18 NOVEMBER 1997

7:00 P.M.

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



  4. Members Present: Councilwomen Marge Boice and Kathy McNear,

    Thomas Schecker, James Squires and Barbara


    Members Absent: David Okum (Arrived at 7:01 P.M.)

    Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

  6. Mrs. McNear pointed out a correction on Page 5, the word "son" should

    Be "soon", and moved for adoption. Mr. Schecker seconded the motion,

    And by voice vote all present voted aye and the corrected minutes were

    Approved with five affirmative votes.


11/10/97 Letter from Ken Schneider to Chairman Squires re Hunterís Glen

Sign Variance

10/22/97 Letter to Arthur Tiedke, 11830 Lawnview Avenue

1997 Planning & Zoning Workshop Program Schedule

Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting Ė 14 October 1997


Report on Council Activities Ė Marge Boice

Mrs. Boice stated I have been trying to keep your posted on the Target

development, and they have asked for another extension. That public

hearing has been in continuance since October and is now scheduled for the

December 3rd meeting.

Report on Planning Commission Ė David Okum

Mr. Okum stated Pine Garden requested approval of their Section 3 which was

granted. The pro rata share of Hamilton County Regional Planning

Commission dues was denied. We have been a member for a number of years,

and the services they offer we can receive through our planner or publicly

and after much discussion, we unanimously denied the request. I would add

that there is nothing that this commission does that would impact our city, so

we will not lose anything by not being a member. Our next item was approval

for renovation of Perkins Family Restaurant, 370 Glensprings Drive. There was

a little discussion on how that is one of the feature businesses coming into the

city, and has new owners who wish to update the facility completely. We asked

them to look at the overall façade on Route 4 side and consider changes to that.

They had interior changes they wanted to make and will be coming back when

he gets something together, perhaps two months. There was a request to

install a 7í x 50í leasing banner on the back of the IDI building. We received a

letter from them indicating they may have two tenants for the facility and asked

that this be tabled. The proposed Wal-Mart Garden Center request was tabled

due to lack of representation.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Two

  2. Mr. Squires said as a general statement from the chair, 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 take his place at the podium, state his name address and nature of his variance and be advised that all testimony before this board and response is recorded. It is from that recording that we take our minutes.

    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.

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


Hunterís Glen Limited Partnership requests variance to allow a 140 s.f. sign, 18í6" high located 14í from the I-275 right-of-way. Said variance is requested from Section 153.0949(A) "..not exceeding 35 square feet in area and 10 feet in height..but not less than..15 feet from any street right-of-way line." (tabled October 21, 1997)

Steven Hunt said I am the attorney for Hunterís Glen Limited partnership, the owners of the Hunterís Glen Apartments. We were here at the last meeting regarding a sign variance for three reasons; the size, we were requesting 140 square feet, height, requested 18í6" and setback of approximately 14 feet from the right of way and your Code requires 15 feet.

At the last meeting board members had questions about the fact that there was a previous variance that was denied and appealed to the Common Pleas Court. Some of the members had questions about the lawsuit and the willingness of my client to install flowers in front of the sign and four evergreens in a location that would not block the view of the sign from the interstate. The major reason the request was continued I believe is that the board needed to consult with its legal counsel. I have spoken with both Mr. Schneider and Mr. Malloy of Wood Lamping regarding this matter and I understand a letter was forwarded to your board hopefully answering your questions.

Mr. Okum said on the evergreen placement, did you do some testing to see what locations those would fit best in that area? Mr. Hunt responded we thought if the board were willing to grant the variance we would agree to the four evergreens and work with whoever you direct with the city in terms of place as long as it doesnít obstruct the view from the interstate. Mr. Okum continued typically our city standard for screening and the health of the tree is a 10 foot height requirement and maintenance in perpetuity would be necessary. You also indicated you were going to talk to the state for access on that mounding area that may be in the public right of way. Mr. Hunt answered for flowers, but not trees. I agree that the height and perpetual maintenance certainly seem appropriate.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mrs. McNear asked about the discussions that had taken place with the attorneys prior to our last meeting, adding that what was in the letter seemed somewhat different form what we heard at the last meeting.

