16 NOVEMBER 1995

7:30 P.M.



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

Mr. Nadaud stated Mr. Blake phoned and said he would be a little late this

evening, so I will ask Jim Young to act as Secretary in the meantime.


Members Present: Councilwoman Kathy McNear, Councilwoman Marge

Boice, William Mitchell, Ralph Nadaud, Thomas

Schecker, and James Young

Members Absent: Wilton Blake (arrived at 8:00 P.M.)



Mrs. Boice moved for adoption and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six

affirmative votes.


A. Zoning Bulletin Volume 43 No. 10A - October 1995

B. Zoning Bulletin Volume 11 - November 1995

C. 26 October Letter to Gordon & Sandy King re BZA Meeting

Time Change

D. 26 October Letter to Carol Norman re BZA Meeting Time Change

E. 26 October Letter to David & Julie Gambrel re BZA Meeting

Time Change

F. 19 October Letter to David & Julie Gambrel re proposed room addition

G. 24 October Letter to Sam Burns re property at 11631 Walnut Street

H. Report on Council Activities - Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated that there is nothing really that relates to this Board,

but I wanted to take this opportunity to invite the citizens of Springdale

to the Swearing In on December 1st. The Mayor-Elect and his wife will be having a punch and cake reception following the Swearing In for the citizens.

I. Report on Planning Commission - Wilton Blake

Mr. Nadaud I will pass by this since Mr. Blake is not here yet.

J. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10 October 1995


A. Carol Norman, 504 Grandin Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a roof over the deck projecting into the front yard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.037(D) "...may project 6 feet into required front yard" (tabled 10 October 1995)

Paul Rainey stated we are looking for a variance to allow us to construct a roof over the deck to the same dimensions as the original deck. We were talking about the difference of whether it should project six feet into the yard, or whether we had the full 11 and 1/2 feet.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Two


Mr. Rainey reported what we find is we are really supposed to have 35 feet from the right of way, which would allow 24 feet left over and gives us an 11í2" for the deck which we constructed in accordance with our original permit. I donít really see where the six feet would apply here.

Mr. Nadaud responded the Code addresses any protrusion from the entrance to the house not to exceed six feet. Originally you had asked for 16 feet from the house, which the Board considered excessive and granted 14 feet, which actually is eight feet more than what the Code would allow. That is what we need to address tonight, the protrusion from the house, which would be a six foot allowance, and you are asking for 14 feet.

Mr. McErlane reported the required front yard setback is 30 feet in this particular zoning district, and the Code allows you to encroach within that 30 feet an additional six feet for an open porch or a roofed over open porch. In this case, that would allow them to be as close as 24 feet to the public right of way with an open porch that can be roofed over. The current situation with the deck is at 21 and 1/2 feet, so you really are looking at a variance of two and one-half feet.

Mrs. Boice commented I drove by the property again, and as you will recall at the last meeting, I had stated that when I drove by it after the deck was constructed, I was a bit stunned, having looked at the plans. Maybe it was the steps that threw me off, but I have to say in all sincerity say that had I ever thought you were intending at some time to roof that deck in, I probably would have looked at the original variance entirely differently. I really have a problem with that being roofed in.

Mr. Rainey responded with all due respect, if I had known I was going to have had all this trouble, I would never have worried about the two feet. It is certainly not worth all the aggravation. The deck is already in place and yours is the first negative comment we have had. Everybody else thinks the deck looks great. Mrs. Boice said Iím not saying it doesnít look great; it is just that it jumped out into the yard a little bit more than I had envisioned looking at the plans. I think it probably is a configuration of the steps on that one end that did it. I think it is a good addition, but I think roofing it in would kill the visual aspect of the deck.

Mr. Rainey stated it depends on taste I guess. We think it looks great and all our neighbors think it looks great. Even the kids in the neighborhood came by and told me how great it looked. I am very pleased with it. Mrs. Boice said Iím not saying the deck doesnít look great; I am saying the visual of it jumping out into the yard was a little more than I had anticipated. Mr. Rainey continued we are now looking at it, and if it were two feet narrower, I donít believe it would have made a great deal of difference, and that is all you granted, two feet. That is only 24 inches. The deck would have been the same, except for the 24 inches in the front. All we are talking about now is the roof. I donít know what else I can say.

Mr. Nadaud said are we actually going to determine a variance for two code requests? Mr. McErlane reported it is only one request, to allow the setback to be 21 1/2 feet as opposed to 24 feet. Mr. Nadaud responded we state on our agenda that it may project 6 feet into the required front yard.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Three


Mr. McErlane stated the required front yard is 30 feet. The house happens to be built with a larger setback, so essentially it is saying you can have an open deck or roofed porch that projects as far as six feet into a required front yard. It is not saying you are limited to six feet; it is saying you can project as much as six feet into a required front yard.

Mr. Mitchell asked if there were any other future plans for the deck, to close it in or put windows on it? Mr. Rainey answered that there werenít, adding that they really didnít intend to roof it. It is just that it turned out so great, we thought that the roof would be a welcome addition and certainly would not harm anything.

