BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

19 SEPTEMBER 1995

7:30 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chairman Ralph Nadaud.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Councilwomen Kathy McNear and Marge Boice,

William Mitchell, Ralph Nadaud, Thomas Schecker,

James Young and Wilton Blake.

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 22 AUGUST 1995

Mr. Nadaud stated we did not receive copies of these Minutes until tonight, so

none of us have had a chance to review these. I would like to make a motion that we wait until the next meeting for approval. By voice vote, all voted aye,

and the Minutes will be considered at the next meeting.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 9 September 1995

B. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated due to the length of this eveningís meeting, I am going

to forego a report. Basically, nothing has transpired that would have any- thing that this Board would have to deal directly with.

C. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Nadaud stated that Mr. Blake has passed out a letter explaining the

items discussed at the Planning Commission. Mr. Blake moved that

it be included in the Minutes of this meeting. Mrs. Boice seconded the

motion; all voted aye.

"The following action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting

of September 12, 1995:

1. Payless Shoes Requests a 20" x 21í-9" wall sign at

80 West Kemper Road. Total Signage Allowed is

160 Square Feet; 184.0 Square Feet is Requested

(Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "..Maximum gross area of

signs..") Failed 4-3

2. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Car Wash,

1333 East Kemper Rd. (former Blimpieís) Passed 7-0

3. Anchor Associates Requests Approval of Tree Removal

Plan, Kroger Property - Passed 7-0

4. CB Commercial Requests 400 Square Foot Sign for IDIís

Northwest Business Center - Passed 7-0

5. Boston Market, 810 Kemper Commons Circle Tri-County

Commons Requests Final Site Approval - Passed 7-0

6. Longhorn Steak House, 11530 Princeton Pike Requests

Final Approval of Proposed Addition - Passed 7-0

7. Tri-County Mall Requests Approval of Proposed Modification

to Entrance A of Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike - Tabled

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Two

C. - REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - continued

8. Extended Stay America Inc. Requests Preliminary

Approval of Proposed Hotel at I-275 and Glensprings

Drive (Strebel Property) - Passed 7-0

9. Barycenter Properties Requests a Modification to the

Preliminary PUD Plan for Northwest Business Center

for "Pictoria Island" - Passed 5-0"

D. 8/16 Thank You Letter to Board from Hope Palmer, Collins Signs, Inc.

E. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8 August 1995

F. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes 22 August 1995

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. RSL Architecture Requests Variance to Allow Parking Space Width of 8í6" at Executive Plaza I & II, 134 & 144 Merchant Street. Variance is Requested from Section 1453.123 Which Indicates a Required 9í Minimum Width Parking Stall (tabled 7a/18/95 & 8/22/95)

Mr. John Rickert, Managing Agent for Ohio Teachers Retirement System which owns the Executive Plaza property, and I am with CB Commercial. Tony Ravagnani is with RSL Architects who we have retained to do parking lot surface space planning studies and Pam Townley is the actual property manager for the property, and she is also with CB Commercial.

Mr. Rickert stated we currently have 806 parking stalls on this property known as Executive Plaza I and II. We would like to add 26 more stalls to the surface lot as evidenced by the diagram. To accommodate these 26 stalls, 520 will not be affected, and will remain at the nine foot requirement. One hundred and nineteen additional stalls will be reduced by four inches to 8í-8", and 113 are proposed to be reduced to 8í-6". Basically we are affecting 212 spaces out of the proposed 832, or roughly 25%. The reason we are requesting this variance is to accommodate the parking requirements of the large prospective tenant that we are currently in negotiation with. The Executive Plaza I property where this proposed tenant is projected to locate is currently 40% occupied. This is a deal we need to make; the property is not horribly financially stressed, but it certainly is not doing what it needs to be doing. The tenant is expanding nationally; it is a Fortune 1000 firm if not a Fortune 500 firm, and a portion of its national expansion is locating in the Cincinnati area. There are properties that are competing for this deal. We anticipate this tenant will add approximately 200 new jobs to the Springdale community. Not all of those 200 people will be Springdale citizens, but it is reasonable to assume that a portion of those people will be. WE hope that the board will consider the increase in tax revenue base, as well as the patronage of these people to the local restaurants as well as the mall. Our reason for requesting the variance is that this is absolutely critical to our completing this deal and gaining credibility with this prospective client. We have just finished sealing and crack filing this lot as well as restriping at the nine foot stalls. We do not intend to execute on the variance unless this lease transaction is completed. We are leaving 520 of the current 806 stalls unaffected

Mrs. Boice said you said 520 are not affected; 119 were reduced to 8í-8" and 113 reduced to 8í-6", and you had said so only 212 are affected. That totals 232.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Three

V A EXECUTIVE PLAZA I & II - PARKING SPACE WIDTH - continued

Mr. Rickert responded my math is incorrect. We have 806 current stalls, and we would like to have 832 parking stalls. Of the proposed 832 stalls, 520 would be the 9í parking opportunities, 199 would be reduced to 8í-8" and 113 reduced to 8í-6". I apologize; my percentages also would be incorrect.

Mr. Nadaud asked if the proposed contract is contingent upon the parking spaces available, and Mr. Rickert answered absolutely.

Mrs. Boice asked if the reductions are all in one area? Mr. Ravagnani reported the reductions are spread throughout several areas, along the back line and along here. They are spread along the whole property evenly.

Mrs. Boice continued when you say a couple here and there, we are talking about 199 of 8í8" and 113 of 8í-6"; is it a grouping? Mr. Ravagnani showed the areas on the drawing, adding the areas where we are adding the single stall would be reduced to the 8í-8" and we are picking up a little bit more in this area. We are adding 26 spaces, from 806 to 832. Mrs. Boice said so wherever you are adding the spaces, the entire area will be affected by being reduced. Mr. Ravagnani responded that is correct. Mrs. Boice asked if your perspective tenant requested this, and Mr. Rickert indicated that they had, adding that they have a parking requirement. This tenant is a high density user, and has requested a certain ratio of parking spaces per square footage that they are occupying. The 26 additional spaces would push us up to where we need to be.

Mr. Nadaud commented I do not know how vigorously our Building Department inspects parking width spaces, but how will they know which spaces are 8í-6" or 8í-8"? Ten years down the road, if somebody is going to restripe the lot and sees that this pad is 8í-6", theyíll assume they should make them all 8í-6". Will there be some documentation that identifies these parking stalls? Mr. Rickert answered absolutely, and I understand when we submit for a permit, a record is kept with the city.

Mrs. Boice commented I think your point is a very good one. If a variance is granted, I would think we would want that attached to the variance. Unfortunately, it does put some pressure on our Building Department to be checking every time the area is restriped. I think it has to be clarified that when restriping comes to pass that we would have to be advised of that.

Mr. Rickert responded this ownership is an institution, and institutions do not ever want to run afoul of building or zoning permits. There are requirements imposed on us for ADA purposes. We currently comply with this and any time we stripe which is every year or every other year, it is restriped in accordance with these particular requirements. As professional building managers, this is something we are highly attuned to. We give these lot layouts to our striping companies so they understand how to do this, and it does put an onus on the Building Department, but this is investment real estate, professional building owners that do this for a living, and itís not likely to trade to anyone who is not an institutional investment grade real estate owner. I think it would be monitored internally fairly accurately.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Four

VI A EXECUTIVE PLAZA I & II - PARKING SPACE WIDTH - continued

Mrs. Boice said Iím not questioning the sincerity of what you say, but I

have been around quite a few years, and I have learned through experience that one needs these type of stopgaps. Variances are not given out lightly; I would want that locked into a variance if it is granted. Mr. Rickert responded it is completely acceptable to us to submit a plan with the variance that we would follow.

Mr. Blake commented you have answered one-half of my question; you are amenable to submitting the outline of the lot. My other question is are you amenable to notifying the Building Department when the restriping work is to occur? Mr. Rickert answered without question.

Mrs. McNear said looking at your plan I am having a hard time visualizing that there will be 520 spaces that are not affected. Do you mean they will remain at nine feet? Mr. Rickert confirmed this. Mrs. McNear asked how they will get these other 26 spaces without restriping those other 520? Mr. Ravagnani stated for example there are 52 spaces here that are not affected in that block. Where we are picking up one here, we reduce the 15 that currently exist to the 8í-6" level. He continued through the plan, showing areas affected and not affected. Mr. Rickert added there are also parking spaces in the parking garage underneath which you canít see which are unaffected in size. Mrs. McNear asked how many in the garage, and Mr. Ravagnani answered there are 60 spaces, and Mr. Rickert added where is no intent to do anything with both garages.

Mrs. Boice said I will move that a variance be granted to allow parking space at Executive Plaza I and II to have 199 spaces reduced to 8í-8"

113 spaces reduced to 8í-6", which will add 26 more spaces, and the remaining 520 spaces to stay at the nine foot minimum width. Also, that Exhibit A that is presented this evening be attached to the variance and that the petitioner is required to advise the Building Department at time of first striping and any subsequent stripings. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Young and Mr. Blake. Mrs. McNear voted no, and the variance was granted with six affirmative and one negative vote.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. C. A. "Ike" Kauffman, 11831 Ramsdale Court Requests Renewal of Variance T-6-1993 To Allow Catherine Kauffman to Continue to Conduct a Dog Grooming Business at His Place of Residence. Said Variance is Requested from Section 153.029(C)(6) "home occupations shall not include barber shops, beauty shops.."

Mr. Kauffman stated we are requesting to renew the variance to allow my daughter Cathy to continue the dog grooming business in my residence.

Weíve had it for three years now, and would like to continue it.

Mr. Nadaud asked if everything is working out to his satisfaction and asked if the neighbors get along with it, and Mr. Kauffman responded I havenít heard a complaint yet. Ms. Kauffman added I do all their dogs.