Mr. McErlane stated to summarize what Ken Schneider is saying, you have the authority to consider a variance and make it contingent on the lawsuit being dropped. If you decide to stick with the initial denial or deny this variance request as well, the attorneys are willing to litigate the matter currently before them. You certainly have the authority to consider a new variance request and make the approval of that contingent on dismissal of the lawsuit.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Three


Mrs. McNear said my understanding was that there were conversations with attorneys and the building department and it was kind of agreed that we should take a look at this again in an effort to eliminate the suit.

Mr. McErlane responded if you recall what you denied the first time around, there was a lot of discussion on bringing the height of the sign down and reducing the size of it. None of that occurred at the last variance meeting; that wasnít offered up by the applicant so you denied the original request which was a larger sign at a higher height. The discussions that occurred after that were that Board of Zoning Appeals may be receptive to all those things discussed as far as the modifications at the previous variance request, and the Board of Zoning Appeals may consider a more reasonable request of trying to comply with the size of the sign that was there previously and a reasonable lower height.

Mr. Hunt commented I think some confusion may have been because I spoke

with Mr. Schneider and Mr. Malloy after the last meeting. They felt it was

characterized by me that they had agreed to the new terms of the variance we

were requesting when what I was trying to communicate was that they agreed

with the concept of coming back and letting this Board decide what the terms

would be, and that is why we filed the variance request. Mrs. McNear responded

that was the impression that I got that it had been decided that we should come

up with a new agreement and allow the sign to avoid the lawsuit. Mr. Hunt commented and I may have misspoke, because that is not what I was intending to say.

Mrs. Boice added the reason Mr. Schneider felt that was because I as on the phone the next morning because this was definitely the impression we were under, that this had been predecided. We had not been advised and I told him that we do not like feeling intimidated. Mr. Hunt said if youíll recall I indicated that my client preferred to have it resolved a different way, but at their suggestion we were willing to come back. I donít believe I suggested you had to rule the way we were requesting.

Mr. Squires added in my conference with the law director that is the impression I got as well, that it is strictly up to us to approve or disapprove.

Mr. Schecker said as we left this, we were considering the sign as it is currently stated with the variances requested and the only other contingency was the screening requirement. My question is how we would propose the screening, leave that up to Mr. McErlane? Mr. Okum commented our Street Maintenance Department which does such a wonderful job with trees and landscaping in the city might have their greens person out there, or I would be happy to meet with them if you would choose. The sign as it is currently is reduced down from their original request.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance with the conditions that the screening as stipulated in this meeting be accommodated, location to be determined cooperatively with the City, and that the lawsuit regarding this issue be dropped. Mr. Okum suggested that the original variance should be removed. Mr. McErlane suggested being more specific on the screening and Mr. Okum said four 10 foot evergreens to be maintained in perpetuity by Hunterís Glen and their placement to be cooperatively determined by a city representative. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Schecker Mr. Okum and Mr. Squires. Mrs. Boice, Mrs. McNear and Mrs. Ewing voted no, and the vote was three to three so the request was denied.



Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Four


Mrs. Boice commented one of our rules indicates that if something is denied they cannot reappear within six months. If an appeal has been denied it need not reconsider the same appeal if submitted within six months. I think we have a different circumstance since we are missing one member of the board, and I donít know if you want to give that any type consideration or not. That should be the chairís call. Mr. Squires commented as far as the chair is concerned, he would like it resolved. These people have been here at least three times and there have been modifications on the part of Hunterís Glen. The big difference is in the height of the sign.

Mrs. Boice said the Code reads 10 foot and the prior variance was for four feet and now we are talking an 8í-6" variance. I am glad they have reduced the size and agreed to the landscaping, but the height still bothers me. I think it is entirely too high.

Mr. Schecker said the physical location of the sign is quite different than the original one and now that the sign is located at the bottom of the berm in the parking lot as opposed to being on top, the height differential is not as critical as it otherwise might seem to be. Mr. Burke said we are actually lower; we lowered the sign because it used to set on a mound and now it sets on a flat parking lot.

Mr. Okum said if you were to take topography level, it is probably around 750. The top of that sign would be at 18í-6" so it would be 768. The old sign probably was at 770 feet above sea level. Our Code reads strictly from grade, and sometimes things differ in terms of where they are placed. The sign in reality in terms of line of sight it is lower than it was originally.

Mrs. Boice responded I do not disagree with one thing you have said, but the average person seeking a variance is not going to talk about sea level; it is that precedent which bothers me. They chose to move that sign; we didnít say it had to be moved.

Addressing Mrs. Boice, Mr.Schecker said I agree with you wholeheartedly about the precedent but on the other hand, we are to look at each space individually, and I think this location with the sign at the bottom of the berm rather than the top is quite a significant reason to look at this differently than all the other signs, and I feel this variance should be granted.

Mrs. McNear said I also have a problem with the height of the sign, not so much in this situation because we do have an extraordinary circumstance, but I still feel this sign is too high. I think it can be dropped somewhat and still be seen. I pass this sign at least twice a day and look up and feel overwhelmed. I am open to some negotiation, but the 18í-6" is so overwhelming.

Mr. Okum stated according to Roberts Rules of Order, a dissenting vote would need to make a motion to reconsider this in order for us to carry this discussion any further. Mrs. McNear moved to open this to discussion and Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. All present voted aye.

Mr. Hunt stated I understand the concern about the height. From the testimony at the last hearing, we went absolutely as low as we could height-wise so that from a safety standpoint people could read the telephone number on the sign. I think you are reading the telephone number at the bottom of the sign through the fence. We will have the obligation to keep the area clear in front of the sign or we will lose the telephone number.

I also would like to remind the board that my client has invested several million dollars in the City to bring that apartment complex up to par and during the period the sign was down the renting of the units went down significantly. That is really their best resource and is in the Cityís best interest as well, so I would like to request the members to take that into consideration if there is a revote.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Five


Mrs. McNear commented I know they have invested money in the sign, but I also know there have been lots of problems with the sign company. Perhaps they could negotiate that considering they have had so many problems with it to put something as significant as the phone number in a better place. You are right; it is a big draw for that complex. I donít have any trouble reading the sign as I go by it. Mr. Hunt said I know it is not the issue, but I could offer additional trees to make the site more attractive to the City.

Mrs. McNear said if they put yews that would not grow tall enough to block the sign at the bottom, would that take away from the starkness of the sign? Mr. Okum answered yes, or burning bush, where you get a lot of foliage which is shrub in the winter and during the summer you have green and in the fall nice red colors. Bayberries are also very good for this area and they grow very well. Mrs. McNear commented something not high maintenance or high expense. With a 10 foot evergreen there is money involved.

Mr. Burke added we were hoping to direct the attention towards the sign by putting flowers and something colorful in front of the sign so people have a reason to look at it. We donít have a problem with that all; the only thing I need to remind the board is we need ODOT permission to put anything on the mound on the one side of the fence. I donít see why they would object since they have wildflower areas. Mrs. McNear added if we can somehow break that visual, then I donít have much of a problem.

Mrs. Ewing said I want the Board to be aware of the fact that it is one thing to say youíll do something to get the approval, and then it is not done. We should be sure to put that in the motion so it is done. Mrs. Boice added and that the Building Department would monitor it very closely. We have been blindsided on that situation more than once, but it was not this developer.

Mrs. Boice moved to reconsider and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. All present voted aye.

Mr. Okum moved that the original motion that was not brought forward favorably be amended to add the following: (1) that the applicant has agreed to add an additional 2 evergreens on flanking perimeters of the sign and bushes similar to burning bush or bayberries that would be placed on the lower level in front of the sign not to obstruct the view of the sign, but to give it color and definition, and that all plantings be maintained in perpetuity.

Mr. Squires wondered if the applicant agreed to this and Mr. Hunt responded the only thing I might suggest is if there are any portion of those plantings are not on our property we must obtain the approval of ODOT. Mrs. McNear added and this includes our original motion with the old variance gone and the lawsuit dropped.

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

  1. Michaels Crafts, 425 East Kemper Road requests variance to allow them to move their existing wall sign west (47.43 square feet over allowable). Said variance is requested from Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "ÖMaximum gross area of signs = (W x 1.5) + 40 square feet Ė Granted 10/21/97 Ė modification requested

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Six


Mr. McErlane reported Michaels had requested moving their sign on the north side of the building. At the time they requested it, they did not have total agreement with the landlord on the placement, and the landlord wanted to place it further west on that wall. One of the specific requirements of the variance was that it be centered within their space. There is no defined line for their space at the center of that building, so centering it up doesnít accomplish what you think it might accomplish. One thing that is required is to have at least three feet from the end wall of a building, which would move it over a little bit.

Mr. Squires wondered if there would be another sign for the other tenant on the other part of that? Mrs. Boice said I think it is pretty obvious the way they are moving it all the way over is to make clearance for possibly another sign on that side of the building. If that is the case, letís be up front about it and come in here and present it. I donít like the piecemeal approach.

Mr. McErlane reported the only issue is the Michaels sign, but I had previous discussions with Woodworkers Store about allowing them an additional sign on that north side. They are permitted to have that. The only problem that we had was when Michaels lost their store frontage by leasing out the space to Woodworkers, they lost some allowable sign square footage at the same time. Also in the process they were required to move the Michaels sign within their lease space.

Mrs. Boice commented now they want to shove this way down to the other end which to me is obvious that they are getting ready to put another one up there. Mr. McErlane resounded that was the landlordís requirement that they place it that far down. Michaels really doesnít have a concern about where it is. Mrs. Boice said then the landlord should be here to discuss this. I would move to table. Mrs. McNear seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and this was tabled.


A. Dan Wheeler, Target Management requests variance to allow a building setback of 47.99í at 130-150 Tri-County Parkway. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(G)(50 foot seyback is required).

Dan Wheeler said I am the manager for Target Management and we represent Princeton Properties II which is at 130 and 150 Tri-County Parkway. My request is to clean up some paperwork on the survey. We purchased the property approximately two years ago and on this last survey, we found there was an encroachment on the building setback line of approximately 2 feet. That is a corner. The property is on an arc and initially the mistake probably was made by the setback being taken off the building perpendicular instead of off the tangent of the arc. If you take it off perpendicular it is 50í; if you take it off the arc and straight towards the corner it was 47.99 feet. We are here requesting the variance to make sure our survey and property is appropriate for the terms and conditions of the city.

Mrs. McNear commented I do not have a problem with this. It is nice to see these things getting cleared up; I appreciate your doing it and move to grant the variance. Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mr. Boice, Mr. Schecker, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.

Maple Knoll Village, 11100 Springfield Pike requests a variance to allow a 4 Seasons Room to be constructed and set 22í-6" back of the property line at 611 Maple Trace. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(F) 35 foot variance granted March 16, 1993.




Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Seven


Tim Hedgren the contractor for the project said we are looking to put this at the back. There is a privacy fence directly behind where we are going. It is 5 feet beyond the existing patio which we would be taking out to put a new room in. It would be setting where the patio is now but it would be larger.

Mr. Hedgren continued the neighbor in the back is the G.E. Training Center and the egress between the privacy fence back there now wonít be disturbed, so we donít see it obstructing anything or disturbing a neighbor. I have a picture (showed to board members). The present patio goes out nine feet, and we will be going out 14 feet.

Mr. Okum wondered about the overhang on the eave and the type of siding. Mr. Hedgren answered the overhang would be 1 foot and we will match the stone on the back of the building now. Mr. Okum commented I donít have any real problem with this addition; it is a little larger than the typical 12 foot but 14 feet is not a lot of difference. I do have some concern because there are other renters in that condo building. What happens when the people on the left right and front of the building request a sunroom like this one. That is something we have to consider. This faces the back end of the GE Aircraft building and the fence behind it; it is not a problem, but it is just the precedent that may affect all the buildings in that site. Mr. Hedgren commented if it were against a residential property it would be hard to attempt this but with the circumstances here, I thought it reasonable to ask.

Mr. Schecker said there are four condos in that building and the property on the right, 609 Maple Trace is on the agenda requesting a similar room. When you see the industrial site in the back, it doesnít seem to be a problem at all. I do have some consideration for the apartment at 610; It seems to be impacted more than anybody else on this thing because the new structure will jut out into their back yard basically

Mr. Hedgren stated there is an approximately 14 foot buffer from the edge of our addition to the other unit. The one on the leftís patio is around the corner and they are not affected very much at all.

Mr. McErlane reported one thing we need to keep in mind is the fact that this building is owned by Maple Knoll and not the individual residents, and the zoning classification is Public Facilities, not residential. The properties that surround this development include the G.E. Training Center, an older subdivision in Glendale on the south side, The Colony Apartments on the west side and Fernald office building on the north side. With respect to the unit that is north of this one, it butts up against their garage, so it really doesnít impact. The requests are by the residents, but Maple Knoll is actually the one because they own the property.

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

Duane Loyd, 528 Cloverdale Avenue requests variances to allow the construction of an 8í x 10í wood shed six feet from the adjoining residence. Said variance is requested from Section 153.025© "..not less than 20m feet from any dwelling on an adjacent residential lot."

Mr. Loyd stated we have the signatures required. My back neighborís house is only one foot off my property line and if we were to put the shed 20 feet from that, it would make it almost in the center of our yard and we are trying to get away from that. My whole back yard is the whole length of his house. Mrs. Boice wondered if the neighbor was aware of this and Mr. Loyd indicated that he was.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Eight


Mr. McErlane stated that he had looked through the file on the property owner to the rear of the applicant, and found a site plan which shows the neighborís house only a foot and a half off the property line. It was built that way years ago so it really almost extends the entire width of their backyard that close to the line. It is almost as if that house is an imposition to the applicantís back yard.

Mrs. Boice moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. Schecker commented I find it unfortunate that it is so very close to your property line but on the other hand, I heard you say you have discussed this with the person back there. Was it good or bad? Mr. Loyd answered to be perfectly honest, Elmer is in Florida right now. He and I are fairly close; he has even asked me before when I was going to build a shed but actually I have not spoken with Elmer since I purchased the shed. Mr. Schecker continued the location of that house makes me feel to put a shed on top of that house is not the right thing to do. You have a fairly large back yard with two trees on the left hand side of the property line. Would you consider locating that in front of those trees and to the left and closer to the property line over there?

Mr. Loyd answered we had thought about that but we thought about a storm and those limbs coming down on it; we have had limbs fall before, and it would cause damage. That was our biggest concern about putting it on the right side of the yard. Mr. Schecker commented I personally donít like the idea of allowing somebody to put a shed that close to a house.

Mr. Okum said this is tough and an unusual circumstance. I know you have made an effort to notify your neighbor but he is in Florida and if I came home and found a shed six feet from my house I would have something to say about that. I understand your feeling about the trees, but I also see the trees as some type of screening or softening between his house and yours. Your lot is larger and you have some latitude to move it left or right or a little more forward than that. Would it be possible to bring the shed forward towards the back of your home? Mr. Loyd answered I really didnít want it in the middle of my yard, but I am flexible. I just want to build a shed; I need it.

Mrs. Boice said I donít feel the other neighbor should be penalized but I also donít feel that this gentleman should be penalized. You have to be fair to both neighbors. Mr. Okum said I came up with 11.75 feet, but 12 feet would be fine. Mrs. Boice asked Mr. Loyd if that would be agreeable and he indicated that it would be.

Mr. Schecker said I donít think compromising the footage will do much; it still will be imposingly close to that property line. It would seem much less so on the left side than on the right side only because that right side is so wide open. Mr. Loyd commented in terms of aesthetics, you are right, it would be better on the left side, but I know how many limbs I have cut up that have fallen, and if it falls on a brand new shed, itís another expense. We prefer it on the right hand side.

Mrs. Boice amended her motion that the shed be placed 12 feet from the back property line and five feet from the side line, which he already has. Mr. Squires commented so he will be 13 Ĺ feet from the rear neighborís house. Mrs. McNear suggested shrubbery or trees; it is nice that you are working with us on this; itís not your fault that his house is placed so close to the fence line. I wouldnít want to make that as part of the motion but I would suggest that both neighbors work together on shrubbery.

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




Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Nine

Mapleknoll Village, 11100 Springfield Pike requests variance to allow the construction of a patio room 29 feet from the rear yard at 609 Maple Trace. Said variance is requested from Section 153.165(F) (35í variance granted March 16, 1993)

Jeff Mills of Champion Windows & Enclosures said our variance is for 29 feet from the rear yard line instead of the 35 feet required. Ours is very similar in that we are looking at 11 feet and the existing patio is 9 feet. G.E. Engine Plant is behind us with a solid wood privacy fence. It sets on the corner opposite the neighbor so it should not obstruct or detract from the neighborís view.

Mr. Okum said when that development came into the city, there was continuity and uniformity of all the structures. When we had the first presentation earlier this evening, we had a stone face building with a 7/12 pitch. We have another unit in the same building and it seems to me that something is not right in Mapleknoll Village when these are coming in scattered and separated and much different and disjointed than what they typically would present to us.

Mr. Mills responded what you are looking at is more of a room addition and this is more of a glass and screened room. The whole wall system is all glass and aluminum framing. There are no walls to install any kind of veneer siding on.

Mr. Okum said your cover letter indicates that Mapleknoll has approved the setback. Mr. Mills added we did a room for the director that runs Mapleknoll and they recommended us for this project.

Mr. Squires read the letter:

"To Whom It May Concern:

As owner of the residence at 609 Maple Trace, Mpaleknoll Village I hereby authorize Champion to proceed with plans to modify the unit on behalf of Mrs. Joanne Halvary, Resident. The rear property line of the building housing Unit 609 is contiguous with the parking lot of GE Training Facility. Any modifications will be executed to meet the applicable building codes prescribed by the Springdale Building Department.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Voekel, Executive Director"

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Okum asked if there were more of these buildings being built in this development that have not been brought before Planning. Mr. McErlane responded there was one added when the building was constructed, so the materials were compatible at that time. Prior to these two that was the only one constructed.

Mr. Mills stated it is mostly glass walls. The roof is shingled and the walls are all glass so I donít know how you could do it to conform to a conventional style building. Is the main objection the slope in the roof? Mr. Okum responded I think some symmetry for all of these buildings needs to be considered by this board; we need continuity. I am surprised to see this disjointed an application process coming from Mapleknoll that is so different from everything else they have done. I would like to get some clarification from Mapleknoll before we act on this.

Mr. Squires stated you are not alone in your thinking on that. I share the same feeling about continuity. That is such a beautiful village, and everything is uniform. If this thing had brick veneer around it, I donít think you would have a problem. Mr. Mills said you are telling the resident that they canít have an all glass room; they must have a room with brick veneer to make it conform to the building. If that was a stipulation, I am sure she would rather have that than no room at all. We can install aluminum brick veneer onto our aluminum framing; itís just that we canít do it over a glass door.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Ten


Mrs. McNear said I would propose that we table this until we can get some feedback from Mapleknoll. We approved the first one because that blended in with the rest of the building, and I think we would all feel much better on this if someone from Mapleknoll would come in and speak about this. I would have to turn it down because you would be precluded from coming back for six months. I think we should put it off for a month in order to get clarification and make the right decision. Mrs. Boice seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mrs. McNear, Mrs. Boice, Mr. Okum, Mr. Schecker, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Request was tabled to December 16th meeting. Mr. Mills said he would make sure someone from Mapleknoll would be in attendance, asking if the concern was just this. We have done a lot in Oldegate and on Peak Drive and nobody had the exact same room. We have done 10 of them in Oldegate and two on Peak Drive; none are exactly the same. Is this something you are concerned just with Mapleknoll? Mr. Okum said this is a very unique development and Mapleknoll has been very particular about their development, and that is why we are questioning it instead of voting on it. Mr. Mills said from what I understand, their main concern was that it did tie into the building, look like a part of the building and the shingles and soffitts match, and all those things do. It is just that there is no solid wall. Mr. McNear suggested that the City send a letter to Mapleknoll requesting their presence at the December 16th meeting.

Kiesland requests variance to allow the installation of a ground sign 8 feet high at 11590 Century Boulevard. Said variance is requested from Section 153.j092(E)(5) "..The height of a ground sign shall not exceed 7 feet.."

John Heitz of Lackner Sign representing Kiesland said we are asking for an extra foot to keep the visibility of the sign. I have pictures I have taken over the last year to give you an idea of what is there now. (he passed them around). Hensley Siegal Rensler has taken most of the building over, as well as the American Express, and they wanted to simplify it with the two. The area with the Macaroni Grill, Dickís and Barnes & Noble has given more visibility, but it also has taken away from what they used to be. They are concerned to be viable in viewing it. We are 93 feet from Kemper Road up on a hill, and we have kept the sign subtle to go with the building, a single color.

Mr. Okum said I think the sign is in very good taste. They have done a very nice job with landscaping a monster hill. On your white neon lights, what is the lumination; will they be bright? Mr. Heitz responded no it is very subtle. The main lighting is in the Hensley Segal copy and the American Express copy. It is almost a small glow within that four inch channel. That was their concern too. The main reason was to differentiate between the two, give it some definition so it wouldnít flow together. It is a white neon, not a red gaudy color.

Mr. Okum questioned the lack of the address on the sign and Mr. Heitz responded they didnít want to have the address on it; they wanted to keep it central office. Trammell Crow sold the building but will continue managing the building for Kiesland.

Mrs. McNear wondered if the new sign would be in the exact same place as the old sign, and Mr. Heitz confirmed this.

Mr. Squires wondered what is lit on the sign and Mr. Heitz responded the only thing not lit is the top portion. Everything else is and the neon portion is three lines. Inside the sign is fluorescent lamping backed with plex.

Mr. Schecker moved to grant the variance and Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.


Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Eleven


Mr. Schecker said my first inclination was to question the need for the extra foot, but looking at it more closely approaching eastbound on Kemper, the existing sign from the complex to the west detracts from your sign slightly, so I think another foot is justified.

Mr. Heitz responded also most of this is aesthetics. Mr. Schecker continued I agree that the design blends in with the overall design of the building and is a lot nicer looking sign than is there right now. Coming westbound, that sign doesnít seem to have too much value. Mr. Heitz responded that is what has taken so long to get this underway. Originally what they wanted to do was put letters on the building and this met with resistance from me as a designer. I think they want to be visible but subtle. To keep the aesthetics up they still have a sign that is easier to read. We were approached with a project and had some constraints and this was the best case scenario.

Voting aye were Mr. Schecker, Mrs. McNear, Mr. Okum, Mrs. Boice, Mrs. Ewing and Mr. Squires. Variance was granted with six affirmative votes.


Mrs. McNear said this is a week I have not been looking forward to for a long time. We are definitely going to miss Marge. This will be the first time in more than 20 years that we will not have the wonderful services of Marge Boice, bringing a point of view that some of us might not have thought of, getting us back in line when we should be and giving people out there you know what when they need it. Iím really going to miss working with Marge both on BZA and Council. What can you say about someone who is such a wonderful lady and a good friend..

Mrs. Webb said I donít usually speak, but your friends on Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals signed this for you, and we will miss you very much. (presented card to Mrs. Boice)

Mrs. Boice said you people are overwhelming me. You know how I feel about you, and I think this board has really really come into its own in the last eight or nine months. Now you will be having two new people coming forward, and I hope they have the wisdom to sit back and benefit from the expertise that is on this board. I know at times I probably have been overbearing; sometimes I like to think I was humorous, but always I would hope that you know that I have loved working with you. Iím not going to say goodbye; Iíll just say Iíll see you around.

Mr. Schecker added we will really be lacking a lot of experience when you walk out the door, and I donít know how we replace that. It is incredible what you have contributed, and I know for sure we are going to miss you.

Mr. Okum said I worked with Marge for many years. When I first came on City Council 16 years ago, Marge took me under her wing. She taught me more than you would imagine. Probably a lot or the strength I have, decision making power and in the fairness was a lot of what I observed and learned from her. She is truly a very fair person; she has been a cornerstone to the community. You have touched everyone in a very positive way in Springdale. Just driving down the street there is something you were a part of, and it means a lot to all of us. We really do appreciate it. If we do screw up, and we will, we expect to hear about it.

Mr. McErlane added I do thank you for your presence Marge, and your tenure on this board, but now I know who to blame for Dave.

Mrs. Ewing said everyone has eloquently expressed my love and concern for Marge; sheís the only person in this world who can call me Barbie Doll, and I am your friend Marge and I take that name in terms of endearment. I will miss you; I have learned a lot from Marge, and I know we will see Marge around. Mrs. Boice said I l notice you signed the card that way, and I treasure that.

Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes

18 November 1997

Page Twelve

DISCUSSION Ė continued

Mr. Squires said we have been friends for I donít know how many years and it has been wonderful. Your involvement has meant a lot to us.

Mrs. Boice said I assure you that no one has had a more wonderful life than I; I have been blessed with wonderful family, wonderful husband and all my associations in the City. Iím not going to say every moment was easy, but of all the people I have had the honor to work with, I can count the bulk of them as friends, and after a 26 year span, thatís a lot. You have warmed my heart and touched my soul and if you keep this Iíll fall apart. I want you all to understand that I am happy with my decision. Thank you very much, and I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, a wonderful Christmas and Blessings for 1998.

Mr. Squires asked about the sign at Jake Sweeney and Mr. McErlane said he came in today and told me that by the end of the week or the first part of next week it will be down.


Mrs. Boice moved to adjourn and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1997 ____________________________

James Squires, Chairman



______________________,1997 ____________________________

Barbara Ewing, Secretary