Mr. Schecker said am I to understand that Ms. Norman would not have needed a variance at all had this overhead been two and one-half feet shorter, and Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

Mr. Nadaud stated at the last meeting, I think you mentioned that you could consider working within the guidelines of the 12 and one half foot roof. Mr. Rainey responded absolutely, if this is turned down weíll certainly approach the 12 foot roof. I think it would take something away from the deck, but 12 feet is better than nothing. Mr. Mitchell commented it is actually 11 and 1/2 feet.

Mr. Young moved to grant the variance, addling I will have to stipulate that I personally am not in favor of it. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Mitchell. Voting no were Mr. Young, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear. The variance was denied by a vote of four nays and two ayes.

B. Gordon & Sandy King, 491 Dimmick Avenue requests variance to allow the construction of a new single family residence 20 feet from rear property line and 12 feet from front property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(4)(a) "Front yards must be at least 35 feet deep" and (c) "Rear yards must be at least 40 feet deep"

(tabled 10 October 1995)

Mr. Nadaud stated Mr. and Mrs. King will not be here tonight. They have requested that this be tabled to December. Mrs. McNear reported I spoke with the Kings this evening, and they do not want to have this tabled; they want to have this withdrawn. They will be building the type of house that will not need a variance on that piece of property. Mrs. McNear moved to withdraw and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the request was withdrawn.


A. David & Julie Gambrel, 582 Smiley Avenue requests variance to construct room addition 35í6" from the rear property line. Said variance is requested from Section 153.023(D)(4)(c) "..Rear yards must be at least 40 feet deep."

Mr. Gambrel stated what we are doing is putting a room addition on the back of the house. We started out thinking we would put a porch or a summer room, but we ended up wanting to make it a full blown actual addition. It is proposed at 20í x 14í, and we found by going 14 feet out from the house, we would be at 35í6" from the rear property line and we would need a variance.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Four


Mr. Gambrel continued I talked to all my neighbors and got all their signatures. particularly the neighbors behind me. We have a wood privacy fence around our back yard now, and it probably would not be very visible anyway. It will be constructed of the same material as the house, a board with cedar trim, so it will look like it was actually built when the house was built. There will be a deck off to that, which would be the same size, so it all comes into play.

Mrs. Boice said basically we are looking at 4í-4" off the mark of that setback. The depth of that property is 156 feet, and you say the materials and construction will match the present home. Mr. Gambrel responded the house itself is only eight years old, so the material is still available to match it up exactly. It will be stained the same; it is an attractive house. We just need additional room space.

Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. McErlane about the deck; does it protrude beyond the addition? Mr. McErlane reported there is really no problem with a deck or open porch. It has another allowance in that you can be 50% into a rear yard with a deck.

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

B. Jean M. Riley, 773 Tivoli Lane requests variance to allow the construction of a utility shed next to her residence. Said variance is requested from Section 153.024(C) "accessory building..shall be located not less than 5 feet from main building".

Ms. Riley stated we reroofed the patio cover and the storage enclosure. The storage area is right next to the house. Mr. Nadaud asked if the storage shed was already there, and Ms. Riley answered yes. We just replaced one. My son and grandson did it, and I did not know I had to have a permit to redo it.

Mr. Mitchell commented I was by your property today, and you took me out back and showed me the shed. One concern I do have is it is made of wood; do you have plans to put siding or to paint it? Ms. Riley responded we are planning on staining it. It would have been done, but they told me to stop until I got a permit for it. Mr. Mitchell asked if it would match the color of your house, and Ms. Riley indicated that it would.

Mr. Schecker commented if you havenít had the occasion to look at this property, what back yard she does have drops off rapidly. Itís not like she could put a building very far away from her house at all. Mrs. Boice said from Mr. Mitchellís comments, his concern is that it needs some aesthetic touches. Mr. Mitchell said yes, and she said she would follow through on painting it. Ms. Riley added it will be sprayed with their very best varnish I believe. Mrs. Boice asked the type of wood, and Ms. Riley stated it is plywood, two by fours.

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance, and amend that she will follow through and paint the facility to match her house. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Young, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Nadaud, Mrs. Boice and Mrs. McNear. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Five

Mr. Blake arrived at 8:00 P.M.

VI. NEW BUSINESS - continued

C. Frederick W. Pauzar requests variance to use the commercial building at 11614 Rose Lane as an office. Said variance is requested from Section 153.156 Non-Conforming Change Prohibited "The nonconforming use of a building may be changed only to a use conforming to the district in which the building is located."

Mr. Pauzar stated the reason we asked to be here this evening is to discuss the existing commercial building that we talked about at the previous meeting. The building was a nonconforming use, and it had been grandfathered in. It was decided by this body at the last meeting that the discontinuation of its use as a pony keg prevented its continuing use as a pony keg.

Mr. Pauzar continued one topic that was brought up was the possibility of coming up with a reasonable solution for what happens to this structure now that it no longer has a use as a pony keg. What we had proposed and had been wanting to do all along was to use the building at 11614 Rose Lane, that commercial building, as an office, and we are talking about a real estate appraisal office which would be occupied by Stickelman & Associates.