Mrs. Boice asked if they had considered moving the business offsite? Mr. Kaufmann answered not at this time; it is increasing, but the rents in Springdale are pretty high and she isnít at that point yet.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Five

VI A. C.A. KAUFMANN 11831 RAMSDALE COURT DOG GROOMING BUSINESS

Mrs. Boice said I donít know how many of you have had the opportunity to see the facility; it takes up a very small portion of the house and is probably cleaner than a lot of peopleís kitchens. This would be the fourth year for the variance.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Nadaud said do we want to put a time limit on this? Mrs. Boice commented I think I would prefer to see it stay at one year. We can monitor it in that manner, and Mr. Kaufmann has indicated that the business is increasing and perhaps at some time they might move it off site. Mr. Kaufmann said we had it for two years this last time. The first time we had it for one year. Mrs. Boice responded Iíll leave that to the discretion of the board. Mr. Schecker commented I would say if the business continues in the same mode and the current appearance of the property is within the neighborís agreement and nothing changes where it is, I would agree with the two year variance and I would so amend my motion. Mr. Mitchell seconded the amended motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Young and Mr. Blake. A two-year variance was granted by a vote of 7-0. Mr. Nadaud stated this has been granted for two years. After that time, if you wish to continue, you will need to come back to this board.

C. Sam & Eleanor Burns Request Temporary Use of Property at 11631 Walnut Street as Residential (Presently Zoned GB)

Mr. Burns stated we have had much difficulty getting commercial tenants in the house at 11631 Walnut Street (across from the elementary school) because it is a little removed from the thoroughfare. We are trying to get a variance so we can rent it as a residence, because it is designed as a residence.

Mr. Young asked what kind of advertisement has been done to try and put a business back into that facility? Mr. Burns answered we have had quite a few people come, but it is not conducive to the type of work they want it for. We have had a person interested in it for an elderly care facility, but it would have to be revamped and needs sprinkler systems, etc. Mr. Young asked if it was used at one time as an attorneyís office, and Mr. Burns indicated that it was, adding that most attorneys can get small offices in a big building with the utilities furnished. This is rather expensive for a small attorneyís office, and even for any type of office, the heating and cooling of it is rather prohibitive for an office. Mr. Young responded so you are saying the building doesnít quite meet standards for a commercial property? Is that part of the problem? Mr. Burns said yes, it is a three bedroom and one bath.

Mrs. Boice commented from reading this letter the city had written to you, is there someone in the property right now? Mr. Burns said yes, they moved in without my okay; I didnít know it. one of the tenants had a key for it and she moved on in. Either she moves out or you give her a variance. Mrs. Boice continued a couple of years ago the same thing happened; someone moved in and you werenít aware of it. You need to have a little visit with whoever handles your property about that.

Mrs. Boice said last time this came up the building had not passed any electrical inspections, health inspections, etc. Has that been completed on this property?

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Six

VI B SAM & ELEANOR BURNS REQUESTS VARIANCE AT 11631 WALNUT ST.

Mr. King reported prior to Games Afoot being in there, it was brought up to code. Mrs. Boice commented there were some real electrical problems as I recall. Mr. King added when Games Afoot was in there, they had some more updating done.

Mrs. Boice asked who is living in the property now? Mr. Burns responded Iíve never met her; her name is Hensley; sheís indisposed right now.

Mrs. Burns added one reason we would like to keep it rented is because of the grass situation and the upkeep. If nobody is in it, it will deteriorate. Weíve had lots of people who have been interested in it for residential. In the last few years there hasnít been anybody interested in it for a lawyerís office or doctorís office, which we have had in the past. Mr. Burns added there is an abundance of office space around the nation, I think it is around 40% vacancy.

Mrs. Boice responded I understand that. How long has this lady been in the property? Mr. Burns answered she has been there about a month. Mrs. Boice continued you mentioned in your letter that she wants to live there and run a care facility for infirm people? Mrs. Burns said that is what we were told. Mrs. Boice said this would fall under group home facilities, which would require sprinkling and health inspection and some state regulation I would think. I donít think you can just open a care facility. Mr. Burns added she really needs a place to live; she is a single parent with two children and her husband was quite abusive.

Mrs. Boice commented I am concerned as to whether the property is up to snuff, because we were so concerned about that last time. Have you been in and done a recent inspection? Mr. King responded that he had not; the other inspector was in when it was commercial, when Games Afoot was on the premises.

Mr. Burns added IBI came over and used the tester and found that several of the electrical plugs were not grounded, but were plugs that had a ground. All of those were grounded, and they made a final inspection. Mrs. Burns added we did quite a lot of work on that house two years ago and brought it up to code.

Mr. Mitchell said I would ask that you withdraw your request and make sure the house meets code and pursue it at a later date. I would not feel comfortable approving and let someone stay in the house when they could be in jeopardy, so I would ask you to withdraw your request.

Mr. Burns responded it met code the last time they inspected it. Mr. Nadaud added I think the Board would feel more comfortable if the city inspectors had an opportunity to go through the house and inspect it.

Mr. and Mrs. Burns responded that is fine. Mr. Mitchell moved to withdraw this item and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Young and Mr. Blake.

Mr. Nadaud said if you will notify the board if and when the property is inspected, we will set up another meeting.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Seven

C. Mary Powell, 785 Tivoli Lane Requests Variance to Allow Construction of Patio Enclosure with Setback of 10 Feet. Variance is Requested from Section 153.025(D)(4)(c) "Rear Yards Must Be At Least 35 Feet Deep"

Jim Marowitz of Champion Window and Enclosure Co. reported that Ms. Powell is rather elderly and somewhat infirm, and requested that we act as her representative here. As you can see on the diagram, the difficulty lies in the fact that when we went to secure the permit, the zoning setback is not sufficient, and as a result she is requesting a variance. I have photographs of what is there right now and what would be put there if a variance is granted.

Mr. Young commented her property is one of the unique cut properties in Springdale. It has virtually no back yard, and from what I could see, this would be a great improvement to the property value and the way it is situated, it would be a plus to the neighbors also. I have no problems with it, and the fact that Champion is building it is a plus too.

Mr. Mitchell asked the dimensions of the room. Mr. Marowitz stated the proposed enclosure is an 11 foot projection by 20 foot across. In terms of the specific room, it is extremely nice, a gable tie in that is very dramatic looking with a lot of glass on the front. It will be a very nice improvement to the property.

Mrs. McNear asked if the fence will remain around the property, and Mr. Marowitz answered I believe so. We have not contracted to remove the fence, and she has never indicated that she wants to remove the fence.

Mr. Schecker asked if they were going in with the exact same patio base that is in there now. Mr. Marowitz answered we are talking about a slab that is currently 10 foot in projection, and Ms. Powell has requested one additional foot. Mr. Schecker added it appears to be 16 feet wide rather than 20, and Mr. Marowitz responded it may be; it does look according to scale that it is 16 feet. Mr. Mitchell commented the plan you have here shows 20 feet. Mr. Marowitz responded Iím unprepared; I apologize. There are photographs in terms of what the actual project would look like.

Mr. Nadaud said for clarification, what are the actual dimensions of the enclosure? Mr. Marowitz reported it is 11 feet out from the home, and across 20 feet, an 11 x 20.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

D. Alfred Stallworth, 797 Cedarhill Drive Requests Variance to Allow Him to Park His Boat in His Driveway. Said Variance is Requested from Section 153.044(2)(b).."must still leave two additional spaces on the existing driveway..Each such space shall not be less than 9 feet by 20 feet."

Mr. Stallworth stated I am here requesting a variance that would permit me to continue parking my water craft in my driveway during the warm months of the year. During the winter months I normally park on the side, and this year I have considered having it stored elsewhere. I have consulted with my neighbors and youíve the signature of my neighbors that states in fact that they have no problem with this.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Eight

VI D ALFRED STALLWORTH 797 CEDARHILL DRIVE-PARK BOAT IN DRIVEWAY

Mr. Stallworth continued the reason for not wanting to park at the side of the house during the warm months is it would probably kill the grass and I think the neighbors would have a problem with that.

Mr. Young asked if he had considered putting a pad in the area to the side of his garage to put the boat on. Mr. Stallworth indicated that he had and those are plans for the near future.

Mr. Young continued I know this issue has come up several times in the past. What I would like to bring up now is the fact that the way it is stated there has to be room for two spaces. Mr. King added two spaces, 9í x 20í.

Mrs. Boice commented the problem on this is that the drive enough is not long enough? we are short about three feet? Mr. King reported most of the driveways up there only have a 35í setback and they are only 16í wide. Mrs. Boice said and this driveway is 36 feet long and 16 feet wide.

Mr. Mitchell commented I drove by your property today, and I noticed you had a truck parked in front of the boat and it was sticking over the sidewalk. Also, you did mention that you had plans to build a patio on the side of your driveway. Would you be willing to look at a temporary variance to give you time to build this pad? Mr. Stallworth said sure, I would consider that. Mr. Mitchell asked the time frame - a year or two years, and Mr. Stallworth indicated that would be a reasonable time.

Mr. Nadaud commented back when this code was adopted, a lot of thought consideration and time was spent in developing a code that addressed this situation. I myself do not feel RV vehicles of any nature should be stored in the front yard, period. I have been in the community for 32 years; I have an RV vehicle almost all that time, and not once have I ever considered putting it in the front yard. Right now I rent storage space for two vehicles, so I am definitely opposed to any parking of RV vehicles in the front of the property.

Mr. Stallworth said you mentioned storage; I donít consider that storage. I use that water craft throughout the summer months. It is only for the warm months of the year.

Mr. Nadaud responded the fact of the matter is that it is on the driveway in the front of the house. To me, it is an unsightly situation. If everybody in the community had an RV vehicle in front of their house, we would have a big old campground out there. I do not think it is in the best interests of the community to allow a precedent of this nature. Those are my own personal thoughts.

