Mr. Okum reported that the majority of the meeting revolved around the relocation of the Walker Pontiac to 169 Northland Boulevard, the former Recker & Boerger. There was a discussion regarding Gold Star Chili and the repainting of the exterior of the building and there was a replat for Pictoria Island finalizing the location for the construction of the office building. Mr. Squires asked how many restaurants would be there and Mr. Okum answered four, and rumor has it that the major office building development is close to being confirmed. Mr. Squires asked about White Castle and their taking the lot on the corner of Kemper and Springfield Pike (former Precision Tune). Mr. Okum responded there was a meeting between White Castle and the administration about a month ago.

If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal six months after the denial.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board is to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before this board is directed to sign in, take his place at the podium, and state his name, address and the nature of the variance. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said variance is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 NOVEMBER 1999

PAGE TWO

VII. OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Squires reported we received a notice that they have withdrawn their variance request. Mr. Okum moved to withdraw the item from the agenda and Mr. .Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Mr. Tiedtke said I need a variance to put screening on my outdoor building. I have a permit to build it, but I need the variance to put screening on it. The setback is about 32 feet the way I measured it, three feet less than what is allowed.

Mr. Squires commented these houses on Lawnview were built prior to the zoning change. At one time, I believe there was a 30-foot setback required. I know that is true of our house on Ruskin.

Mr. Okum said the plat submission indicates that the screened enclosure is 27 feet at one point and 25 feet at the other. I visited your property, and you have an addition on your home? Mr. Tiedtke answered yes, I had it put on in about 1973. Mr. Okum said the porch is an addition onto that addition. Mr. Tiedtke answered yes, it is a summer porch with a screened in area.

Mr. Okum said the porch roof is already constructed and now you want to bring the walls down and have a screened in area. Mr. Tiedtke answered the walls are there; I want screened in windows. There are about 10 windows. Mr. Okum wondered if the short walls were permissible and considered a porch support structure.

Mr. Lohbeck reported if we issued a permit to construct this, he is adding 2 foot of wood around the bottom part and coming up with the screen. Mr. Tiedtke added the floor already is completed,

Mr. Okum said to clarify, these short walls on this drawing are there and were approved on your original building permit application. Are the screened door and windows being added? Mr. Tiedtke answered the screened door and there will be two windows in there. Mr. Okum asked the type windows and Mr. Tiedtke answered probably storm windows, on two sides. Mr. Okum wondered what would be on the backside, and Mr. Tiedtke answered the screening. The roof overcomes the wall, so you don’t need any protection from the weather, but the two sides have to be protected from rain blowing in. I have the two-screened doors in place, but no screens. Mr. Okum continued so you have two screened doors and want to add four storm windows on the gable sides and then screened all the way across. Mr. Tiedtke confirmed this.

Mr. Wilson wondered what he was actually adding to this. Mr. Tiedtke answered just the screens; I need permission to screen it in. Mr. Wilson asked if he had lighting and Mr. Tiedtke answered I have one outlet. I have electric out in the back and I can open windows and bring an extension out from my house, nothing permanent though.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 NOVEMBER 1999

PAGE THREE

Mr. Lohbeck reported according to the staff comments, he has put up a 2-foot high new wall with screening above and one door at the end. Mr. Squires said and the variance is not for the screening; it is for the setback. Mr. Lohbeck confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said the porch roof is conforming to code. It can extend past the setback requirements, but when you enclose that, it becomes a variance issue.

Mr. Borden asked the applicant if he planned on staining or treating it and Mr. Tiedtke answered I don’t know how to protect that open wood. I’ll have to ask one of the builders what I can do with it.

Mr. Okum said maintenance and upkeep is a very good point. Do you know if the wood framing members are redwood, treated lumber or something like that, and Mr. Tiedtke answered they are yellow pine. Mr. Okum continued so if you have the screens on the rear side facing the neighbor’s property and you have a short wall there as well, that wood is all raw pine. Mr. Tiedtke added there is western cedar on top of it. The top of the railing is cedar and the panels are treated lumber.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Lohbeck if that were something we would inspect for, that the materials are watertight and not the type that would deteriorate? Mr. Lohbeck answered on the back side he faces east, so his overhang will not get any water down that way, and he will not get a blowing rain. The T-111 would probably have to be painted or stained. Mr. Tiedtke responded I could do that as soon as possible, before winter probably. Mr. Okum wondered if he were planning any shrubbery across the enclosure, and Mr. Tiedtke answered no, just grass around it.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak for or against this variance and no one came forward.