Mr. Pauzar commented the advantage of using it as that over the retail store would be you wouldnít have hundreds of people coming into it during the day with all the traffic. People wouldnít be coming and going with soft drinks and beer and so on. It is a professional office. The disadvantage of leaving that building empty is one for the entire area. I have never seen an area where a building has been vacated and left dormant and allowed to age with no use of that building where it helped the surrounding properties in terms of their appearance or their value.

Mr. Pauzar stated what we have is a nonconforming structure that is there; it does exist, and what we are asking for is not for a change in zoning, but rather with our very explicit acknowledgment, that if you grant our ability to use it as office space now, we would acknowledge and agree that it is in fact a nonconforming use and would abide by the provisions that the city has in effect now or in the future regarding a nonconforming use for that space. That is the essence of the proposal. We are not suggesting any exterior revision of the building, other than what you might suggest within reason that you feel would be beneficial in terms of its appearance. We would freshen the building up on the exterior, but we are not proposing an addition to the building or to take walls or windows out. It would be kept structurally the same as it is now. Over the course of the last months on the interior we put in a new ceiling, new plumbing in the basement and new fixtures and an office sink and countertop and the walls have been painted. The interior, except for the carpeting and finish is pretty well done. We have not yet replaced the furnace or the air conditioning units. We think it makes sense for the city and the neighborhood. It may not be ideal for everyone; we cannot snap our fingers and make the building not exist. It is there and we donít see that there is any reasonable way to make it disappear or go away. I talked this over with my father, and he is in full agreement with what I am suggesting. We would appreciate your consideration.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Six


Mdr. Nadaud commented I noticed you sent certificate of mailings to the neighbors. Mr. Pauzar stated I sent letters to each of the adjoining and near property owners, by the list that was given to me by the Building Department. Mr. Nadaud asked if he had discussed this with the residents, and Mr. Pauzar answered that he had not.

Mr. Nadaud asked if there were any residents here tonight. Mdr. Pauzar answered there is a property owner here. Mr. Volker raised his hand, and Mr. Nadaud stated we may wish to have any comments you may have later this evening.

Mrs. Boice commented in our packet we received a follow-up from Mr. Kenworthy on this situation. I think it is very clear in his comments according to our Code and the Nonconforming Use rules he states very clearly are disfavorable in the State of Ohio as well as in the individual cities. He has made it very clear that we are very limited as to what we can do here if anything. What they are requesting is a use variance. We have been down this route before with use variances, and it became a very difficult situation in a residential area. I think that type of variance has to be weighed very heavily.

Mr. Pauzar stated I appreciate those concerns, but I think we are not dealing with a house in a residential area. We are dealing with a commercial building, and it is there and will last for many years. It would not be in our best interests to spend a great deal of money to do anything with the property other than let it remain if in fact we have no ability to use it for anything. It is not conducive for use as a residence and there it sets and has for many decades. The biggest objection that I heard at the last meeting was that the use of that structure was objectionable. As a grocery store it attracted a lot of for traffic and litter and other problems for the area. Using it as an office does not carry with it the same problems. If it were a house requesting to be used as an office, I could understand your wanting to say we have a residential

neighborhood here, and we want this to revert to its use as a residence, but it was never a residence and cannot be. That is the main reason for my wanting to be here. I am not asking for a change of zoning, and unlike a normal situation where you would have a property owner with a nonconforming use and requesting a special hearing for something different. We are consenting very specifically to the terms of all of your ordinances that pertain to nonconforming uses. So we are not asking for a change in zoning or anything else. We are only asking that we put the building to some use rather than leaving it as a vacant derelict building.

Mr. Young commented I certainly empathize with your situation; it is fairly unique in our city. However, I have to concur with Mrs. Boice. We have been given some information that we need to address. This gentleman represents us from a legal standpoint, and he has given us what he believes are our options. After reading, this I think it is pretty clear. We basically have to follow this; this is what we are paying this gentleman for. We donít want to see this building vacant either, and I think everybody on this Board for the most part has at one time or another been in that store. The problem right now is times have changed and things have to move on. If it does stand vacant, it would be your responsibility to make sure the building is maintained to whatever standards the city requires. You always have the option to sell that parcel of land, so while I do empathize with you, my stand will be we need to follow what has been written and given to us as the correct way to go.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Pauzar asked if this were something that I was furnished with at the last meeting, or was it part of the communications you didnít share at the last meeting? Mrs. Boice responded this was a communication dated November 6th. He simply points out what our code says in instances like this, that the nonconforming use has expired, that a use variance is what you are requesting and he makes it very clear that under our code restrictions, he certainly would not recommend that. Mr. Pauzar responded in other words the Board doesnít grant variances to the Code. Mrs. Boice said yes, we do grant variances; that is our job. We also denied one before you came in. We take each variance case by case.

Mrs. McNear stated I also empathize with your problem with that building, but I think to grant another nonconforming use would be a disservice to the residents. Mrs. Boice added we canít grant another nonconforming use. Mr. Mitchell said we cannot do it; we canít grant an extension.