Mr. Blake said one of the problems is that it would set a precedent and secondly, giving a two year variance would also include the winter months, and that may run into some problems, because I donít think the board wants to see storage. Mr. Stallworth commented I understand that. Mr. Blake continued I was there, and you do have a lot of space on the side that would convince the board if you put it on the side. Mr. Stallworth said my concerns there were damage to the yard, which would not benefit the property, and when I pulled it away to use it having a large dead spot of grass there; I think that would be more detrimental than having the water craft parked in the driveway.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Nine

VI D ALFRED STALLWORTH 797 CEDARHILL DR. PARK BOAT IN DRIVEWAY

Mrs. McNear said you mentioned you would have this stored during the summer months. Have you contracted with anyone to have winter month storage? Mr. Stallworth answered no because in the past I have stored it on the side of my property. Mrs. McNear commented we are at the end of the summer months; when were you considering having this moved to an offsite storage? Mr. Stallworth responded itís licensed to the end of November, but normally I donít use it that long so we are talking about the end of October.

Mr. Blake commented I realize this is a precedent setting action, but I can appreciate Mr. Stallworthís coming before us because a lot of people park and do not come and ask permission. It is just about the end of the season anyway, and I donít know ; I donít want to set the precedent, but I can appreciate the fact that he came and asked permission. I thought we might give him an extension to the second week of October, but even that would set a precedent and I am hesitant about that.

Mr. Nadaud commented I wouldnít have any problem with giving an extension to allow it to remain there for the rest of the summer, but I would have to vote no to any length of time other than that or to allow it again next summer.

Mrs. Boice said you indicated you are thinking of doing a concrete pad on the side for storage. You can see the hesitation on this board. There are precedents that we try to avoid setting. How soon do you anticipate pouring this concrete pad? Mr. Stallworth responded at this time my plan is within the next couple of years. I would like to have it done before next yearís season, but I donít know how feasible that is for me.

Mr. King reported that they are not required by the code to have it paved on the side or rear yard. It would be up to Mr. Stallworth as to whether he wanted it paved or not.

Mrs. Boice said I would think you could solve the situation without a variance at all, Mr. Stallworth. I understand your concern about your grass, but you could solve this by parking it on the side, period.

Mr. Stallworth responded you are correct, but my concern is for the upkeep of the neighborhood as well as my yard. I have lived in Springdale five years now, and like it here and would like to do all I can to keep Springdale what it is.

Mrs. Boice said I really appreciate that concern, but if you created some type of a pad there which would not be unsightly, you could avoid the variance completely; you would have it off the driveway. Would you give some consideration to that?

Mr. Stallworth answered that he would. Mrs. Boice asked if anyone on the board had a problem with that? Mr. Nadaud asked if we wanted to specify a time, and Mrs. Boice responded I think he needs to get it off the driveway, period, summer or winter. This way he would be able to withdraw your request and would be in compliance if he parked it on the side of the house.

Mr. Blake added in the code you have 72 hours that it can be on the driveway for loading or unloading. Mr. Stallworth said I know that. Does that mean upon approaching 72 hours I can pull it out of the driveway and pull it back in for another 72 contiguous hours?

 

Board of zoning appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Ten

VI ALFRED STALLWORTH 797 CEDARHILL DRIVE PARK BOAT IN DRIVEWAY

Mr. King reported that is 72 hours per month for maintenance and repairs.

Mr. Young said based on the frame of mind here, I would think you might want to strongly consider that, because it sounds to me that the variance probably wouldnít be granted. I donít know if we need a motion. Mrs. Boice commented we need for Mr. Stallworth to request it if he so chooses. Mr. Stallworth asked that the item be withdrawn from the agenda.

 

E. Swallenís, 11741 Princeton Pike Requests Variance to Allow a 9í7" x 40í7" East Wall Sign, a 3í-10" x 16í North Wall Sign and a 4í x 17í Pole Sign. Variance is Requested from Section 153.092(E)(1) "A Single Wall Sign May Not Exceed 150 Square Feet", Section 153.092(E)(3) "The Maximum Size of a Pole Sign is 50 Square Feet" and Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "The Maximum Total Area of all Signs May Not Exceed 310 Square Feet"

Bruce Willett of Holthaus Signs indicated that Swallenís has authorized him to represent them at this hearing. Mr. Nadaud asked if this were in writing, and Mr. Willett confirmed that it was.

Mr. Willett reported Swallenís is requesting a variance for the newer exterior signage that is being proposed. This signage represents efforts to upgrade their stores and includes a new graphic design of their store name. This new exterior signage would replace the current wall signs and the existing pole sign and duplicates this updated logo design.

Mr. Willett continued the request asks for an increase in square footage allotment for both the pole sign and the east wall sign. There was a variance granted in 1986 for 161 square feet of signage on the east wall, north wall and a 5í x 10í pole sign.

Mr. Willett reported with the change of signage, the north wall sign would decrease in square footage by 100 square feet, going from 161 to 61 square feet. On the pole sign, we are asking for an additional 18 square feet over code (50 square feet). Our reason for this is because the letter style is longer than it is higher as compared to the current letter styles, and we designed the sign so we could reuse the Bank One sign that is there, put Swallenís on top and the Bank One sign underneath. So, we didnít make the sign any bigger than we needed to get a decent showing from the highway for the pole sign. We feel this is a reasonable request asking for an additional 18 square feet for the pole sign.

Mr. Willett stated the final item is the wall sign facing towards the front of the building. It should be noted that there is a good deal of competition for the attention of the customer for retail businesses along Princeton Pike, and the Swallenís building sets back a good deal from the roadway and is blocked by Bank One and Wendyís and a few others. They feel the need to have a large sign over their entrance. We would like you to consider the way the square footage is calculated.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Eleven

VI E SWALLENíS 11741 PRINCETON PIKE - VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE

Mr. Willett continued on the east wall sign, which is 183 square feet, there is a small tip above this and a brush stroke below which makes the overall showing seem a lot bigger than it really is. Actually the size of the letters are smaller than what is currently there. We would propose if you squared off those areas, the main body of the sign, the tip or it and below it, you would come up with a total of 308 square feet, versus 389 square feet. This would in effect say that we are asking for an additional 147 square feet of signage for the east wall. If you added all three elements together, we would be asking for a total of 65 additional square feet over the 372 square feet granted in 1986. We would like you to consider it this is way; it doesnít seem unreasonable to look at it from that point of view.

Mr. Mitchell said when this sign is illuminated at night what area will be illuminated? Will it just be the small area or this large area? Mr. Willett responded each letter is individually illuminated, so the letters will appear red individually, and this will appear blue and you will be able to see the stroke of neon in the letters, but nothing behind it or inside or between will be lighted; that is the building wall. Each element of the sign is individually illuminated.

Mrs. McNear asked how many square feet would be in the large sign if you calculated it the way our code reads? Mr. Willett responded it would be 389 square feet. Mrs. McNear continued you say we would have 65 square feet over if we used the reduced calculation. What would it be if we did not consider that? Mr. Willett answered a total of 146 square feet additional. Mr. Nadaud added that is over and above the 1986 variance.

Mr. Schecker asked the dimension of the current front entrance sign? Mr. Willett answered 7í x 23í, or 161 square feet. It is a box type sign which is different from what we are considering here.

Mrs. Boice stated presently as it stands, 310 square feet are allowed and it is under variance at 372 square feet which puts it at 62 square feet over code right now. I can appreciate what you are saying about the configuration of the sign, but that is not the way we calculate. We do square it out. The 65 square feet sounds good when we calculate it your way, but we canít calculate it that way and we donít. We do that for everybody. So we are 146 square feet over what is there now, but we must add on 62 square feet because itís already over 62 square feet, so it would be 208 square feet over what is allowed. I think we have to think about that.

Mr. Mitchell asked what he could do to decrease the signage. I know you want to be able to maintain the integrity of the sign to change the dimensions and bring it back within code?

Mr. .Willett answered if the board saw fit to not grant the variance, I suppose they probably would bring the east wall sign down to the 150 square foot mark, which is the maximum allowable for a single wall sign. I suppose Swallenís would agree to do that rather than not do anything. That would leave us with asking for an additional 18 square feet for the pole sign.

Mrs. Boice said for clarification, when you are talking about bringing it down, they are under a variance at the present time. I think we are more than willing to work with you in some parameters where we can get this down. Two hundred eight square feet is a lot to be over.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twelve

VI E SWALLENíS 11741 PRINCETON PIKE - VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE

Mr. Willett suggested looking at each item individually. The wall sign on the north side is well below what is allowable. There is no issue there. The pole sign, and we are asking for an additional 18 square feet over the 50 allowed. I would like you to consider that.

Mrs. Boice responded that additional square footage is because of the spreading out of the letters? Mr. Willett confirmed this, adding because the graphic is longer this way and considering that we want to reuse the Bank One sign that is there now.

Mr. Young asked about the widening of the sign out in front. I am curious thatíll Bank One would give up the top position on the sign, and why do you think you need to be on top, if you are looking for a bigger sign on the building itself? Personally, it would be easier for me to grant you a bigger sign on your building than it would out at the street. My problem is we would hate for 747 to become Colerain Avenue. Mr. Willett answered that is Swallenís property, and they have the option of being on top of the sign. As far as the additional 18 square feet, we made it no larger than we absolutely had to. Mr. Young responded according to this information, that pole sign variance was for 5í x 10í and we are now looking at 4í x 17í. We are looking at seven feet in length of that sign, is that correct? Mr. King reported the sign itself is 4í x 17í. Mr. Willett reported the new Swallenís sign is larger than the current Swallenís sign, and it exceeds the code by 18 square feet. We brought it down to the minimum we could to be able to reuse the Bank One sign. We cannot use the existing sign at all. We have to set new poles in the ground to accommodate this new letter style sign box.

Mr. Willett repeated so we are asking for an additional 18 square feet over and above the allowable 50 square feet for the pole sign. I ask that you consider that.

Mr. Blake asked if that is his only request for a variance, for the pole sign, and Mr. Willett answered it seems that the east wall signs too big as proposed and we are negotiating to a smaller size. I think they would be willing to do that rather than doing nothing. Mr. Blake continued so I heard you say earlier that you would be willing to put the east wall sign within code. Mr. Willett responded if the board chooses to say no, the only option would be to get within code or not do a sign. So we would be asking for 18 square feet on the pole sign only. Mr. Blake said and no other variances, and Mr. Willett confirmed this, adding it would bring us down into the total area for all signs. If you reduce the single wall sign down to 150 square feet, the only thing we are out of code with is the size of the pole sign by 18 square feet, and that is what we would be asking for in a variance.