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

B. Thomas Heckman, 11551 Madison Avenue appeals the stipulation in Variance 29-1999 granted October 16, 1999 that an evergreen must be placed in front of the structure.

Mr. Heckman said the variance that was issued last month required greenery around the shed addition that I built. Mr. Squires said the variance was granted with the stipulation that evergreen screening be placed in front of the structure to block the view of the shed from the street, is that correct? Mr. Heckman said yes.

Mr. Heckman said last month I took pictures of the shed itself, without shrubbery. Now I have pictures taken from the street showing what shrubbery is in place.

Mr. Wilson wondered why he wanted to change the agreement and Mr. Heckman answered I think it was silly to have to plant something in front of the shed. The building has a rollup garage door on it, and it would look stupid to plant a tree right in front of the garage door.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 NOVEMBER 1999

PAGE FOUR

VIII B THOMAS HECKMAN 11551 MADISON AVENUE – EVERGREEN APPEAL

Mr. Wilson read from the minutes, "Addressing the applicant Mr. Wilson said you have agreed that you will put some type of greenery in there to break it up and you feel comfortable with that. Mr. Heckman said I would put something there to break up the view, no problem. Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance with the condition that an evergreen be planted to break up the frontage of the shed from the right of way, and that the side yard setback be included as part of the variance. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion and the variance was granted with seven affirmative votes."

Mr. Wilson continued you agreed to it, and I think you would be offended if we came back to you a month later and said we changed our minds; we aren’t going to grant the variance. Having been to your property, I can appreciate how well it is maintained. However, when someone tells me they are going to do something, barring a great financial burden or something that would prevent it from happening, I would expect a person to keep his word. Maybe this is minor, because we are talking about $200 for some kind of camouflage. I personally would hold you accountable as you would hold me. Maybe we could deviate a bit and say put some shrubbery, something up there. Maybe we could agree on that.

Mr. Heckman responded at the time I was threatened with having to tear this addition down, and I didn't want to do that. I probably would have agreed to do about anything. Mr. Wilson responded I don’t think we would have made you tear it down, but I can understand how you would feel. I would rather you come back and say can I do something else than nothing at all. Looking at the pictures, you have a lot of trees; in 20 years you will have a forest there. Personally I would rather you have some hedges to block that off. Come up with something rather than saying I changed my mind and don’t want to do this.

Mr. Heckman responded I didn’t change my mind; I just wouldn’t have done it and let you come after me. That is why I am here appealing to you because I don’t think it is necessary. I didn’t take a sworn oath that I would do this; but I did say that I would. After looking at the shrubbery in the yard, I really don’t think it is necessary. . There are five trees in front of that shed plus a large lilac bush. I just ordered two new blue spruce trees today that I will plant in the yard but I don’t want to plant one in front of that shed. I think it would look stupid. Last month I was under pressure; I didn’t know how strict you people could get about tearing something down, but I built it without a permit. I don’t mean to go back on my word; that is why I am here appealing to you to allow me to change that.

Mr. Squires said one of the things we go by is hardship and it would be a rather extraordinary set of circumstances for us to make you tear it down. That never crossed our minds. Mr. Heckman responded I didn’t know that; it was in the letter I received. Mr. Squires continued and if for some reason you received that impression from us, let me offer an apology to you, but nothing was so indicated that we would be that strict. Mr. Heckman said the letter said I had two weeks to tear it down. Mr. Squires said that did not come from us.

Mrs. McNear said I went to the site last month. You agreed to put the trees up, but I have to agree with you; you have a lot of shrubs and trees. The property is very nice, and I am not opposed to withdrawing that part of the motion we made. Mr. Heckman added I have taken down 19 trees in the front yard since I moved there a year ago; it looked like a jungle. Mrs. McNear added the shed is very attractive. It is on the side of the house and tucked back a bit so driving by unless you are looking for it, I don’t think you notice it.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 NOVEMBER 1999

PAGE FIVE

VIII B THOMAS HECKMAN 11551 MADISON AVENUE – EVERGREEN APPEAL

Mr. Okum said I went past your home and I don’t disagree that you do have a good number of trees and shrubs. The intent of the motion was not to have you plant it directly in front of the garage door. It was to place an evergreen tree on the elevation facing that shed. The fact that you are a very conscientious property owner does not reflect that five or 10 years from now if you sell the property the purchaser might want to put a parking apron in front of the shed and take down the trees. There is nothing in our zoning code that prohibits residents from taking down trees; you can take down as many as you want. That was the purpose of the motion.

You already had a variance on the shed that was there. This is an overbuilt shed compared to what is allowed in our code, 120 square feet. It is pretty much the size of a car and a half garage. The motion was not to put any hardship on you. A variance runs with the land and that tree will be required for whoever owns the property in the future.

Mr. Heckman asked where the tree should be placed, and Mr. Okum answered the motion allowed you to place it anywhere to screen the view from the public right of way. It didn’t say that you had to place it directly in front of the shed or in front of the garage door. You could put it anywhere you wanted. It was your decision.

Mr. Heckman responded it was my understanding that it had to be placed in front of the shed. Mr. Okum said it was but it depends on which is front and how you are envisioning that It can go anywhere in front all the way up to the street. Mr. Heckman responded there is a crabapple tree there; there is a red maple tree there; there is an adult maple tree right in front of it and a large lilac bush. How can I put another tree there? Mr. Okum said that would be a hardship; if you had said that at the last meeting, it probably would have made a difference. Mr. Heckman responded if you’ll recall, I mentioned to you that there was shrubbery there, and you said there is not, because the picture that was there did not show any shrubbery. Mr. Okum answered I disagree with you sir; I did not say there was no shrubbery. I’m not going to argue with you, but I certainly did not tell you that you had nothing in front of your shed.

In regards to your request, I still stand to the point that anyone can purchase your land and take down every tree in front of that building. I know you are doing everything you can to make that site a very pleasing one, but that doesn’t mean 5 or 10 or 15 year from now the person who purchases your property is going to take a different outlook.

Mr. Wilson said earlier I mentioned hedges along the wall, something green. Would you agree to put hedges around the side of the house? Mr. Heckman responded I don’t mean to be smart about it, but I’m not going to put anything in there that I don’t have to. I don’t think there is anything that has to be there. I have a petition signed by all my neighbors, everybody that says there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way that thing looks.

Mr. Wilson said since several signed their addresses Cincinnati instead of Springdale, maybe they just signed it to sign it and they don’t care, so what kind of credibility do we have here? Neighbors will sign things whether they agree or disagree to appease. Mr. Heckman said they all signed it without my putting a gun to their heads. They were all aware of what the situation was.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 NOVEMBER 1999

PAGE SIX

VIII B THOMAS HECKMAN 11551 MADISON AVENUE – EVERGREEN APPEAL

Mr. Wilson continued I still feel that if we allow this change to the variance, anyone who has a variance and agrees to do something and decided to change their mind can come back and say I don’t want to do it, I changed my mind. I have a problem with that. I can appreciate where you are coming from, Your property is beautiful and I probably would have said put flowers around there initially, but when you agreed to do something, I took you at your word. Mr. Heckman responded I haven’t broken my word yet; I came back to ask you to allow me to change this. Nobody here can say they have done that in their life. Mr. Wilson said I don’t disagree, but we are in a situation where to approve this would be to open Pandora’s box and al low anyone who agreed to do something to change their mind. That is my opinion, and I am one of seven people.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone in attendance cared to speak.

Patricia Heckman said it is not so much the idea of putting the bush or bushes there, as it is that it will be inconvenient. We have two doors there and a lawnmower that has to go in and out. That would be a problem when we go in the door we would have to walk around bushes to get into it. And if you bring it out further away from the property, you will be running into trees, plus our driveway is there. I don’t know where we could put it so it wouldn’t look like it is jammed in there, except for right in front of the doors, which will be very inconvenient. The way it is set up now there is no problem getting n and out, but if he puts bushes there, he will not only have a problem getting the lawnmower out, but it is going to be in front of the other door where every other piece of equipment is stored.

Mrs. McNear said you mentioned you ordered two blue spruce trees. Where are you going to place them on your property? Mr. Heckman answered I want to put one in the southwest corner, 10-12 feet from the fence line and the other 10 feet left of the shed. There are a couple of smaller trees there I want to remove.

Mr. Borden said if you are going to do that, you are going to meet the requirement of the variance that was approved last month. Mr. Heckman responded that’s a broad look at it, but that’s fine.

Mr. Okum commented I am looking at screening. I don’t have any problem with your replacing the pine tree on the side of your shed. If I were to give any relief on this issue, since you do have enough screening, if you would place that one evergreen to the front side of the sidewalk, that would be acceptable to me. That wold be to the front of your shed, and not behind or beside it.

Mr. Heckman said I want to make one point. The original shed was built under another variance in 1989, and there never has been a problem. The shrubbery has never been a problem. Now, I add a 6’ x 7’ extension on it. That is the part that is visible from the street, 6’ x 7’ and we are going through all this to put up shrubbery around it. I know I agreed to it originally, and if you tell me I have to put something up there, I will put it up there, but I don’t want to because I don’t think it would look right. I want to plant those two blue spruce where I want to plant them, not where you all want me to plant them. They are expensive.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone else present wished to speak. No one did.

Mrs. McNear moved to grant the appeal and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 NOVEMBER 1999

PAGE SEVEN

VIII B THOMAS HECKMAN 11551 MADISON AVENUE – EVERGREEN APPEAL

Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Voting no were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Borden and Mr. Okum. The vote was 3 to 3. Mr. Squires said I believe for lack of a majority, this fails but we will check this with our legal counsel.

Mr. Heckman asked if he had any recourse, and Mr. Squires answered that he could resubmit the appeal six months after the denial. Mr. Heckman wondered what he could do in the meantime, and Mr. Squires answered plant the shrubs. Mr. Heckamn asked how long he had to conform to this. Mr. Okum suggested that the board keep the hearing open on the issue until legal counsel advises if the motion was defeated. We would then give notice to Mr. Heckman. Also, Mr. Heckman, you have the right to appeal any decision of this board to the Court of Common Pleas.

C. Walker Pontiac Auto Dealership, 169 Northland Boulevard (former Recker & Boerger) requests variance to allow a 15’ x 15’, 37 foot high pole sign, and two wall signs for a total of 321 square feet of signage. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "..maximum gross are of signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 square feet, Section 153.092(E)(3) "..maximum size..shall not exceed 50 s.f…."and Section 153.135(C) "..shall not exceed 30’ in height."

David Brown of Miller-Valentine reported our plan has gone through Planning Commission and we are here to request a variance for 321 s.f. of signage. Subsequent to that submission, I received the actual dimensions of the Walker lettering, which is 22 inches high so that brings our request down to 319 square feet.

During Planning Commission one of the discussions concerned the existing pole sign at the present dealership, which is currently under a variance. We submitted a height of 47 feet and we have certified that the existing sign is in compliance with the variance, 37 feet high, not 47 feet. Mr. Walker simply wants to move that sign across the street. There would be an economic hardship if this variance is not granted in that he would have to go for another lease for a smaller sign, which can cost him nine to 10 times as much than what he currently has leased.

The pole sign is 15’ x 15’, and Planning Commission indicated to us that we could request a monument sign for the Used Car sign. We at this time are not applying for that. We simply are requesting to have a pole sign relocated across the street, and the building sign be similar to what is shown on the rendering. We feel this is the minimum to maintain his current status in competition with the other dealerships.

Addressing Mr. Walker, Mr. Okum said if GM changes their sign design as many dealerships are doing, would you be inclined to maintain this lease on this sign and not go to the newer style?

Mr. Walker answered the new leases are 10 years and if I go with a smaller sign, it would cost about nine times more than the old lease. Since that sign has been there since 1978, we are in at the old 1978 rate.

Mr. Okum said if you were to choose to change out the sign to something different, would you be willing to abandon the variance and be within code? Mr. Walker responded it is tough for me to answer that without knowing what General Motors might be trying force the dealers to do. At this point of time, I would have no reason at all to opt to go to anything but our current signage.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

16 NOVEMBER 1999

PAGE EIGHT

Mr. Okum said based on what you submitted and the buildng exposures, I don’t have a lot of problem with the amount of signage you are placing on the building. Since you have removed the issue of the monument sign for the used cars, reducing the signage on the site makes it more palatable. Since we have determined that the pole sign is really 37 feet, I don’t have a lot of problems with that. I just wish that if you changed that sign some day, you wouldn’t have a 37-foot high sign variance on that site.

Mr. Walker responded I understand what you are saying, and until the time that General Motors changes their direction on signage, it wouldn’t b fair for me to state what IL would or wouldn’t do. I would like to add that Planning Commission recommended a monument sign, rather than move our Used Car sign, which is 8’ x 8’ and 20 feet tall. We are going to table the idea of any used car sign. Maybe at some point of time we will come back and ask you to put some type of monument sign out. I do have a lease on the current used car sign, which I will have to buy out, since Planning would not recommend that we also move that pole sign.

Mr. Squires asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one did.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the variance for 319 s.f. of signage, which includes 1 pole sign (GM emblem) a Pontiac sign on the building, a GMC sign on the building and the Walker name on the building Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Wilson said you indicated that you had to have a certain height. How do you arrive at that? Mr. Walker responded that is the only sign they offer 15’ x 15 and 37 feet high. Mr. Wilson commented but they do offer smaller signs. Who determines the height of the sign? Mr. Brown responded we are requesting the variance to exceed the current allowable square footage to provide a decent presence and take into consideration the competition around him as well.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Borden, Mr. Wilson, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance as granted with six affirmative votes.