Mr. Nadaud asked Mr. Pauzar if he were withdrawing his request, and Mr. Pauzar responded I think you have given me a consensus but Iím not really withdrawing.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. No one voted aye, and voting no were Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nadaud and Mr. Young.

Mr. Nadaud stated your request has been denied. We sympathize with your situation, but I think the Board feels this is an opportunity to return that property back to a residence. Maybe there will be something you can do with the property that will be beneficial for yourself and your father, hopefully there is. We wish you luck.

D. Donald R. Kidd 557 Observatory Drive requests variance to allow parking of his truck on the side of his residence. Said variance is requested from Section 153.128(B) "No motor vehicles shall be parked or stored on any area not improved" and Section 153.044(B) "..only passenger cars which do not exceed 20í in length may be parked or stored upon a driveway or parking area.."

Mr. Kidd stated I deliver freight for my business, and it is a 24 foot box truck. One of the variances I did not know about was parking by the side of the driveway, that it has to be improved. As far as parking on the driveway, I guess Iím not even allowed to park it there. It is a diesel and has to be plugged in, and it is my livelihood, so where do I plug it in on a cold night? If I park it on the driveway and angle it all the way to the garage, the nose of my truck is even with the front of my house. Where I am parking it now, on the side, there are ruts, but for five years I have had cars parked on the side of the driveway. Apparently because the truck is so long and parking it where it is not packed down, now it is muddy and that is how it was noticed.

Mr. Young asked if this is a situation where if there were a pad on there it would make a difference, and Mr. McErlane answered only from the standpoint of not making ruts. Mr. Kidd added I will improve that, but I still have two other variances that I am not living up to, and thatís what I am here for.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Nadaud commented if the Board would grant a variance of this nature, it could lead to some really big problems down the road as far as residents wanting to park large vehicles on their properties. We could very well set a precedent here tonight that would be not to the liking of our residents, I am sure.

Mr. Kidd commented my neighbor across the street does not have a problem, my neighbor to the left of me has no problem with it and the person to the right was not at home, and behind me is Forest Park. Mr. Nadaud commented I notice you have only two signatures. Is that all that is required Mr. McErlane? Mr. McErlane reported that his back property line is on the corporation line.


Mr. Mitchell said as with the case before you, we are trying to make a strong effort to keep businesses out of the residential neighborhoods. I see your truck is a plain white truck, but if a person owned a U-Haul and his truck were parked next to my house, it would be very offensive to me and the residents of my neighborhood. The code says that these types of vehicles are not to be parked in the neighborhood, and I would hope you will conform to that and not park your vehicle at your residence. Mr. Kidd commented I do not have a choice, do I?

Mr. Mitchell moved to grant the variance and Mr. Young seconded the motion. No one voted aye, and Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Young, Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Blake voted no. The variance was denied by seven votes.

E. CB Commercial requests variance to allow the placement of three trailers on the east side of Executive Plaza II, 134 Merchant Street. said variance is requested from Section 153.082(C) "No main or accessory use shall be permitted in a trailer or other nonpermanent structure."

Pamela Townley, Real Estate Manager, John Richert, Director of National Services, Sam Ladrick of RSL Commercial, our architects for the property, and Rosie of Fluor Daniel. Fluor Daniel is our largest tenant in Executive Plaza. They currently have 88,000 square feet, and we are applying for a six month temporary variance to put three office trailers on the parking lot temporarily while the permanent space is being constructed, an expansion area of 20,000 square feet. Due to the products they currently have in place, they do not have enough room for all of their employees to wait for the construction to take place. They would like to place these employees in the trailers for approximately a period not to exceed six months.

Ms. Townley reported Fluor Daniel is our largest tenant; they also are the sixth largest occupant in the City of Springdale based on 1994 City of Springdale records. With GE going out of the Tri-County market, Fluor Daniel will become one of the largest tenants in this area, and we consider them to be a very valuable tenant and are trying to do everything we can to accommodate their needs.

Ms. Townley continued we have looked at other options that Fluor Daniel would have. One would be to temporarily locate 30 of their employees at an adjacent Tri-County office building. The problem with this is economically it would be very difficult for them. They would have to pay to construct the temporary space and they also would need to purchase additional data and communication equipment.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Nine


Ms. Townley stated one other option would be to have them relocate in the City of Blue Ash, but if they spend the money to relocate there, it would become permanent. That also then would open up the possibility that down the road if they expanded, instead of expanding in the Tri-County area, they would expand in the Blue Ash area, and the City of Springdale could lose earning taxes, so we feel it is in our best interests as well as the cityís.

Ms. Townley reported there are three trailers, one 14í x 80í, one 12í x 70í and one 12í x 60í. They are off white in color and have an open interior in order to accommodate 28 desks, chairs, telephones and computers. These trailers would be connected to the building for the data communication lines they currently have in place, and would allow them to do business as normal. The trailers would be located behind the Executive Plaza II building.

Mrs. Boice commented I want to thank you for your letter dated November 9th; it was very detailed. With the location of these trailers off Merchant Street, unless there is something I am missing here, I donít see any particular problem. My concern is when you say a six month variance, do you feel your building schedule will move along so it will be six months? Ms. Townley responded we are looking more for three or four months, but we are asking for six months to be sure. Mrs. McNear asked if the trailers would be removed as soon as the construction was completed, and Ms. Townley confirmed that they would.

Mr. Mitchell stated basically I want to talk about the type of trailers you are looking at. Will they be all the same color? Ms. Townley answered that they would be, an off white color, adding that she has photographs which show the location of the trailers.

Mr. Schecker commented it looks like we are talking about a pretty full house in both Executive Plaza I and II. What is happening with the parking spots? Ms. Townley answered the parking spots are okay. We have sufficient parking. Executive Plaza II is 100% leased and Executive Plaza I is 45% leased, so we still have space available.

Ms. Townley said the first photo shows the area behind Executive Plaza I building and the area where the cars are located is exactly where the trailers would go. Adjacent to this property is the Sheakley building property, and they have a construction trailer there. Our trailer would be nicer looking than that. This photo shows east from Merchant Street in front of the building, so from this view of Merchant Street you wouldnít be able to see the trailers at all. This view is north from Merchant Street, and the trailers would be located on the west behind the building. One trailer might stick out here a few feet, but would not be very obvious. In this photo it shows behind the building on Merchant Street, and the trailers would be located in this area. The grass area here curves to a point where you can only park cars up to a certain area, so the trailers could be located behind the tree in back . With this being a pine tree, that would provide additional coverage during the wintertime. This photo shows a better picture of the back area further east on Merchant Street. The final picture facing west as you get further away from the Executive Plaza building, shows that area which is completely covered by trees and shrubbery.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Ten



Mr. Nadaud asked if there isnít any available space in the building that is not completely leased at this time. Ms. Townley responded there is, but the concern that Fluor Daniel has is for them to take temporary space, there would be construction involved, and it would be a $50,000 investment just for temporary space and not including the expense for the data communication equipment and for moving. Mr. Nadaud continued donít you incur similar costs in moving to the trailers? Ms. Townley answered it is minimal compared to what it would be for office space. Mr. Nadaud commented you still have to move your equipment in and out, and Ms. Townley said that is true, but you are just going right outside the building. You wouldnít even have to get a truck there.

Mrs. McNear commented Iím always happy to see any business expansion that doesnít include retail or restaurants, so I would be happy to move to grant a six month variance to allow for the placement of three trailers. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Young, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Schecker and Mr. Blake. The six month variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

F. Extended Stay America, I-275 & Glensprings Drive requests variance to construct a 43í-6" hotel building, a 65í pole sign and a fence to screen headlights. Said variances are requested from Section 153.193(C)(3), "Building height: 36"", Section 153.193(6)(b) "No pole sign shall be permitted", and Section 153.193(9)(g)(1) "Evenly spaced plantings shall be utilized to screen parking lots..from the glare of car headlights."

Mr. Tom Eckert, Project Manager of the Extended Stay America, the development company that is building the extended stay hotel stated we are here for three variances after the Planning Commission meeting Tuesday night.

Mr. Eckert continued the first variance is for the pylon sign, which would be 65í high and 270 square feet. It is somewhat smaller and shorter than our neighboring hotel, and is the only advertising that we do. You will not see any other advertising other than our signing and our building.

Mr. Eckert stated the second variance needed is along the creek on the other side of the creek the property line abuts residential. This requires landscaping to buffer between commercial and residential areas and to screen the car headlights. Because of the embankment and the steep grade, it has been determined that plantings probably wouldnít work there. They wouldnít last very long with flooding and erosion. The next best option to fulfill the requirement of the city and make sure that the lights from the cars and vehicles do not go into the residential area would be a four foot solid wood fence all along the parking area.

Mr. Eckert reported the last variance is for the building height. We are asking for 43í-6". It is at the peak of the roof and is our standard building. It is no different from what we are doing across the country. We would like that plus the pylon sign because we are at the end of the road, and down in the hole, and it wonít stick up that far above the street line anyway because of the elevation of I-275.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Eleven


Mrs. Boice commented the last time you were in, there was a definite misunderstanding of what you had discussed with Planning versus what you brought in to us. She asked Mr. Blake for assurance that what is here tonight is what was discussed at Planning Commission. Mr. Blake responded let me say that Extended Stay has come back to Planning and worked very hard to work things out. There has been give and take and compromise, and what they are bringing tonight is what we worked out through Planning, and Planning recommended these variances to Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Nadaud stated I am a little confused as to how this fits in with the other businesses in that immediate area, like the Cross Country Inn and Applebees.

Mr. Eckert reported we are an extended stay hotel. It is a one-room efficiency with a kitchen and small fridge and microwave. We have a bigger room than in your normal hotel, and we rent by the week. Our average stay is two weeks. We rent to business people who are in town to do a job for several weeks; they want a nicer bigger room, especially with a kitchen.