Mr. King reported on the north wall, there is another variance when they moved that and put the elevators in. They already have a variance for some of these square footages, and he is going below those. Mr. Willett answered if you ant to give us 161 square feet thatís fine; if it is 161 or 150 for this type of sign, the height of the letters is very small at that point.

Mrs. McNear stated I agree that we should take a look at each of these signs on a case by case basis, but I want to hear the rest of the story before we vote on the 18 square feet for the pole sign. It is all relative, and we want to have total square footages when we are finished.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Thirteen

VI E SWALLENíS 11741 PRINCETON PIKE - VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE

Mr. Willett responded those are the three items, and Mrs. McNear said I know, but I want to hear the rest of what you plan to do. Weíve already said we should work together on this. We know you want to stand firm on this 18 feet; weíll consider that. Letís move on to the next sign and tell us how you are willing to negotiate on this, and when we hear what we are going to do for each sign, we can make the final determination.

Mr. Willett stated I am sure they would like as much square footage as possible on the east wall elevation. However, if there is somewhere between where they are now at 161 and where they are proposing at 389, Iím sure they would agree to that without a problem.

Mrs. McNear responded you are going to have to tell us what is the most important to you. Mr. Nadaud stated we would like to come up with some number that we can vote on tonight, because if we vote on it and it is not approved, then you have to wait six months before coming back before this board. Mrs. Boice asked how much can that 390 square feet be shrunk and still serve the purpose, considering the one out there now is only 161 square feet? That is a big jump to 389.

Mr. Schecker suggested that he withdraw now and come back next month with a proposal? We realize that slash contributes a lot to the square footage, but on the other hand for you to come down within code on the east wall sign because of the big slash and their present logo, it very well may be that those letters would be so disproportionate that we wouldnít want to do that to you.

Mr. Willett stated if we come down to code, the size of the letters would be reduced to a three foot height from 4í-6". Thatís not a bad showing, and would be within the 150 square feet. If you are opposed to the showing as we are presenting it here, we would like to wrap this up today and we would be willing to go to 150 square feet on the east wall sign if you give us the 18 square feet over on the pole sign, and we would walk away happy.

Mrs. Boice commented it sounds reasonable to me. I am calculating 150 for the east wall sign, 61 square feet for the north wall sign, an additional 18 feet for the pole sign (68 square feet) for a total of 279 square feet; they presently are at 372 square feet.

Mr. Blake commented I still have a problem with the pole sign. Best Buy and others wanted big signs, and we didnít allow them. One thing that I know as a member of Planning is we are trying to cut down on these large pole signs. Most of us in the neighborhood know where Swallenís is, and I have a problem with putting up a larger pole sign on that main thoroughfare.

Mr. Schecker asked the current height of the sign where Bank One is on top? Mr. Willett answered it is approximately the same height that we are proposing in the new sign, about 18 1/2 feet above grade.

Mr. Willett commented I appreciate your concerns Mr. Blake. The size of the pole sign is not that much larger than what is there now. It is laid out differently because of their new graphic logo design. You are not adding a lot to that pole sign, and I donít think youíll notice any difference in terms of largeness.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Fourteen

VI E SWALLENíS 11741 PRINCETON PIKE - VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE

Mrs. Boice commented I share your concerns Mr. Blake, but the way it is configured, the square footage is coming more in on that three and one-half feet on each side. I concur with your remarks on pole signs. Eighteen square feet is one of the smaller requests we have had.

Mr. Schecker said as you approach from the north, currently the Star Bank sign blocks out the Swallenís sign. I can appreciate putting the sign in the place of Bank One would be beneficial for Swallenís identification. Are you saying that technically we couldnít be within the dimensions of the Bank One sign with this Swallenís sign? Is that because of the structure? What type of structure would you get into if you had the Swallenís sign the same size as Bank One?

Mr. Willett reported basically we would have to dismantle the Swallenís sign that is there and make two sign cabinets that would be 14 feet wide, one for each side of the poles, and mount them. The issue then is whether those poles and the foundations there would handle that wind load. Our consideration was for changing the logo, putting Swallenís on top and reuse the Bank One sign and keep it as close to what is there now as possible.

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant a variance to allow Swallenís to have the east wall sign at 150 square feet, the north wall sign to be at 61 square feet and the pole sign to be at 68 square feet, for a total of 279 square feet. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Schecker. Mr. Blake and Mr. Young voted no, and the variance was granted by five affirmative and two negative votes.

Mr. King stated that is less than what they are allowed for their total signage; they are allowed 310 square feet. Mrs. Boice said we had to grant a variance on the pole.

Board of Zoning Appeals took a 10-minute recess at 9:15 P.M.

F. Joe Scott, 719 Yorkhaven Road Requests Variance to Allow Him to Park his Boat in His Driveway. Said Variance is Requested from Section 153.044(2)(b) "..Must Still Leave Two Additional Spaces on the Existing Driveway...Each Such Space Shall Not be Less Than 9 Feet by 20 Feet."

Mr. Scott reported I always try to do what is right in the community and as far as the ordinance is concerned, I had some problems understanding it. I did have a conversation with Mr. King, and after what I heard earlier this evening, possibly I donít even need a variance. I would need to go back and do one more measurement on the boat to find out its width as far as how much space it would take up on the slab.

Mr. Scott said earlier Mr. King stated you needed two spaces that were 20 x 9 feet. If that is the case, on the east side, the stonewall side, that measurement from where the slab starts to where it ends on the sidewalk is 40 Ď-10". I would need to take another measurement, approximately nine feet out from that and from the garage to the sidewalk to see where that ends up. If the boat is seven feet wide, and I come over nine feet, the total width is 16 and I should be in compliance. I thank you for your consideration; I did offer some photographs.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Fifteen

VI F JOE SCOTT, 719 YORKHAVEN ROAD - PARK BOAT IN DRIVEWAY

Mr. Scott stated Mr. King wrote me up; there is a good possibility that one of my cars had a bumper over the sidewalk. I would like to take those measurements and resubmit them to the commissioner. I would be happy to meet with Mr. King out there to measure.

Mr. Nadaud said if you are requesting that we table this, that would be totally in agreement with the board. Mrs. Boice so moved and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was tabled at the applicantís request. You may not even have to come back here.

G. Car X Muffler, 175 West Kemper Road Requests Variance to Allow a Total of 144 Square Feet of Signage (130 Square Feet is Allowed). Variance is Requested From Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "..Maximum Gross Area of Signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 Square Feet."

Mr. Ranga Gorrepati stated he is the franchisee for the Car X shop. We ordered the sign letters based on the information given to me by the franchiser. The way they measure is they go from the top of the C to the top of the C and they box them up and add them up. That is why it exceeded the amount allowed. Considering the location of this building, if you are going from west to east, you canít see the building until you are there because of the trees blocking, including the pole sign. So you have exposure only on one side, which is the north face of the building. If you are coming east to west, there is the big Kerry Ford, then an oil shop. All you see if you come close to the building is about this much of the east face of the building. The way we calculate, it is over by 14 square feet; the letters have been here for the last six weeks; we applied for the permit and ordered the letters. They are behind the Kerry Ford building; they are not facing Kemper Road, and I would request a variance for that purpose.

Mr. Schecker stated I would concur that when you approach from the east heading west that this is the only visibility you have of the building, that blank piece of yellow. From west to east, you have nothing. Mr. Nadaud asked if there werenít a sign by the road. Mr. Gorrepati said the sign is there, but even that sign is blocked by the trees when you are coming west to east.

Mr. Blake moved to grant the variance and Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Young, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

H. Frank H. Pauzar, Sr. Appeal of Decision by William K. McErlane, Building Official Regarding Use of Property at 11614 Rose Lane

Jim Rimedio, representing Frank Pauzar, Sr. the owner of the building, and the tenant in the building approached the board.

Mr. Rimedio said on this lot there are two buildings, a residence, which has always been a residence and has never been used as anything but a residence until just recently and is now being improperly used for business purposes. That is not something that is before you, and it will be vacated. When you hear the rest of the story, youíll understand.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Sixteen

VI H. FRANK PAUZAR APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Rimedio continued around the side of the same property you have a separate address, and that is Rose Lane, and that is what we are going to talk about. I already have advised the clients that they absolutely are in violation using the residence as a temporary business location. It was never intended to be one, and but for what has occurred here, it never would have been.

Mr. Rimedio stated what has happened is this. Iím sure youíre familiar with that little store on Rose Lane. Originally it was a little garage. Ultimately when they decided to raise the street, they were going to take a parking area; a little disagreement ensued, and ultimately the court said he could put this new building in and continue his business at the store. His health grew bad and he moved to Florida. His son Scotty was in there for a while, and then they leased it to somebody outside the family. This nice tenant used midnight movers on January 31 of this year, and not only did he move out, but there was a walk-in cooler box that was approximately 30 feet long and approximately 10 and one-half feet wide that went from the floor to the ceiling. He took that. If that were to be replaced, that would cost $50 to $55,000, the best estimate. This tenant also took the electrical wires, the telephone wires and in taking out the walk-in cooler box, he destroyed the ceiling over that area. The cooler box helped support the ceiling.

Mr. Rimedio continued they did not know it had happened at first, but as soon as they found out, they hired the Mayor to see if they could find somebody to buy it or to lease it. The condition it was in, it would have cost anyone a small fortune to go in there and it certainly wasnít worth it. The Mayor has not been able to lease it, so they have entered into a lease agreement with another family member who operates an appraisal business. I have already given the city solicitor a copy; I would like to give this to you as Exhibit A. This is the lease agreement for the property. As you can see, the property was in fact leased on the 24th day of April, 1995. The property vacated, as far as we can tell, some time in the midnight hours of either January 31 or February 1st. He went off with the electrical equipment, the telephone lines; the place was a shambles.

Mr. Rimedio stated this building has never been intended for anything other than a business location. It is not fit for human habitation as a residence. Since April 24, 1995, approximately $20,000 has been put in for repairs. In April, once it got to the point where they were able to use it, they moved in part of the operation that ultimately will be solely and exclusively in there. It was in too bad of a shape because of the water problems and everything, so they moved part of the operation into the house. That was wrong, but that is not before. They had carpenters and were in the process of doing work when they were informed that they were not allowed to be in there. The city was claiming that it had been voluntarily vacated. All work stopped pending the resolution of these issues.

Mr. Rimedio said we have witnesses here tonight, including the lessor and an independent contractor. Iíll explain how this business operates. They are real estate appraisers. The prior business use of this building was a convenience store, where people were coming and going all day long. This meant that during the day there might be as many as 100 or 150 different cars pulling in and out of there.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Seventeen

VI H FRANK H. PAUZAR SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Rimedio stated from what I understand now, during the day there is approximately six cars at various times of the day there. Those six cars are independent contractors, appraisers who cover 13 counties. Four of the appraisers do work in Hamilton County, and the rest of them are in outlying areas. In order to complete their job, they come in and certain records are kept at this business location. These records were being kept in the Rose Lane property, and because of the bad condition and while the repair was going on, they have been moved on to the Kemper Road property.

Mr. Rimedio reported that the evidence we will produce here this evening will show that since April 24, 1995, there has been a business operated out of the Rose Lane location, and as soon as this issue is resolved, they will move in full time because they will finish the work. They are not going to put the cooler box back in at a separate cost of $50 to $55,000 because this business will not require a new box.

Mr. Rimedio continued I would like to address by way of argument the ordinance and point out why in fact the decision is inappropriate. Mr. Nadaud said you are referring to the code, is that correct? Mr. Rimedio indicated that it was. He added no matter how you call it, if it is a municipality, it is an ordinance. You may name it a code, but it is still an ordinance. Mr. Nadaud added this is Section 153.152. Mr. Rimedio read, "In the event that the nonconforming use of any dwelling, building or other structure, and of any land or premises is voluntarily discontinued for six months any further use thereof shall be in conformance with the provisions of this Zoning Code."

Mr. Rimedio stated we have a fact question to resolve and that (1) was there a voluntary discontinuance, and (2) has there been a vacancy for six months? That is what we are really addressing here. The other thing we are addressing is in the letter a copy of which I have here and want to introduce into evidence from which this appeal is taken. The solicitor has a copy of this letter. It is interesting in the following respect. First I address the first paragraph. 484 West Kemper is improperly being used as a stopgap measure while the other propert y is being repaired. If the paragraph that starts "we" is referring to 484 West Kemper, then we have no problem with that, because we are not contesting the West Kemper. I think it probably does refer to West Kemper, because the next paragraph is the first place they mention the other part of the same parcel, the Rose Lane.

Mr. Rimedio stated we are specifically challenging the fact that this property has lost its status as a legal non-conforming building in accordance with the code, a copy of which is attached, and which we have addressed. At this point, I would request three witnesses be sworn so that they may testify.

Mrs. Boice said when you say witnesses sworn, if you have someone that wants to come forth, I am sure that no one on this Board has any problem with them saying what they want to say. Letís get away from the courtroom atmosphere. We have an issue to discuss, and I would rather cut to the chase and do that. I donít think we need to swear anyone in. Mr. Rimedio responded with all due respect I appreciate that, but we are talking about $200,000 here in the difference of use of the property as it is and as the city wants it to be. It is a very significant property right that we are discussing.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Eighteen

VI H FRANK H. PAUZAR SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Rimedio continued I have no problem proceeding that way, but you understand that we consider this a very significant matter. Mrs. Boice commented I am not saying it is not significant, but it is my experience in hearings like this and dealing with various boards, when we get into what technically appears to be a courtroom situation, there is always that innuendo, that intimidation. We are here doing the cityís business, and I donít like dealing with that type of intensity. I think it is much easier to do it openly and in a more relaxed atmosphere than swearing in witnesses.

Mr. Rimedio responded I appreciate that; I am more than glad to proceed that way. I am just not accustomed to it. I would definitely like to call several witnesses, but I have not answered your question. Mr. Rimedio read the September 5, 1995 letter from Bill McErlane to Ronald K. Stickelman, Jr.

"After our discussion on 25 August 1995, I searched for a court agreement or judgment relating to the above non-conforming business use, which you indicated may have occurred in 1972. I was unable to find one. I did find variances granted for setbacks and parking by the Springdale Board of Zoning Appeals on 4 April 1972. I reviewed the variance information with the City Law Director, and he confirmed that variances were granted for setback and parking only, and not for the use. Therefore, because the non-conforming use has been discontinued for more than a six-month period, the building at the above-referenced address may no longer be used for business use (153.152, copy attached).

You may request a variance to the six-month period of Section 153.152, or appeal this decision by returning the enclosed forms on or before 12 September 1995. A representative will be required at the meeting on 19 September 1995."

Mr. Rimedio stated I had previously provided the solicitor with a copy. The law director apparently did not look in the right place. Here is a copy of the judgment of the court from 1973 concerning the Rose Lane property. Here is a copy of the Notice of Appeal from the State Board, here is a copy of a letter in 1977 advising the state that they dropped the ball, and here is another order which preceded the final order. In fact, the building was built for the specific purpose of use at that location of the store, a business.

Mrs. Boice said if I may interrupt before we go any further, we do have a specific form, when anyone is coming in, the neighbors of any contiguous property are supposed to sign. I see that as blank. Mr. Rimedo responded that is where you are requesting a variance. We are not requesting a variance; we have one. You canít take it away. That is our point. It has not been vacated; it has not been empty for six months, and that is the purpose of the hearing tonight. This is an appeal from a decision that has found that we lost our use. Mrs. Boice said so you chose not to contact any of these people. Mr. Rimedio answered it is immaterial, because they wouldnít have a right to make a determination if there was a loss of a variance. That would only be if we came in and asked for a variance. It is our position that we already have it, and there has been an administrative mistake, and itís your job to correct it. Thatís the word appeal. Mrs. Boice responded I understand the word appeal, thank you Mr. Rimedio

Board of Zoning Appeals

19 September 1995

Page Nineteen

VI. H. FRANK H. PAUZAR, SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Marty Kenworthy, present for the law director reported I did receive a copy of the judgment Mr. Rimedio is referring to, and I want to make the Board aware that the decision certainly covers this property, but it deals with the Building Department, and what the Building Department did; it doesnít concern zoning. That would be my interpretation of it having seen it tonight. I am not trying to contradict Mr. Rimedio, but just for the record, I think that is a separate issue.

Mr. Rimedio responded I agree; that was a building issue; the city gave the variances to conform to the building use. If youíll check the records, they start in 1972 and 1973, and that is what they have been operating under. I was merely trying to show that the building was ordered with the specific purpose of being used as a business. The city then gave the variances; I think some of the variances were given before the court order and some were given after the court order. The purpose of my giving you that is so you can look back at the records in point of time and see specifically when these things occurred. We are talking about a business that has been operated there for over 25 years I believe.

Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Rimedio if his whole point of bringing up witnesses tonight is to prove the point that there was a business operated in this facility during the period of April? Mr. Rimedio answered from April until the present; it is still operating there. Mr. Mitchell continued and you said you were doing construction inside the facility? Mr. Rimedio answered there was construction going on until the Building Department said you canít use the building that way, and they stopped. Mr. Mitchell asked if they had applied for a permit? Mr. Rimedio answered I donít know. Mr. Mitchell said you are representing the owners of the facility; I am asking you. Mr. Rimedio asked Mr. Stickelman, and responded they are repairing damage, and I believe that doesnít require a permit. Mr. King reported they would need one for a change of use or new occupancy; it depends on what was being done. Mr. Mitchell continued was it a convenience store before, and you converted over into an office facility? Mr. Rimedio answered no, the inside of this building is one room. It is going to be used as one large space with desks and filing cabinets. Mr. Mitchell commented so you are changing the use of the building; you are going from a delicatessen to an office space. Mr. Rimedio responded I guess youíd call it an office space. Mr. Mitchell continued and you wouldnít think a permit would be required for that. Mr. Rimedio answered I do not know; I donít represent one way or the other to know that. I donít think that is the issue tonight. The issue is they are saying we canít use the building because it has been not in use for more than six months.

Mr. Nadaud said I donít think any member of this board can attest to whether or not the facility was in use from April 24 to the present? I donít think we are capable of making that decision. Mr. Rimedio answered you canít; thatís why I brought witnesses.

Mr. Nadaud called on Barry Tiffany seated in the audience. Mr. Tiffany stated that the city has asked Mr. King to drive by the business since this has started to see what was being done, how many cars were there, when it was being occupied and keeping a record on it. There also has been a big file on this issue, because it has been going on for a while. As far as some of the issues that have been brought up, the pay telephone was removed by Cincinnati Bell.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty

VI H FRANK H. PAUZAR, SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Rimedio stated that is not quite accurate; there also were telephone lines that connected to the house, and they have been there since the Pauzars operated, and those lines were ripped out.

Mr. Tiffany continued this was brought on with Scottyís leaving the delicatessen. Rob Treinen was the operator of Scottyís Delicatessen. He was approached in 1993 with a contract for lease for a 20-year period. He was pursued by I believe it was Mr. Pauzarís nephew or the leasor on December 24th of last year to sign the lease. He had talked to his legal people and had spoken to his accountant and his insurance man, and felt it was not in his best interest to do so. He was told at that time to stay there for 30 days and then he was free to leave. He stayed until January 31st.

Mr. Tiffany stated my personal experience was to help Rob Treinen to close the store down. He did not leave as a midnight mover. This process took about two weeks to clean that store out, to disassemble the icebox, which was his property. Mr. Rimedio said I beg your pardon. Mr. Tiffany responded sir, there was no lease in effect. Mr. Rimedio answered that is correct, and that icebox had been in there since the building was built. Mr. Tiffany stated it was not a leasehold improvement, according to a lease that was not in effect. Mr. Rimedio commented you donít take the stairs with you when you move out of a rented property; you donít take the built in units either. Mr. Tiffany said that is a legal question between you and Mr. Treinen, and Iím not gong to address that any further.

