional 24 spaces is just on that space alone, based on it being a retail operation versus the amount of seating in that store. For the overall center, you are about 40 parking spaces short of what the Code would require, but a big percentage of that, probably one-third is The Boulevardís parking. Mr. Comer commented there is no distinction in the Code between retail service, which is what we have, and full retail. Mr. McErlane agreed, adding that it is based on square footage.

Mr. Comer added I have been there over 20 years, and there is probably 30 parking spaces between the end of the building and Spinning Fork which is never used. There is always parking there.

Mr. Mitchell commented I share Mrs. Boiceís concerns; it would create a parking problem that is not good for your business. It seems like it could be a real gamble to approve something like this. Mr. Wu said after 9 the parking spaces are abundant. It is not a busy shopping center.

Mr. Squires commented I know variance goes with the property. What would happen with the termination of your lease and you leave. Does the new business also get this variance? Mrs. Boice responded my understanding is that the variance goes with the land. Mr. Squires wondered if they still would be profitable if they reduced their seating to 100 seats. Mr. Wu stated we can survive with 100 seats.

Mrs. Boice commented that whole area needs to be reblacktopped. With reblacktopping and restriping, you might come up with some extra spaces. Mr. Comer responded the reason I havenít done that is because Metropolitan Sewer District is discussing a new sewer along there. I had it on the agenda for last fall; it definitely needs it. Mrs. Boice added I am still waiting to see flowers and bushes. Mr. Comer responded there is nowhere to put them. I am getting ready to make some changes to The Boulevard. If it would make a difference here, I would request the seating capacity be reduced to 90 for The Boulevard, which would change all the parking requirements altogether.

Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. McErlane if the variance would go with the property and Mr. McErlane indicated that was true, but in the case of mixed uses, every time a use changes within a building, we reevaluate the parking. That is why this issue is coming up tonight.

Mrs. Boice commented I would like to see it dropped to know off 16 of that seating. Are you willing to drop your seating to 100? Mr. Wu responded that is no problem. We can do more carry out. We will work out the business proportion. Mrs. Boice said that brings the shortage down to 19 parking spaces.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August !996

Page Nine


Mr.Schecker said I am a little confused in that the heavy requirement is in the midday. Are you concerned about that time in the center, or are you talking about the evening? Mrs. Boice responded the evening everything except The Boulevard is done. I think the lunch hour with 100 people in and out in two hours could be a problem. I donít have restaurant experience, and Id donít have any idea what the traffic will be between 11 and 1.

Mr. Schecker continued my point is that I donít personally see that we should restrict his plan from 116 down to 100 arbitrarily for the daytime hours, when he seems to have a pretty good plan for the daytime hours. Conversely at night when The Boulevard is open, the biggest threat he might have is his clients might not get to his place. I think thatís his own personal worry, but realistically if he has 50 clients at night, which probably is realistic, his property isnít the real pressure there. I donít know how much pressure The Boulevard puts on it when they are open. Mr. Schecker confirmed with Mr. Comer that he had said even when The Boulevard is open, they donít utilize all the spots in that lot. Mr. Comer confirmed this, adding that at that time, historically it is 9:30 or 10 before anybody shows up. The other thing is when The Boulevard does open, there is 30+% of the shopping center that is already closed. The only store that is open is Donatoís, and 95% of their business is delivery. Taking that into consideration, we should say fine, we donít require parking spaces for the other 13 tenants in the shopping center, because at 9:30 everything is closed but Donatoís and The Boulevard. The liquor store closes at 9 or 9:30.

Mr. Mitchell commented my real concern is the lunchtime period. That is when it will be the busiest. What impact will that have on your other tenants? Mr. Comer answered I do not think it will have any impact because there is always an abundance of parking. With The Boulevardís requirement, at lunchtime all the other spaces becomes available. At lunchtime on any given day, there are 60 to 70 parking spaces available. Most of the people come in and go out; they do not come in and spend a leisurely hour and a half buying furniture for example.

Mrs. Boice stated the original seating capacity was 116. To get that requirement as low as possible, I still would like to go with the 100. I really believe that a lot of your Chinese business will be carryout.

Mrs. Ewing commented I would like to echo Mrs. Boiceís concern. I think if we maxed out at that, I would feel a little more comfortable with that number, even though it is still putting the property 19 spots over. Maybe by the time Mr. Comer gets around to resurfacing it, it may open up some. I would like to keep it at the 100.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the parking variance, with the stipulation that the seating capacity is 100. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr.Schecker, Mr. Squires, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Mitchell. Mrs. McNear voted no, and the variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

Mr. Mitchell asked the status of the Kidd situation. Mr. McErlane reported that we have determined what is going to happen on the property as far as their revised plans are concerned. The only thing that is still being decided is how much we are going to reimburse.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

20 August 1996

Page Ten


Mrs. Boice asked about the letter to Mr. Kidd on 557 Observatory Drive concerning the parking of his truck in his driveway. Mr. McErlane reported Gordon checked and has not seen any evidence of the truck or any ruts. Mr. Mitchell added I was by there Sunday and saw the truck parked out front. Mr. McErlane stated we will check that out.

Mr. McErlane stated I have an item I would like you to think about and give me an answer next month. I have asked Planning Commission to do the same. We have budgeted for a workshop on public hearings and zoning issues and legal issues relative to zoning that we would like to hold towards the end of the year or maybe in January, primarily because the Planning Commission agenda is a little slack at that time of the year. I would like to know if you would rather do that in an evening meeting or early on a Saturday. We are thinking in the neighborhood of a four hour work session. Think about the best time for you and weíll discuss it next month. Mrs. McNear commented please donít make it in December; itís too busy a time and you wonít get much attendance. Mr. McErlane commented Anne McBride, our planning consultant is going to help out, and the Ohio Planning Council Regional Association does a workshop in December, so January may work out best. Mrs. Boice added if it is early January.


Mrs. Boice moved for adjournment and Mrs. Ewing seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye,

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,1996 ________________________

William Mitchell, Chairman



____________________,1996 __________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary