BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

7:00 P.M.

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman James Squires.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: David Whitaker, Tom Schecker, Councilman Robert

Wilson, David Okum, Councilwoman Kathy McNear

and Chairman Squires.

Members Absent: Barbara Ewing

Others Present Richard Lohbeck, Inspections Supervisor

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 20 OCTOBER 1998

Mrs. McNear moved for adoption and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

    1. 11/6/98 Letter to Clifford & Rita Garskta
    2. Mr. Squires said this states that because their satellite dish is one meter or less in diameter, it is exempted from zoning regulations by the Federal Communications Commission. Addressing Mr. Garskta in the audience, Mr. Squires stated we appreciate your being here.

    3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Ė October 13, 1998
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė October 25, 1998
  1. REPORTS
    1. Report on Council Activities Ė no report
    2. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum stated approval of a 60 s.f. wall sign on the east side of the Party City building was given. This was so traffic going westbound on Kemper could se their building, because people were driving by not able to see the business. The signage came before Planning because it is in a PUD district. Approval was given by a vote of 5 to 2 Ė Mr. Syfert and IL voted no.

AAA renovation was considered. They will be changing the AAA center frontage, reducing the signage allowed on the store itself, and giving it a tower effect. It was very tastefully done and approved 7-0.

Development plan approval for First Watch Restaurant in Princeton Plaza was considered. Next to Strictly Golf there is an alcove along Kemper Road. He wants to enclose that area and build a storefront for Sprint. Sprint will temporarily move into the Strictly Golf location and use a potion of it. He will build the section, move Sprint over and convert the old Strictly Golf location into First Watch. The request did not have all information needed in terms of parking facilities. As recommended by Planning in April of 1997, Mr. Gilhart changed it to one way and eliminated the curb cut. The employee parking would be in the back of the building above Francis Lane. There were loose ends, but he wanted Planning Commissionís direction as to where he could go with this. He had time constraints that needed to be met to fulfill First Watch and Sprintís needs. Planning moved to approve with a large number of contingencies, with the understanding that this needed to come back to Planning for approval.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE TWO

V B REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION - continued

Mr. Okum continued Planning considered a site approval plan for Loweís, 505 East Kemper Road. This is on the agenda this evening. This is probably the first time the BZA has had such a list of items requiring variances. Part of the reason is because this type of site typically would fall under Planned Unit Development., and by isolating the outlot portion of the site, they were able to come in under the existing zoning. Planning considered the application and moved to approve it with a number of contingencies. One of the most important is based on the Board of Zoning Appeals approval of the variances requested tonight. I believe you have reports from the planner and building official, and hopefully they will help you in your deliberation. I asked for their attendance here tonight, and other commitments had been made, so you have their reports. Mr. Okum wondered if they had a copy of the official motion; they may need it. It had a number of contingencies; Iíll try to bring them forward. The primary ones are based on the recommendations by the city planner, engineer and building official.

We had the approval of the tree replanting project for the Tri-County Golf center on the eastern portion of Oak Hills Cemetery. The applicant has a 25 year lease with two five year renewal clauses. They will be removing a good number of trees and agreed to do it with cash payment as well as tree replantings and an educational program. Woolpert is looking to use this as an example of how to urban design around trees.

  1. STATEMENTS CONCERNING VARIANCES
    1. A variance once granted will be referred back to the Board of Zoning Appeals if after the expiration of six months no construction is done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the variance.
    2. If a variance appeal is denied, the applicant may resubmit the appeal ix months after the denial.

    3. Chairmanís Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this board are 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 aid variance is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.

  1. OLD BUSINESS
    1. Clifford Garstka, Sr., 11835 Mangrove Lane requests variance to allow the placement of a satellite dish on his garage roof. Said variance is requested from Section 153.053(B)(1) "It shall not be roof mounted on..any accessory building." (tabled 10/20/98)

Mrs. McNear asked if we should formally make a motion to drop this item from the agenda. Mr. Squires answered it is a non issue, and it is in the public record that his satellite does not need approval.

  1. NEW BUSINESS

A. Sherry Barnett, 736 Smiley Avenue requests extension of Variance 12-1998 to allow 3 dogs on property. Said variance is requested from Section 153.029(E)(2) "no more than 2 dogs..may be kept per dwelling unitÖ"

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE THREE

VIII A SHERRY BARNETT 736 SMILEY AVENUE Ė 3 DOGS ON PROPERTY

Mrs. Barnett said I wrote a letter asking for an extension on the variance you granted in the spring. Mr. Squires commented we have a copy of the letter and it was your request that it be held confidential, and we will not bring up any pat of that letter in this discussion. Mrs. Barnett added the reasons I am asking for the variance are in that letter; I donít know what else to say or do.

Mr. Squires asked the size of her lot. Mrs. Barnett said it may be ľ of an acre. There is no garage but there is a shed. There is a stockade fence around the yard, and a chain link for where the dogs are kept in the day time.

Mr. Squires asked the sizes of the dogs, and Mrs. Barnett answered one is an 80 pound shepherd collie, a retriever-cocker spaniel who is a little smaller and a tiny dog who is a mixture.

Mr. Wilson wondered what time frame are you requesting for the extension. Mrs. Barnett answered based on the things I have stated there, I donít anticipate any type of financial change that would cause what would happen to happen until after the first of the year. Mr. Wilson said so you are asking for 90 days give or take. Mrs. Barnett responded right. We were hoping to get through the holidays and then our finances might be a little better so we can do what we need to do. We have posted signs for the dogs in the event that the other thing doesnít happen, and I am still praying that it doesnít. I canít afford to run ads in the paper for them, so weíve posted signs at Thriftway and some of the grocery stores. At first we wanted to give one of them to somebody we knew, but none of our family will help us.

Mr. Wilson asked what their finances have to do with giving one of the dogs away? Mrs. Barnett answered there may not be a need to give one of them away and unfortunately my husband and I canít take that necessary action because of our finances. He would be taking the dog.

Mrs. McNear asked if there have been any complaints about excessive noise? Mr. Wilson answered not since February of 1997; that was the last one.

Mrs. Barnett said the night the complaint was filed was the night they were out looking for a dog that had attacked a child. The police officer heard our dogs barking because my husband had pulled in. He is their caregiver, but they even have stopped doing that. They settle down right away. There is even a dog that has moved in next to us and they donít act up because of that dog.

Mr. Squires said for the record, there seems to be no one in the audience that can speak for or against this variance.

Mr. Squires asked if Mrs. Barnett thought 90 days would be sufficient. Mrs. Barnett answered I can only pray that it will. I can only pray that it will; I know that I am running out of time, and we are hoping to take care of everything as soon as we possibly can. I obviously donít want to move especially over that. I canít afford to, and my little boy loves Springdale School, so Iím not going to jeopardize his welfare.

They are pets; I put them in the right perspective, but itís still hard to take one of them and give it to the pound because I know what will happen. They are five or six years old now, and nobody wants them.

Mr. Squires asked how long she had the dogs at the residence, and Mrs. Barnett answered we had them when we lived on Van Cleve in 1992. We

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE FOUR

VIII A SHERRY BARNETT 736 SMILEY AVENUE Ė 3 DOGS ON PROPERTY

Mr. Okum wondered if she owned the home and Mrs. Barnett indicated that she does.

Mr. Squires asked Mr. Lohbeck how long this rule has been in force, and Mr. Lohbeck answered I have been here 18 years, and itís always been there.

Mr. Squires asked Mrs. Barnett how long she had known about this rule, and Mrs. Barnett stated they found out about two months after they bought them. I called the pet store and they wouldnít take them back. I called the city, and the city said we donít go around checking door to door. It is against the ordinance, but if you donít get caught, you donít get caught. I know it sounds silly, but by that time you are attached to them; the kids are attached to them. We have always maintained them; we put them away at night; they donít bark at night. We clean up after them all the time; our neighbors donít complain. They donít run; they donít get out; they are maintained in that yard.

Mr. Squires asked how many children she had, and Mrs. Barnett answered two; one is elementary age and the other is 19.

Mr. Wilson said you have to understand that by allowing an extension of even one day, we running the risk of setting a precedent. If this happens again with another resident, they would say look what you did for Mrs. Barnett. I have found this board to be a lot more compassionate than Planning Commission, and I am a dog lover myself. If we give you the 60 or 90 days, we do not want to see you again for this. That sounds cold, but if the board gave you an extension, it would be with the understanding that you would not be before us again under any circumstances relative to this issue. I think this is pulling at all of us. With that in mind, are you willing to take whatever recommendation we give you?

Mrs. Barnett responded I donít mean to be disrespectful, and I have tried to show all of you respect, I really, have, but I do not understand any of it. I think you are hurting a lot of people. I know a lot of people in this community, and a lot of them have more than three pets. They havenít done any harm to anybody. I understand rules and I understand the reason for ordinances. I do have extenuating circumstances. I donít want to come back. I want it to work out one way or the other. I have a personal life and I have a family that is being torn apart by other issues besides three dogs. Iím trying to handle all of it at one time. Maybe I am asking for some compassion, but I am also asking for some understanding. I contribute a lot to this community, and I am asking for a little bit back right now.

Mr. Wilson responded I am not saying you are not getting your extension. I am asking you to understand that this would be the last one. I can appreciate what you are saying. I donít doubt that there are some people with more than two dogs, but eventually they will be caught. Mrs. Barnett answered to be honest with you when I left here last time I thought about it, but I wouldnít want anyone to go through this. I figure as long as they are not hurting anyone, they should not be hurt. I am just asking for a little more time to get through the holidays.

Mr. Okum asked if a 90 day extension would be sufficient, and Ms. Barnett answered it would have to be.

Mr. Wilson moved to grant an extension of 90 days, with the understanding that it is the final extension. That would be until Febuary16, 1999. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE FIVE

VIII A SHERRY BARNETT 736 SMILEY AVENUE - 3 DOGS Ė continued

Voting aye were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. miner and Mr. Squires. Variance extension was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Variances requested for Proposed Loweís, 505 East Kemper Road (former Levitz) Ė RS Ė Retail Service District

    1. The fences/outside storage setback from Tri-County Parkway is 27í (50í required per Section 153.085(A)(3)).
    2. Setback to parking and drives is 3í (25í required per Section 153.165(G)).
    3. The pole sign is 127 s.f. (80 s.f. maximum permitted per Section 153.092(E)(3)).
    4. The main wall sign is 332 s.f. (150 s.f. maximum permitted by Section 153.092(E)(1)).
    5. Parking is shown as 574 spaces (679 spaces required per Section 153.091(A)(3)).
    6. Building height is 46í (36í maximum permitted by Section 153.165(G)).
    7. The fences are shown at 20í-8" (maximum permitted by Section 153.089(B)(3) is 6í).
    8. Loading area is visible from Tri-County Parkway (Section 153.131(B)).

Mr. Squires said the chair will entertain the idea of considering these variances as a whole

Doug Hynden said with me tonight is Terry Mclain of Loweís. We currently have a contract to acquire the property from Levitz. We originally presented the project as a PUD to Planning, but because the Loweís use is permitted under the RS zoning, we opted to go with that.

We were asked to dedicate additional right of way Ė 25 feet on East Kemper and 20 feet on Tri-County Parkway. The existing parking lot extends into this area.

There are no plans to develop the outlots, and if that would be in the future, they would have to come before Planning with the request. The existing building will be demolished, and the new building will line up with Burlingtonís Coat Factory.

This is the standard Loweís building, but a substantial change was made in the garden center. Normally they have a much larger one, but they have shrunk it down to the minimum size possible. One variance is for setback for the garden center and the size of the fence. We have modified the fence along Tri County Parkway; between the pilasters is a wrought iron look.

A full traffic study was required by Planning Commission, which was done by Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum. We added a right turn lane from Kemper Road, and the city engineer felt that there was not enough stacking distance to allow the traffic to turn left into the project. We disagreed with that since there are three lanes of traffic. The end result was we committed to working with the engineer to come up with a satisfactory solution, and if we are required to move the entry to the south, we will do that.

The second issue of discussion was the addition of a left turn lane into the project. We agreed to provide a left turn lane, but felt the existing pavement was wide enough. Mr. Shvegzda objected and felt that because it was a rolled type curb, we needed to have pavement of 34 feet, 12 feet for each outside lane and 11 feet for the center turning lane.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE SIX

VIII B PROPOSED LOWEíS 505 EAST KEMPER ROAD

Mr. Hynden added another modification was that we did not design this entrance to access the parking lot in the front. We modified to allow the interior circulation.

There were a number of landscaping issues, and we modified the plan twice. Some of the permanent trees were not planted in the increments that PKG requested, and it was approved contingent upon us meeting their requirements. We are heavily landscaped and are providing a cash payment to the tree fund.

Another area of concern was the loading area around Tri-County Parkway. This is being protected from view with a number of evergreen type materials. Mr. Okum was concerned about the fenced garden areas, and they will add 14 trees along that area.

The HVAC units will be screened by parapet walls. All outdoor display will be under the canopied areas with the exception of plant materials. We also will landscape around the pylon sign.

Mr. Squires wondered if all the trees were evergreens and Mr. Hynden answered there is a huge variety of evergreens and deciduous trees, over 500 inches of new trees. Mr. Okum added you also added a row hedge along the parking section where it goes into Tri-County Parkway.

Mrs. McNear said I think that first entrance from Kemper Road is a dangerous intersection, I would agree with Planning that it should be moved down because it is difficult to exit. I do think it is a nice plan. I am concerned about the curve; people will come flying around there. Is this 20í-8" fence the same height as the one at HQ?

Mr. Okum answered no, but I believe it is the same height as Franks. It is the same height as HQís wall. That is why we left it in the hands of the developer and the landscape planner to come up with the tree most appropriate. Mrs. McNear commented this probably will be more attractive than the HQ wall.

Mr. Okum said it appears that the applicant has made an effort to conform in as many places as they can. Since we are eliminating a structure of mass proportions closer to Kemper Road, some of the variances e reasonable. I do not have any objection to the building height because it is a feature height. In essence, I have no real objections to it as long as the applicant adheres to the Planning Commission and this boardís regulations, and I would move that the variances requested be approved. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson wondered if we are voting on all the variances at the same time. Mr. Okum answered with the little discussion we have had, I think if there are issues that we are concerned about, we can bring those out and exclude any of those items from the motion if necessary, and vote on the general request in its entirety. If there are any issues to be brought up, now would be a good time to do it. Otherwise, we should vote on the entire request. I would like to ask Mrs. Webb to read the Planning Commission motion contingencies:

    1. That all items specified by city planner, engineer and building official be incorporated into the plan with the following additional items:
    2. That mechanical units will be concealed behind the canopies or parapets;
    3. That the outdoor display area will be limited to under canopy areas only, with the exception of live seasonal plant material
    4. That sprinklers will be installed to maintain the landscaped areas;
    5. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

      17 NOVEMBER 1998

      PAGE SEVEN

      VIII B PROPOSED LOWEíS 505 EAST KEMPER ROAD

    6. That landscaping trees will be placed along the fencing area near the garden display center along Tri-County Parkway;
    7. That the road alignment will be adjusted to be in agreement with our city engineer including the additional width of two feet as necessary to keep proper alignment and width of lanes;
    8. That the turning lane will be adjusted according to the city engineerís approval;
    9. That there will be landscaping along the base of the pylon sign;
    10. That the tree replacement will be adhered to according to the city engineer;
    11. That it be conditional upon the Board of Zoning Appeal approval of all variations to the Code.

Mr. Squires asked if the motion covered the variances as requested plus the Planning Commission contingencies that Mrs. Webb read? Mr. Okum answered to incorporate them into this bodyís motion certainly would not hurt, and I would have no objection to that. Mr. Squires commented I think we should include them in our recommendation. Mr. Okum so amended his motion and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Squires. Variances were granted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Advanced Cellular, 11439 Princeton Road requests variance to allow a 5í x 7í painted window sign on front glass from November 25, 1998 through January 13, 1999. Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(D)(1)(b)

Tim McDonald, Co-Owner of Advanced Cellular said I have photographs

as well as a letter from the owner of the property. We are reqeusting a

professionally painted window sign in our glass front to announce a

holiday promotion from Advanced Cellular and Ameritech. It will run no

longer than the middle of January.

Mrs. McNear said I need to abstain from this discussion since it would be

a conflict of interest. They also do paging, and I am involved in the

paging business.

Mr. McDonald said the proposed painting will be the two panels to the

left of the front door. The panels are 38 inches each. The intent is to

show the traffic in the parking lot as well as the people walking by and

people going by on Princeton Road.

Mr. Squires asked the total area of the glass and Mr. McDonald

answered I donít offhand, but our total storefront is 40 feet wide and there

are six panels. Mr. Squires commented we have a formula for that, and I

wonder just how much out of variance you would be if you would be at

all.

Mr. Lohbeck reported if he is allowed to have it, it would put him 85

square feet over the allowable 100 s.f.

Mr. Schecker said I am having a problem. A window sign is part of the

permanent signage, and we really are talking more of something like a

banner or a temporary sign. Can we consider this as a temporary

condition? Mr. Okum said the existing wall sign is already 50 s.f. so that

has a variance for 50 s.f. so it is 35 s.f. more than the window allowance

would be. They already have a variance for 50 s.f. I donít

consider this permanent signage when it is painted on glass with

removable paints, especially when it is seasonal.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE EIGHT

VIII C PAINTED WINDOW SIGN ADVANCED CELLULAR 11439 PRINCETON

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked if he felt this little picture will

generate that much business? You already are over 50 s.f. on signage.

Your sign is obviously noticed on your building.

Mr. McDonald answered believe it or not it will make a difference only

because of the current competition. Announcing a promotion might give

us an edge for the walk in and drive by traffic. The free air time and free

phones tend to get peopleís attention more than just our phone number

and name. It has helped in years past.

Mr. Okum asked if there were other signs in the windows that are

temporary and Mr. McDonald answered they do not. Mr. Okum said so

your real request is for this 35 square foot area of window signage for

the six week period.

Mr. Squires asked if the Ameritech sign is in the window, and Mr.

McDonald answered it is behind the window and in the showroom. Mr.

Okum wondered how far behind the window it is and Mr. McDonald

answered eight to 10 inches. Mr. Okum commented I would consider

that window signage. Addressing Mr. Lohbeck, he asked if that was

taken into the calculations. Mr. Lohbeck answered I donít believe so.

Mr. Squires said the sign on the awning plus this additional would make

them 85 square feet over. Mr. Okum asked if the Ameritech sign

wouldnít be considered signage. He would be under at any other time,

but now that sign becomes an addition to the quantity he is requesting.

Mr. McDonald said I believe that is two feet long and 10-12 inches high.

Mr. Okum said I believe the variance should be adjusted to reflect what

true window signage is requested, so we will add two more square feet

to the request.

Mr. Schecker commented you are set back pretty far, and with any

parking in front of your store, I would think the impact would be very

minimal in terms of driving past and reading it.

Mr. McDonald answered to clarify, maybe not so much drive by from

Princeton Road but the traffic in the parking lot going to PNC Bank and

Gentry and Half Price Books and the restaurant.

Mr. Schecker wondered if this couldnít be considered a temporary sign,

and Mr. Squires read from the code "Öpainted and internally illuminated

window signs shall be regarded as a permanent sign."

Mr. Schecker said didnít we have an issue with Mapleknoll earlier

concerning a promotion, and we took issue with the time frame. Mr.

Squires said that was for a whole year.

Mr. Okum asked why January 13th. Mr. McDonald answered that is the

end of the promotion. Ameritech promotions will try to capture the

holiday selling time. Mr. Okum asked if there was much selling time

between New Yearís Day and the 13th. Mr. McDonald answered typically

it will go until about January 10th, and I put a couple of days cushion in.

It will be about six weeks.

Mr. Squires said signage is a big thing with us, and it is the precedent

that I am concerned with. Allowing that sign we could have signs all over

the frontage there. I am trying to work some way out of this.

Mr. Wilson said I also have a concern about precedence and having

Signs up and down that strip mall. I can appreciate your effort to have a

competitive edge. Is there a way you can downsize that or eliminate that

and still get your message across?

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE NINE

VIII C PAINTED WINDOW SIGN ADVANCED CELLULAR 11439 PRINCETON

Mr. McDonald responded I suppose we could consider one panel and

cut it in half. I donít know how effective it would be. Mr. Wilson

continued you are looking at attracting individuals who would be pretty

close to you; we are not looking at traffic in the street looking at the sign.

That signage will not be the only advertisement; they will see it on

television, newspaper etc. and come to your facility. Personally I donít

think you need a sign. Just having your regular sign there would be

adequate. However in trying to work with you on this, I would like to see

a scaled down version. If you just put the wording as opposed to a

snowman or snow flakes or something smaller than this that could be

tastefully done.

Mr. McDonald responded that is quite possible. The intention of this is to

let people know what promotions will be out there. That is our intent; it

certainly is not to paint the entire window and have something gaudy up

there. I would certainly compromise with you if we could put something in

the window.

Mr. Wilson commented we wouldnít be able to vote unless we saw

something. I realize this is November. Mr. Squires asked if he

could get by with one panel, and Mr. McDonald answered sure. We

can go status quo if need be. I certainly donít want to ruffle the feathers

of the business community. I could talk to the window painter for another

drawing of what would be in there.

Mr. Okum said this means a lot to your business, and this is the time of

the year businesses such as yours do 80% of their business. In this

case, I do not have a major objection to your request. Even though 35

square feet is a large request, two panels would be necessary to make

any impact at all. On the other hand, I donít like your overhead sign and I

am sorry we approved it. I donít have a problem with the 35 square feet

and will make a motion to approve the variance for allowable window

signage, including the Ameritech Sign of 38 s.f. for November 25, 1998

through January 13, 1999. Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

Mr. Squires commented there is no one present to speak pro or con on

this item.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum and Mr. Whitaker. Mr. Schecker, Mr. Wilson

and Mr. Squires voted no, Mrs. McNear abstained, and the motion was

defeated three to two with one abstention.

Mr. Squires commented we do not want to put an undue hardship on

you. I hope something can be worked out, but your request has been

denied.

Mr. McDonald asked if he could submit a rendition from the window

painter for doing it on one panel? That would be half the square footage.

Mr. Squires answered that would be fine. Mr. McDonald wondered if it

would be too late to get the approval by the November date.

Mr. Squires responded the next meeting we have is December 15th.

Addressing the chairman, Mr. Wilson said I think you have certain

authority as chairman, and I would suggest that the applicant come back

with one panel that was acceptable to the city and to you, we as the

board could empower you with the authority to approve so he could still

get his promotion in timely I think with your knowledge of the zoning

codes and with the assistance of the building department, you as chair

and the building department can make the decision and you can report it

back to us on December 15th.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE TEN

VIII C PAINTED WINDOW SIGN ADVANCED CELLULAR 11439 PRINCETON

Mr. Wilson added I donít want to put an undue hardship on our

business and I donít think this is a large enough issue to have a special

meeting. Mr. Squires wondered if he were empowered through the

bylaws to do that.

Mr. Okum responded I donít believe so. Considering this is a public

hearing, and all actions have to be taken in front of the public, it would

require a legal variance, not a private one. I support your suggestion, but

I want to make sure of the legality of it. I am not an attorney, but I

am pretty familiar with our code and I think it would be more appropriate

for us as a body to empower that by virtue of a motion. If the boardís

feeling is that a half panel, or 15 square feet is a more appropriate size to

empower the chair to sign that variance once it is submitted to him, the

board could make a motion to reconsider (a dissenting vote must make

that motion to bring it on the floor). Then a new motion can be made and

you can take the power to carry forward any motion you want. Mr. Wilson

said isnít that what I was doing, and Mr. Okum answered you were

doing it in essence. The intent is to empower the chairman to approve

the sign. That can be done but it has to be by formal motion in a public

agenda.

Mr. Squires moved to reconsider the motion and Mr. Schecker seconded

the motion. By voice vote all present except Mrs. McNear who

abstained, voted aye, and the motion was adopted with five affirmative

votes.

Mr. McDonald stated I would propose to give you a rendition a week from

today for a one panel window painting from November 25th to January

13th. It would be approximately 17 to 18 square feet.

Mr. Squires moved to amend the variance to allow a painted window sign

18 s.f. on one panel for the period of November 25th to January 13, 1999.

Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Squires Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Schecker voted no and Mrs. McNear abstained, and the amended

variance was granted with five affirmative votes.

Mr. McDonald stated I appreciate your consideration. Mr. Squires

indicated that he should bring the drawing to the Building Department.

 

 

IX DISCUSSION

Mrs. McNear said I would like to bring up some items we had discussed in the past. The first is the sign on Hunters Glen on I-275. Monday I noticed three flag poles protruding from the top of that sign. I donít recall that being a part of our variance and they are quite large flags. Mr. Lohbeck reported the last time I saw them they were American flags. Mr. Okum said I think they are all federal signs. Mrs. McNear commented I feel like they are saying what can you do about this, and I am up to here with that place.

Mr. Okum said I noticed that as well, and I also couldnít find the trees they planted. I really had to look hard. Mr. McErlane indicated they did plant trees that were not an obstructed view back from their site, and they are there Ė way back to the right and way back to the left. I think that is stretching it as well. I believe they planted shrubs on the other side of the sign that are beginning to nudge up to the bottom of it. I think it is a matter of flag poles and federal flags that are not part of our zoning code so we canít regulate it. I think it is a shame to incorporate the American flag for purposes of advertising for a business. This is no different than putting American flags on antennas of cars in a parking lot and saying you are being a patriot.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

17 NOVEMBER 1998

PAGE ELEVEN

Mrs. McNear added it looks very gaudy. They are making a mockery of the flag and

thumbing their noses at us.

My second item is the sign is in at Kemper Square. It doesnít look bad; it is Kelley green

and as you come around the curve you really canít see it where it is.

Mrs. McNear said I have been noticing more and more the meat plant on Kemper Road.

The odors coming from that are getting worse and worse. I donít know if we have pollution

control, but it was so bad in the parking lot at Best Buy last week that you could barely

breathe. Mr. Okum said I agree. Mr. Okum wondered if there were any pollution controls

or would it be EPA. Mr. Lohbeck reported we donít take care of that, and I donít think

that would fall under their jurisdiction.

Mr. Squires said I want to thank you for being very considerate of Mrs. Barnett in keeping

that letter out of the deliberations. She was very emotional but at the same time that is a

very small lot and three dogs will not cut it. I feel badly about it but it is something we are

going to have to stick to our guns about. I think she got the message; Mr. Wilson made it

quite clear.

X ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. McNear moved to adjourn and Mr. Schecker seconded the motion. By voice vote,

all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_________________________,1998 ______________________________

James Squires, Chairman

 

 

__________________________,1998 ________________________________

Kathy McNear, Acting Secretary