Mr. Tiffany stated the question here is whether or not this property was freely vacated. I contend that it was freely vacated as the leasor gave this option to Mr. Treinen, "give me 30 days and youíre free to leave". He told Mr. Treinen he had other prospects for the property. Mr. Rimedio asked if there was a written lease, and Mr. Tiffany answered at some time there was. Mr. Rimedio continued and was there a writing that evidences what you are saying, that this man told you that he was released from this lease? Mr. Tiffany responded as a matter of fact, he had written a bad check to Mr. Pauzar at one time and Mr. Pauzar had instructed his nephew, or whoever the leasor was, to inform Mr. Treinen that the lease was broken as a result of that action, and they would go month to month from there. Mr. Rimedio asked if there were something in writing to that effect, and Mr. Tiffany stated Mr. Treinen does have that in writing, and he is willing to come to this Board with affidavits to the effect of all of this.

Mr. Tiffany continued there is also the issue of this lease, and the date of this lease. The big question I have is this lease was signed April 24th. Prior to that, the first of March, Mr. McErlane was approached by Mr. Stickelman regarding home occupancy for business and Mr. McErlane told him that in reference to this property (Kemper Road) it was not permitted. Mr. Rimedio said thatís not an issue; we are conceding that this is an improper use. Mr. Tiffany said I understand. If this person had leased the property on Rose Lane, why was there a real estate sign until a certified letter was sent telling them that they had lost their use?

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-One

VI H FRANK PAUZAR, SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Rimedio answered it is very simple; the mayor was unable to do anything as a realtor. He couldnít find anybody because the building was in such bad shape. Being aware of the fact that the building had to be used, Mr. Stickelman entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the property, with the understanding that if he was able to find somebody who was willing to put the money into the building to rehabilitate it and purchase it, they would tear up the lease, or give the new owner an opportunity to take over the lease.

Mr. Tiffany stated he has represented Mr. Treinen moving out as a midnight mover, that the leasor knew nothing of this. I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Treinen to Mr. Pauzar that was sent on the 2nd of February with his keys and notification that he had vacated on the 31st of January. The big question is whether or not this building was vacant with the knowledge and free will of the leasor, and I contend that it was in fact because he is the one who pushed the issue and told the tenant "give me 30 days and you are free to leave".

Mr. Rimedio commented I guess thatís why I wanted people under oath, because what we have heard now is a bunch of hearsay. A 20-year lease is a valuable commodity, and to let somebody out of it under those circumstances sounds absurd. My understanding, and I only know what I have been told, is that Mr. Pauzar.. incidentally who is that letter to? Mr. Tiffany answered Fred Pauzar. Mr. Rimedio said senior or junior, and Mr. Tiffany indicated that it did not say. Mr. Rimedio continued so we donít know if he sent it to the owner of the property or to his son. Mr. Tiffany said I guess we would have to have Mr. Treinen here with affidavits, and I think he is willing to do that.

Mr. Rimedio said I have no problem if you want to hear this further, and have that gentleman in; frankly Iím looking for him because we are going to have felony warrants signed against him for taking the box and stuff. Would you give me his address? Mr. Tiffany said Mr. Treinen is at the same address he has been at for probably 20 years, and I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Pauzar doesnít know how to locate him. He is in the book. Mrs. Boice said does anyone have a telephone book so we can move on.

Mr. Rimedio said do you want to adjourn this to a later date so that gentleman can come in? Mrs. Boice responded that is entirely up to you. If you feel you want to have him here, when you talk about under oath, if you are going that way, you are going to have tape machines and court reporters. Mr. Rimedio said I was informed that today that this proceeding was taped. Mr. Nadaud confirmed this.

Mr. Young said in regards to the lease being signed on the 24th of April, you have given us what appears to be a signed lease. Can you support that with canceled checks for deposits that we would have copies of showing the front and back when they were deposited, and monthly rent checks that were deposited that would support that lease? Mr. Rimedio answered yes; they are in Florida I would assume.

Mr. Kenworthy commented as a point of order, I would suggest allowing Mr. Rimedio if he wants to have these witnesses present whatever it is they want to say, at least while they are here, and then if we need to go further, we can. That would be up to the Board and at their discretion. If you think it is worthwhile to continue it, that would be the time to consider it.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Two

VI H FRANK PAUZAR SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Kenworthy continued after hearing whatever it is they have to say, I know I have some comments, and I want to have Mr. Rimedio as the appellant present his appeal. That would be my suggestion.

Mr. Rimedio called on the tenant, Ron Stickelman, Jr. whose business address in Dayton Ohio is 7950 Clyo Road, and address in Cincinnati is either West Kemper Road or Rose Lane; Iím in between right now. I am Frank Pauzarís second nephew. Fred Pauzar is his son and he is my second cousin, and I grew up in Springdale in the summer, so I am real familiar with the area.

Mr. Stickelman reported that he had received a call from his cousin Fred the first week in February. Knowing him a long time, I was shocked and Frank was very disturbed. How the family found out was Beverly Reeves called to say that the tenant had moved out. The property had suffered severe water damage, because when the compressors were removed and when the compressors up on the roof were removed, holes were left. There was a blown compressor put back on the roof that was not secured over the opening, so when we got into the property there was about six inches of standing freezing water in the building. The basement was completely flooded. The cooler and light fixtures had been removed a sink had been removed and the heat no longer was functioning. There was damage with pipe and plumbing.

Mr. Stickelman continued I have been in real estate appraising and property management for 20 years and this was not an organized move. This gentleman who was helping him did a very poor job organizing that move.

Mr. Stickelman stated my uncle is 72 years old and doesnít have a lot of cash; he lives on Social Security and the income from that property. I doubt that my uncle would tell my cousin to give that gentleman an ultimatum when his only other income is $700 and some dollars in Social Security. I donít understand this; it is hearsay to me.

Mr. Stickelman commented I try to help my family. Fred contracted with Ron Pitman to try to find a tenant for the property. In discussing the situation with Mr. Pitman, we were under the impression, and Mr. Pitman was under the impression and ignorance is not excuse, that we had two years. The first concern out of my mouth was is there some restriction time - do we have enough time to find a new tenant for this property? We fixed the hole and stopped the leaking. The previous tenant had left trash including 55 gallon barrels thrown about the property on the outside. We totally cleaned it up and tried to secure it as best we could on limited funds. When it became apparent that a tenant would not come along quickly, that is when my cousin talked about changing the usage of the store to a real estate appraisal office. We have been in Cincinnati for five years and are in Blue Ash. We entered into a lease agreement. I could not pay market rent for convenience store for Class B or C service office, and I didnít think that was in my uncleís best interests, but something was better than nothing, so I went ahead and entered into a lease agreement with my cousin. We occupied the Kemper Road property only as a stopgap measure. I did discuss with Bill home office usage, and I shared with Bill a discussion with independent contractors about ownership and residency and those types of issues. I find it interesting that in all our conversations with the city, not once did anyone, including the mayor of the city, bring to our attention that there is a six month window.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Three

VI H FRANK H. PAUZAR, SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Stickelman stated I run my own business and work very hard. I have a 72-year-old uncle who worked in the city for years. We tried to protect the integrity of that property. We want to move into that property and have wanted to move into that property. I had a very candid conversation with Bill about three weeks ago in regards to that, and that is when we stopped work.

Mr. Rimedio asked if they at one time had moved into and partially operate out of that location? Mr. Stickelman responded we have used that location for part of our business. The house obviously is not big enough, and it is not meant to be that way anyway, but we used it for records, to research records. We cannot move electronics into that, and a lot of our business is processing. Mr. Rimedo asked why they canít move electronics in there, and Mr. Stickelman answered at that point we had to go through electric service, which we had to have a permit for, but before that we had to stop the water and seal the property up. We also had a big issue of $7,000 for a new compressor.

Mr. Rimedo asked how many people worked out of the Rose Lane location, or use it in some way. Explain how the people use that space, and what they are. Mr. Stickelman answered we have four independent contractors in Cincinnati and one secretary. Our appraisers are not employees; they come and go. They drop the work off, download it and do research. .We have made a point to make sure that the people park at the Rose Lane address, and not on the West Kemper property driveway. Mr. Rimedio asked how frequently the individuals are there, and Mr. Stickelman responded the secretary is there every day, and the appraisers come and go on a daily basis. Mr. Rimedo said when they are there, how long would they be there, and Mr. .>Stickelman answered from five minutes to five hours. Mr. Rimedo asked if other appraisers from out of county come to that location, and Mr. Stickelman answered yes, we have three other appraisers that would use the resources at this location.

Mr. .Rimedo said at the point you were told you were not permitted to use that space, what was going on? Mr. Stickelman answered at that time we were having the ceiling repaired, a new suspended ceiling put in place, we redid the light fixtures, plumbing had broken loose downstairs so we had to replace that. WE took the plumbing that had been removed, the sink that had been torn out of the wall on the first floor and put a wet bar there so it would look nice. We did interior painting, waterproofing and plumbing work because the main drain had broken loose; we replaced that. What we had yet to do was to do exterior painting, resurface the parking lot, reline it and carpet the interior.

Mr. Rimedio asked the use you were using the Rose Lane space for in regard to the appraisal business up until the point you were told you couldnít do that? Mr. Stickelman answered it was for file and research.