Mr. Nadaud responded I understand that part. I wonder how this fits in with the other businesses in that area. Mr. Eckert showed the location on the drawing. Mr. Nadaud asked if the access is around from the back and Mr. Eckert answered yes, adding that it is the same as Applebees and Cross Country Inn.

Mr. Young said you said you donít do advertising other than the signage. What would make me stop and pull off for an extended stay? Wouldnít that sign be up for people that are looking for an overnight situation as opposed to stopping for two weeks? Isnít that the kind of marketing that would be done by companies that are coming into town for extended stays? Mr. Eckert answered we asked the same question, and we find from our studies that it doesnít happen. If we market our hotels in the neighboring companies, we have a very small percentage of people drawn from that company. We find that over 50% of the people that stay with us would have stayed at the Cross Country Inn or the Sheraton, but wanted a bigger and nicer room because they are going to stay a week rather than one night. Most of our business comes from a neighboring hotel or they would have stayed with a friend or relative in town. We are a nationwide company, and we are not advertising other than the signage and word of mouth.

Mr. Mitchell commented I am a little concerned about the use of wood for screening. Wood is a high maintenance item, and two years from now, if this fence is not being maintained, it will be an eyesore. What sort of maintenance program will be put in place to make sure that we have a good quality fence?

Mr. Eckert stated we are going to maintain it for ourselves, as well as for the city. It will be a pressure treated wood that is naturally stained and will blend in with the surrounding area. The creekbed on both sides is all woods; from I-275 and Route 4 you will not see it because of the buildings and distance. It will be visible to us and to the neighbors across the creek, what they can see through the woods. It is just as much to our advantage to keep that maintained.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Blake reported that question came up at Planning, and Extended Stay assured us that they would definitely maintain that fence. That was of concern to Planning, and they have given us their assurance.

Mrs. McNear asked where the pylon sign would be placed, and Mr. Kelley showed where on the illustration.

Mr. Young asked if there had been any consideration about the noise factor in terms of the residents. You are talking about a four foot fence; did you talk about anything larger in Planning Commission? Mr. Blake stated we did not consider that a problem. Mrs. Boice commented I would not anticipate from that distance that it would be, because of the woods. There is a good amount of screening there. Mr. Young said I have been back there, and there is screening in the summertime, but thereís not going to be any screening in the wintertime because most of those trees wonít have leaves on them in the wintertime. My only concern is if I am a resident back there. Four feet really isnít that high. Mrs. Boice asked Mr. McErlane how deep down they are, and Mr. McErlane reported that driving back on Lawnview leads you to believe that you are considerably higher than this piece of property, but relative elevations are about the same. The intent of the fence is to screen headlights in lieu of using landscaping.

Mr. Nadaud said so you are saying the possibility of a noise problem has been addressed. Mr. McErlane answered noise was not considered on this property; I doubt that the people staying in there would be having large parties and the amount of traffic in and out was not a great amount especially compared to the ramp right behind it.

Mrs. Boice stated I would like to deal with the issues individually. We have discussed replacing the fence for the shrubbery. I would like to move on to the building height. What is the consensus of the Board on this? They are asking for is 7í-6". Mr. Young asked the elevation of Cross Country Inn, and Mr. McErlane reported he didnít have the figure, but it is only a two-story building and this is three stories but it does have a fairly good size roof area. The 36 foot requirement is a Corridor District requirement. In any other district they are permitted to have 48 feet as a maximum height.

Mr. Nadaud stated I had an opportunity to briefly glance at the Minutes of the Planning Commission and this was addressed. Was there a problem in the Planning Commission with this 43í-6"? There are certain things our city has to address in terms of fire fighting equipment and so on and possibly other restrictions. Were there any concerns about this? Mr. Eckert responded I donít believe there were on the height once we got it set. The Fire Department has looked at this site several times and they have given us a letter that everything is all right. This is our

standard building that we build everywhere.

Mr. Blake reported there have been several adjustments made when they came back to Planning regarding dumpster location, and widening certain areas because there was some concern from the Fire Department on being able to turn and get back in there, so they made the necessary adjustments. There was no concern about the building height, because it was the standard height that they build. It has been a give and take situation.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Thirteen


Ms. Boice commented I donít like talking about three variances at once, so I think weíve covered the screening, weíve covered the building height and now we go to the pole sign.

Mr. Schecker said it seemed to me that earlier on there was some concern also relating to the Corridor Study about the color of the buildings. Mr. Mitchell commented that is Planning Commission business. Mrs. Boice added we canít talk about the colors, but I appreciate your bringing the samples in.

Mr. Mitchell asked if the sign is smaller than Cross Country Inn and Mr. Blake answered I donít know if it is smaller, but we did a real song and dance on the pole sign because we do not like pole signs. The problem was with them being back in there where they are, they had to have a sign so the expressway traffic could see it. At first they came in asking for an 85 foot pole sign, and we compromised with 65 feet high and 278 square feet. They are okay with the square footage; it is the height that requires a variance. Mrs. Boice commented they added $179 weekly; that wasnít on the original plan. Do you feel very strongly that you need this? Mr. Eckert answered that is the business we are in weekly rental versus everybody else up there, and that is how we tell the customers driving down the road that we are in a weekly business.