Mrs. Boice asked about the wet bar. Mr. Stickelman responded we would use it for making coffee and dishes, a small microwave. Mrs. Boice said small refrigerator - you are creating a bit of a kitchen then? Mr. Stickelman said we didnít have one then; Iím sure we will. And all this I shared with Bill prior to the September 5 letter.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Four

VI H FRANK H. PAUZAR, SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Nadaud said so when your furnace was being repaired and replaced, you had permits from the city to do this? Mr. Stickelman answered we had not started the electrical work, and when I discussed this with Bill, I told him exactly the process we were going through. He suggested we wait until he checked with the solicitor on the legal issue of it. I told him where we were as far as painting was concerned and the sealant and that sort of thing. That following week while we waited for his response, we were doing that; he said he was aware of that. Then, I told him that we would have to replace the heating system and at that point of time he told me we needed permits, but we stopped work on September 5th

Mr. Mitchell said are we going to sit and listen to witnesses all night here? Is there to be anything to hear to determine whether or not the place was occupied? Mr. Rimedio responded I think you just heard that. Mr. Mitchell we are hearing hearsay. Mr. Rimedio answered you are hearing the individual who occupied it. Thatís not hearsay. Mr. Mitchell continued itís hearsay to me, because heís telling me. Mr. Rimedio stated it is direct evidence; it is the same as a drawing or the bloody glove. This is direct evidence. Mr. Mitchell said hearsay is direct evidence, okay. Mr. Rimedio stated hearsay is Iím telling you what he said. Mr. Mitchell continued Iím trying to get to a point here. We can waste another two hours here listening to this, but what are we going to gain from this? Iím trying to get to the nuts and bolts of this thing, thatís all. Mr. Rimedio responded I appreciate that.

Mr. Tiffany said I would suggest that this be tabled until Mr. McErlane can be here to explain his side of the conversations in detail, and that possibly affidavits be pursued.

Mr. Nadaud stated I would appreciate that very much, and I would like to have a representative of the city voice his knowledge. Mr. Tiffany stated I am trying to fill in for Bill a little bit tonight, because I have had more conversation with Bill on this than anybody else. Residents in the community know that I sit on the Planning Commission, and they came to me and asked why they are permitted to have home occupation for business and I am not. We have had several people in the area ask for that and been refused, and all of a sudden we have this. That is what pushed me to be involved in this thing.

Mr. Blake said I would like to piggyback on what Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Tiffany was saying. Maybe we can have a special meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals just to handle this particular matter, because it looks like itís going to be long. I would like to move that this be tabled until we can have all the key players here, Mr. McErlane, the previous owner of the property, so we can have everybody here so we donít get just one side of the story. If I am going to make a decision, I want to have everybody in this room.

Mr. Rimedio responded with all due respect, there is no previous owner. The Pauzars have had it for about 30 or 40 years. Mr. Blake said I would like to have the previous tenant here. Mr. Rimedio said I have no problem with that; I would join in that motion. Mrs. Boice commented I think we need to have Mr. Kenworthy address that probably.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Five

VI H FRANK H. PAUZAR SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Kenworthy stated I think there can probably be a whole lot of testimony either on behalf of Mr. Rimedio and the applicants here or on behalf of the city, but a lot of what I am hearing and what I have already seen in the documents, I think there are a couple of issues which to me looks like the Board can decide on. Section 153.152 of the Springdale Zoning Code says "In the event that the non-conforming use", and I highlight that the non-conforming use. This propertyís non-conforming use was as a retail type establishment; it was a convenience store. Thatís what it always was. I think the only and most reasonable interpretation of that is when that non-conforming use is terminated for six months, as it says here in the Code, that right is lost. Merely because another use is a commercial use does not qualify it as a continuing non-conforming use, and I would point out Section 153.156, which addresses which readily addresses that you canít change the use of a building to any other use, unless it is a conforming use. You canít go from business to industrial back to commercial to any other kind of use. You have a non-conforming use, one use; you canít change from that.

Mr. Kenworthy continued Iím not saying the Board doesnít have the authority to grant a variance possibly from those provisions to say we would allow this type of office use, but that is a separate question in this appeal. As I understand Mr. Rimedio, he is not pursuing the issue of the residence; they are just pursuing the issue of the property on Rose Lane, and based on what I have heard testified to and what is in the documents, that has not been used as a retail establishment at all, and there are no intentions to do that. Not to say that I donít believe the testimony, but even if I take it at full faith value, they were moving in in April and going to use it as an office; thatís not a retail use. I donít think that is in the spirit of continuing a non-conforming use; it is at odds with that. I think this Board would have the authority, if they so chose, to grant a variance from that, but I think that is a question for another day.

Mr. Rimedio asked what is your opinion of the phrase voluntarily discontinued, which is in that same paragraph? Mr. Kenworthy responded I think you have to look at that in the context of what does voluntarily mean? Certainly, we have no control over your clients, tenants if and when they leave, whether it is voluntary on the lessorís part or not. Even if I accept in this case that he left with the midnight movers, I would still say as far as I would be concerned, this is still a voluntary action. You tried to lease it out; it didnít work out. I donít see this as an act of God or something the city did or some other governmental agency who said stop, you canít do it any more forever. I think it was a matter of the general business climate, the way of the world, and that is something we canít control. I just donít believe that falls into the involuntary or something outside of that, so I would still believe it falls in that section.

Ms. McNear asked what is the role of this Board in this issue? We basically deal with variances; Mr. Rimedio said he is not asking for a variance. What are we doing here? This is basically a court forum; this is not a court of law. What is it that you are asking for and what are we supposed to do after listening to all these witnesses? What is our role here?

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Six

VI H FRANK H. PAUZAR, SR. APPEAL OF DECISION - 11614 ROSE LANE

Mr. Kenworthy responded just as your name states, the Board of Zoning Appeals, an appeal is one of your given powers. All Board of Zoning Appeals have the power to grant both variances and appeals. There is a specific procedure set up; appeals from decisions of the building and zoning officials can be appealed to this board, and you do sit as a board in judgment to weigh the evidence, to look at all the testimony and exhibits if there had been any. You do in effect sit as a judge, and your decision can be appealed to a court of law. You do have that authority.

Mrs. McNear commented I think perhaps we need a bit more study. This is something I personally have never done, and I have been on this board for five years. Mrs. Boice has been on it longer and I donít know if you have ever experienced an appeal rather than a variance situation. I think we have a lot of new members up here and I think we need some more advice on this before we look at this issue at another meeting. I donít think at the moment we are equipped to do that. I think we need to know where we can go and what we can do and what the legal ramifications are before we can go forward.

Mr. Kenworthy responded we can outline what we think is the legal position of the board and what it should do without addressing the facts, whether it be this case or any other case. I would ask Mr. Rimedio if he is willing to continue this hearing in progress and come back at a special date, and maybe we can set up ahead of time exactly what the procedures are going to be so we have an idea of who is going to present what and weíre not here from 7 to midnight.

Mr. Rimedio asked if we are going to this as a de novo proceeding or continue from where we are? Mr. Kenworthy commented in case the board is not familiar with that, de novo proceeding would mean letís start from ground zero; I would submit we just pick up from where we are at. If there is additional clarification, we can do that. Iíll leave it to the Boardís discretion, but I think it might be in the best interest to get you some guidance and set up a format on how to run the next hearing.

Mr. Nadaud stated I think Mr. Kenworthyís ideas are very justified. I would like to table this until a further time when we can pick up where we left off. Mr. Kenworthy added for the record, I would prefer to see a motion to continue in progress. We have already opened up the hearing. Mr. Blake moved to continue in progress, and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Mr. Nadaud asked what date are we looking at? Mr. Blake suggested that the attorneys get together and determine the date? Mrs. Boice I agree, but I think at this point we all need to be looking at our calendars; I certainly would want a full boat on this one. Our next BZA meeting will be the 17th of October, and I think we determined we wanted to do this. is on a separate basis. Mr. Nadaud suggested Monday, October 16th. The Board members and the attorneys concurred. Mrs. Boice asked Mr. King if Mr. McErlane will be in the city that week, and Mr. King responded I suppose so, but I donít know. Mrs. Boice asked Mrs. Webb to check with Mr. McErlane to make sure he will be available October 16th. Mrs. Webb suggested that the meeting would be held on October 16th at 7:00 P.M. unless Mr. McErlane is not available and she calls the board members. On the motion to continue in progress, voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Young.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Seven

VI NEW BUSINESS

I. Huntington Bank, 199 Northland Boulevard requests variance to allow total signage of 207.72 square feet (165 s.f. allowed). Variance is requested from Section 153.092(E)(3) "..any face of a pole sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in area". Section 153.134(A) "Gross area of signs" and Section 153.092(E)(10) "..total area..ancillary signs shall not exceed 16 square feet"

Mr. Greg Hanbaum with the Artglo Company stated we are the fabricators of the proposed signage for the Huntington Bank at 199 Northland Boulevard. John Maginnis is here representing Huntington Bank. Earlier this year Huntington Bank purchased the property at 199 Northland Boulevard. At that time, they converted it into one of their branches, and signage was done at that branch. Since that time, that branch has become part of what is a brand name, the Access Program for Huntington Banks that is being rolled out across their network. As part of the access, the branch is open 24 hours, limited access so customers can come in and do their banking at all different hours.

Mr. Hanbaum continued the access logo is a little unique in terms of how it is applied. I also have a color photo so you can have a better feeling of that. He showed the photo, adding that the Huntington Bankís part is in a green field, which is illuminated and is 6í3" x 6í3". The Access logo is illuminated in red and the frame is aluminum and is not illuminated.

Mr. Hanbaum continued the reason we are here before you is there was an interpretation of the code, and 80 square feet was the number given by Mr. McErlane. I have failed to understand how we got 80 square feet. I apologize for that, but looking at the drawings, the face is 6í3" x 6í3". If you apply a rectangle around the access letters as well, it still does not come up to that square footage. The only interpretation I could have is that we are taking it from the tip of the A, extending it all the way across and up across as well. Mrs. Boice said thatís the way we do it; we square it off. Mr. Hanbaum stated the reason we are asking for this is there is quite a bit of negative space that is not part of what the lettering is that is included in that. There is no way we could come up with to better apply the Access logo, which is a national brand for Huntington. It is a new sign for them at this location, and we are trying to keep their standards applying to this branch. Being the first location in Cincinnati that is an Access facility, it is important to identify it properly. As we go along and other branches will be applied to this, a marketing program will go behind that, but in the meantime, it is important to identify that branch to customers coming up and down the through way, which is a multi-laned access in front of it, and the building is set back quite a distance from the road.

Mr. Hanbaum continued on the building, the three sided canopy over the entranceway is an existing canopy. What we are asking to do is apply an aluminum band around the bottom and apply the Access letters to it. That would be on three sides and the open 24 hours would be on the front of the building.

Mr. Hanbaum stated the pole sign is what is putting us over in square footage, so we are here to ask for a variance on that sign.

Mrs. Boice said in the letter in front of me, I see that you have noted wind load calculations are required; do you now have those in your possession or have they not come in yet? Mr. Hanbaum said we do not have those; we wanted to first find out what would happen here.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Eight

VI I. HUNTINGTON BANK 199 NORTHLAND BOULEVARD - SIGN VARIANCE

Mrs. Boice commented measuring it the way we do it, you are about 37 feet over. I donít have a great deal of problem with that little Access. We are getting caught up because of the way we measure.

Mr. Schecker added you are right in that individually the Huntington sign is not a very large sign. It is using up a lot of the allowance, but the actual presentation of the sign is not very big.

Mr. Young asked if the only thing you are changing on the pole sign is the Access, and Mr. Hanbaum answered that it wasnít, adding that this is a new sign. There is a sign where we changed the faces so they could open the branch. The sign was designed for a certain wind load. Because of what we are doing, adding Access to it, we cannot do it on that sign, so we are taking down the old sign, which needs to be updated anyway. Mr. Young asked if the height was being increased? Mr. Hanbaum answered no, we are not asking for more than the code allows.

Mr. Mitchell commented you stated that the green canopies are existing. Huntington Bank and Access are in good proportion; I do not see a big problem.

Mrs. Boice moved that Huntington Bank be granted a variance to allow 202.72 square feet of signage and Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. Boice, Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Blake. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

J. Extended Stay America, Inc. requests variance to allow building height of 43í-6" (36 feet is allowed) buff colored stucco finish (Corridor Study requires 40% brick and stone) an 80í pole sign with 202.5 square feet of signage and exemption from the Corridor Study headlight screening requirement

Mr. Nadaud called on Mr. Blake for his comments. Mr. Blake stated as the Planning Commission representative to this board, I have a problem with this request being brought before this Board. We just met on this on the 12th, and I am disturbed at what I see being requested for variances, because it is not what was discussed before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Blake continued let me give you an example. They came before the planning Commission and they are allowed 36 feet in height for the building; they told us 40í-3". Also Mr. Galster pointed out the Corridor Study requirement for brick and stone, and one of the people from the Extended Stay America said that was not a problem meeting the requirement for 40% brick or stone. The pole sign was left up somewhat, but Ms. Manis mentioned her concern about screening the headlight requirement, and they stated they had no problem with it. Now I read here that they are asking for an exemption. Everything they are bringing to this body has been different from what they presented to the Planning Commission. I am terribly upset with it, and because of it, I am going to ask that this body send this request back to the Planning Commission. As the representative from Planning, I make that recommendation and I so move that this be sent back to Planning before it is brought to this board.

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Twenty-Nine

VI J EXTENDED STAY AMERICA PROPOSED HOTEL REQUESTED VARIANCES

Mr. Rick Horn of Woolpert said I would like to respond to that before any motion is made, Mr. Blake is entirely correct in what he is saying. We asked for 40í-6". The architects found that on this site, because of its uniqueness and because we will have to put the building out of the flood plain, our height will have to be 43í-6". When I made my request to the Board of Zoning Appeals, I had to make it for what we were going to build, not for what we had said at Planning. We will work with the city. If they donít want to approve 43í-6", then weíll have to go down and meet code, but Iíd like to have it heard at this meeting, and Iíll go on and address the other items too.

Mr. Horn continued we did say we could meet the landscaping requirements for headlight screening, but in our plan we found that there is no headlight sight that is going to go off site. Also, weíd like to keep our typical buff colored stucco finish. I am asking for a variance; ;it doesnít mean you have to grant that. We can go with the 40% brick and stone, but this is a prototype building, one of the first in the United States, and Extended Stay is trying to put their best foot forth here in Springdale. We are trying to work with the city and the Planning Commission any way we can, but we need approval or we need some kind of decision so we can go forward with our plans. We need to get underway in the next two months, and to table this or send it back would probably put a hardship on the project as it exists right now.

Mr. Blake said let me make myself clear. We have representation on all the different boards, I donít think it is fair for a developer to come in and say one thing to the Planning Commission, i.e. we donít have a problem with that, and come back and try to throw a curve ball, we found out this that and the other. I canít in good conscience, as a representative of Planning Commission on this Board allow this to go forward. We approve what we approve on Planning Commission based on what you tell us. We have to go by your word, and when I come in and see a different story, we are starting off on the wrong foot. I think we should go back to square one and start over.

Mr. Horn responded I would like to do that, but I would like to do it at this forum. If we delay this a month, it may not go forward, and I think it is a good thing for the city. If you donít agree with some of the things here, letís throw them out; letís not even address them.

Mr. Nadaud said Planning Commission is a very important body; theyíve done a lot of good things for this community. They are our experts when it comes to planning and developing, and we lean on them totally for their opinion and advice. I donít think it is right to skirt the issues with Planning and bring it to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Horn responded we went on the recommendation of Planning and Mr. McErlane. When the items came up with the pole sign, he said that has to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals; when the issue of the building height came up, he said that has to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and I said okay. In reading his comments, under that same Corridor Study Plan which I wasnít aware of; I have a copy now, there were the two other items of the stucco finish and the landscaping. Iím trying to be humble in front of the board because I didnít perceive it that way and if I was wrong, Iím sorry. I went on Mr. McErlaneís advice for the first two items; it was my own opinion that we should put the other two items on there because I think the stucco finish can be worked out.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Thirty

VI J EXTENDED STAY AMERICA PROPOSED HOTEL REQUESTED VARIANCES

Mr. Horn continued if the Board is going to be negative to it, I would rather pull it and bring it back in a better form. We canít wait six months if this gets turned down.

Mrs. Boice commented the procedure generally is when we have something that has come in directly from Planning Commission, they recommend that you come to us. You donít tell them you are going to do it one way and come in here and change it. I concur with Mr. Blake completely; he has a motion on the floor and I will second it.

Mr. Horn stated we will withdraw the request for a variance. I want to apologize to the Board and he Planning Commission representative. That wasnít the intent of Extended Stay or Woolpert. We have been trying to work with the city as much as we can on this, and we would like to continue to do that.

Mr. Blake said did I hear you say you just got a copy of the Route 4 Corridor Study? Mr. Horn responded yes. Mr. Blake continued if I can remember correctly, when Mr. Galster asked you if you had seen the Corridor Study, you said you were familiar with it and that the fellow sitting in the back said you didnít have a problem with it. Now tonight you say you just got a copy of it.

Mr. Horn responded Mr. Hager, the representative of Extended Stay had conversations with the city before Woolpert was involved. If the Corridor

Study came into it, thatís when it did. In conversations with Mr. McErlane, I was made aware of the Corridor Study; we had a copy in our hands the day after the Planning Commission meeting. Thatís the extent of my knowledge of the Corridor Study.

Mr. Horn continued it was not the intent of either Extended Stay or Woolpert to insult the integrity of the Board or the Planning Commission. We are trying to address the items I perceived as what could be addressed in this meeting, and take the recommendations of the Board. We asked for an 80 foot sign; we have alternates here. We asked for the stucco finish; that doesnít mean if we got turned down on that item that we wouldnít put in the stone. We asked for the landscaping variance because this piece of property abuts a creek, and to get the required parking, we had to extend the driveway out to the edge of the top of the bank of the creek. To put landscaping there, we would almost be infringing on the creek, and anything we would put there I would assume would fall into the creek. There is existing deciduous vegetation there; it was on the list of things under the Corridor Study subsection B under the recommendations from Anne McBride as to what was required. All I did was copy those four things from her comments, and thatís how this got put into the request. Thatís how this came about, really.

Mr. Nadaud asked Mr. Blake to restate his motion, and Mr. Blake stated I moved to send Extended Stay back to Planning Commission for review. Mrs. Boice seconded that motion Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Young.

Mr. Nadaud suggested that the applicant reschedule a meeting with the Planning Commission and express your views and ideas with them to see what problems can be worked out prior coming to the Board for a variance.

 

 

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

19 September 1995

Page Thirty-One

VII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Mitchell asked if the Board thinks we would be wise if we advised Mr. Rimedio that if he went with a variance in lieu of a an appeal, it would have been a simple process, wouldnít it? Mr. Schecker commented he maintained that he wasnít here for a variance.

Mr. Young stated if we allow them to have that business in there, does it make a big difference? We are essentially changing that from retail establishment to a business facility? The building itself cannot be used as a restaurant. Mrs. Boice said my concern is will they actually ever move everything out of that house. Mr. Young responded by his own admission, he says he knows they are in violation, and they have to move it out of the house into that if we allow them to use it that way. Does anybody have an objection to them having a real estate appraisal business in that building? My feeling is whatís the difference? It is less traffic than Scottyís. From that standpoint, I do not understand what the problem is with allowing it to be a business.

Mr. Schecker said I think the fact of the use is the issue. Mrs. Boice said it is a residential area. I get an average of two calls every week from residents of this city who are concerned about the encroachment of business in the residential area. That was grandfathered there because it was non-conforming. Mr. Young said if we donít allow the appeal, what happens to that building? Mrs. Boice responded I would assume they will sell that entire corner as residential. Mr. Young said so it goes back to residential zoning. Thatís what I was asking.

Mrs. McNear commented we want to make sure that the Kemper Road section from Tri-County to Route 4 and beyond keeps the residential flavor rather than reverting to business.

Mr. Nadaud stated Mr. Kenworthy made it quite simple when he explained that all we are doing is ruling whether or not to grant the appeal. Itís not the same business, and thatís really all we have to consider. Mr. Young said so they have passed their time. If in fact they do convince us that it has been a commercial business, they still are in violation. Mrs. Boice said yes, because they had to continue on what they had there. They had to have a retail establishment.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Blake moved for adjournment and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Board adjourned at 11:15 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

____________________,1995 _______________________ Ralph Nadaud, Chairman

 

____________________,1995 ________________________

Wilton Blake, Secretary