Mr. Blake moved to grant the variances as requested and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Nadaud, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Boice, and Mrs. McNear. Mr. Young voted no, and the variance was granted with six affirmative and one negative votes.


Mr. Nadaud reported Mr. Blake has presented the members with an update of the Planning Commission meeting of November 14th. Let the Minutes reflect the update.

"The following action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 1995.

1. Extended Stay America, Inc. requests final plan approval of

proposed hotel at I-275 and Glensprings Drive (Strebel

Property) - tabled 10 October 1995 - Passed 7-0

2. Conditional Use Permit for proposed 360 s.f. cellular telephone

equipment building and 135í tubular steel monopole and antenna

platform 12000 Princeton Pike - Failed 4-3

3. Concept Discussion of Proposed Facility for Vineyard Community

Church, Century Boulevard - No Action

4. Concept Discussion of Proposed New Building for Professional

Printing at Church and Walnut Streets - No Action

5. Final Plan Approval of Pine Garden Landominium at 309

Princewood Court - Passed 7-0"

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Fourteen

VII - DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Blake commented the other night I quoted Shakespeare to the Planning Commission when he said parting can be such sweet sorrow. I have come to the end of a term of serving on this august board, and let me tell you, it has been a real pleasure. I have never seen boards that I have served on where people can have disagreements and walk out as friends, especially the BZA, because it seems our chemistry really came together and we were focused on what was best for the city. I have enjoyed being the Planning representative to this body and I have enjoyed serving. Mr. Chairman you have done an excellent excellent job in keeping us all straight and in line. I want to thank all of the members for your kind of respect and what you have done to make this city better. I also want to congratulate Kathy on her recent election victory. I with everyone the very best; I hope you have a happy happy Thanksgiving and wonderful holiday season to come.

Mr. Young said I wondered if anybody has been up on Kenn Road and by the Temple Baptist Church to see the mausoleum. I donít believe it is what we thought we were agreeing to at all. It looks awfully close to the sidewalk. I envisioned it being back a little bit further and Iím not sure at this point of time what we can do. It looks like they have it plugged in. I did not hear from Ralph, but I do not know if they ever came back and said that they talked to the resident and the resident didnít have a problem with it, but where it is right now, I have a real concern. Itís going to be an eyesore and a half, and I donít know if there is anything we can do at this point or not because the hole is dug and the building is in.

Mr. Mitchell commented I drove by there tonight, and the lights on the pilasters at the end of the street shine right on this building, so you will see it at night. It will be very visible. I think we need to revisit that, and if it is not where it should be, letís pull the plug on this job and do it right.

Mr. McErlane reported the thing that did not show up in their request, is that there is a jog in the right of way line right at that property line. The right of way actually jogs back at the residence, so that is why it looks like it is further forward than what they asked for. Mr. Young commented Iím not sure what you mean by it jogs. Mr. McErlane continued the right of way line on Kenn Road actually takes a jog right at that property line, so even though it is 10 feet back on Temple Baptistís property, it lines up with the sidewalk at the property next door. Mr. Mitchell commented so it is installed properly. Mr. McErlane responded that it was, but I have yet to see a landscaping plan. Mrs. Boice asked if they had ever gotten back to the resident and Mr. Nadaud said that they had, adding that he had a letter signed by the resident, Mrs. Scherder agreeing to the proposed site for this, and I had conversations with Mr. Hoff of Cincinnati Bell and Mr. McErlane and we agreed to go ahead and grant that variance request. Mrs. Boice said so youíll be pushing for the landscaping. Mr. Young added something has to be done; I think we got snookered on that one. From my own viewpoint, I drive by there every day and it makes a huge difference where it is planted right now. I think it is an ugly addition. Mrs. McNear added it is even worse than I had envisioned. At least a mausoleum has an angel sitting on it.

Mr. Mitchell said the other item I would like to bring up is Mr. McErlaneís letter to Mr. Burns concerning the property at 11631 Walnut Street. In the September meeting, it was our intent to direct Mr. Burns to have the tenant move out and have the house inspected and he was going to reappear before the Board.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Fifteen

VI DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. McErlane stated we looked through the Minutes, and it was recommended that he withdraw his request, which kind of let him off the hook, basically; it let him walk way thinking that he had accomplished something that he didnít really accomplish. It caused us to have to start the process over in terms of giving notice. The problem with doing an inspection is what do we inspect it as, a business or a residence? It is not legitimately a residence and it hasnít been the six times heís moved somebody in there and the five times weíve kicked them out , either.

Mr. Mitchell responded his request was to have the property to be used as a residence, and he withdrew their request to use it as a residence. Mr. McErlane stated the problem was that he went away thinking, at least this is the impression he gave me, was that all he needed to do was to get it inspected as a residence and it was fine. I told him it didnít resolve the issue that the zoning is not proper for this use. Mr. Nadaud commented he came before the Board several years ago requesting a variance to allow a residence. Mr. McErlane reported the records I have go back to 1986; in 1986 he moved his daughter in there. We were successful in getting his daughter out, and then several years later, he had another occupant in. We have had five or six residents in there, including the person that was supposed to be his resident agent. His daughter was in there until June of this year, and we had to get her out and his resident agent let somebody else move in there. Mr. Mitchell commented he left with his thinking; his thinking doesnít really matter here. Mr. McErlane responded I know, but I would have felt bad citing him to court the next day without advising him that he didnít accomplish anything. Mrs. Boice said when we advised him to withdraw, that made request null and void and he had been told to get the tenant out of there. Thatís my only problem; now he will hide in Florida for another four months. Mrs. McNear commented I have been on this Board for six of the last seven years, and frankly I am tired of hearing this issue. We need to say this is a business and get them out. Mr. Young commented in light of what happened tonight with Mr. Pauzar, I think that is correct. If we put ;the hammer down on him, this gentleman should certainly be put to task. Mr. McErlane reported our biggest problem is when we cite him, thereís no way of serving it on him until he comes back into town. Heís in Port Charlotte Florida most of the time. Mr. Young asked if there wasnít any way to seize the property or anything. Mr. Mitchell asked if he could condemn the property, and Mr. McErlane reported weíve put notices on the door. Mrs. Boice commented his excuse always is he didnít know anybody moved in there. Mr. McErlane added I talked to him last week and told him to start eviction proceedings if she is not paying your rent. He said sheís not even supposed to be in there, and I said if youíre saying she is trespassing, then go to the police and approach it that way, but you have to go through some process to get her out. Heís trying to say that he didnít allow her to be in there in the first place. I said it sounds like you donít have very good control of your property. Ms. Boice commented we have been going on with this for years. There was a time when the city was going to buy that property, and that is when he lost his briefcase and forgot he had re-signed his tenants, and the city didnít want to be landlords.

Mr. Blake said I want to reiterate that the city needs to take a very strong stand. Just like the Pauzar property earlier; I think the city needs to be forceful in enforcing that, because if you allow him to get away with it, other people will see that. These boards have really worked hard to try to enforce the ordinances and not set precedents.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

16 November 1995

Page Sixteen

VII - DISCUSSION - continued

Mrs. Boice commented I agree; if there is some way that we can get whoever is living there out. Originally it was a woman who was going to open an adult day care facility. Mr. McErlane stated sheís still there. Mr. Mitchell said so as far as BZA is concerned, it is out of our hands now? Mr. McErlane reported I half expected him to file again, so we are watching it to see if somebody comes in or out of it, and file papers to cite him. The problem we run into is serving it on him. The other alternative is to try and obtain an injunction to get the girl out. Mr. Young commented it sounds like this Board should never allow somebody to walk away. We should go one way or the other. Mr. McErlane commented especially when there was an outstanding order against him, thatís the problem.. Ms. Boice commented then we should also have gotten some advice on this. Somebody should have said that we needed to do something more definite. Mr. Young continued now that we have some of that background, we need to consider that. Instead of letting someone walk away, we need to do what we did tonight. Even if we donít like the issue, letís put it up there and vote it down. Mrs. Boice stated technically and legally I would have to say that when he withdrew his request that request was null and void, and he already had been told, out of there. Mr. Young responded I agree with that; I just donít think the suggestion should come from us. I donít think we should say why donít you withdraw; I think we should say we are either going to vote on it or weíre not, and thereís a reason for it. Mrs. McNear we can explain that if we vote positively, you are done and if we vote negatively, you are out of here for six months. Mr. Mitchell commented I think what we did was right, and I think the City does have the authority to go and evict them out of the house. Mr. McErlane reported we do not have the authority unless we go to court and get an injunction. It is not an easy process. Mr. Mitchell commented I feel we need to do this.

Mr. Blake commented I would like to ask one question before I leave this board; it has been bothering me. Why is it that if we know we are not going to approve something, why do we move to approve it and turn around and vote it down? Mrs. McNear responded it is easier to vote that way; the result is more clear. Mrs. Boice added we found in the past where a motion was made in the negative form, it was very confusing. Mr. Nadaud added especially if you donít do it the same way every time.

Mr. Nadaud stated like Mr. Blake, my four-year appointment expires, and I would like to say it has been an experience I am very proud of. I value the learning process that I have undergone here, and I appreciate the fact that I was able to work with and get to know such a great group of people. I wish you all the luck in the coming years, and congratulations Kathy. I would like to remind everybody that next month is the election of upcoming officers for 1996.

Mrs. McNear stated this is my last evening for BZA as representative from Council, and I would hope to be back on this Board but I donít know if that will happen. Good luck to everyone, and thanks for all your good wishes

Mrs. Boice commented William and I are the only ones who are left. I have enjoyed working with all of you, and I wish you and yours the happiest holiday season.


Board of Zoning Appeals

16 November 1995

Page Seventeen


Mr. Blake moved for adjournment; all voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:16 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



________________________1995 _________________________




_______________________,1995 __________________________