BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2010
7:00 P.M.


I CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.


II ROLL CALL

Members Present: Lawrence Hawkins III, Robert Weidlich,
Robert Emerson, William Reichert, Jane Huber, Chairman Dave Okum

Members Absent: Jim Squires

Others Present: Randy Campion, Building Inspection Supervisor

   
III PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE


IV MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 16 NOVEMBER 2010

Mr. Weidlich moved for acceptance the November 16, 2010 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting minutes, Mr. Reichert seconded the motion and with six “aye” votes from the Board of Zoning Appeals Members (one member absent), the minutes were adopted.


V CORRESPONDENCE

No correspondence presented at this meeting.


VI REPORT ON COUNCIL

Mr. Hawkins gave a summary report of the City Council December 1st and
December 15th , 2010 meetings.


VII REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION

    There was no December 2010 Planning Commission meeting.


VIII CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT AND SWEARING IN OF APPLICANTS


IX OLD BUSINESS

    No Old Business to present at this meeting.
   

X NEW BUSINESS

A.    Chairman Okum: The owner of 55 Progress Place requests a variance to place a 14 feet high ground sign 0 feet from the right of way line and to permit an electronic message panel on the sign. Said variances are from Section 153.523(D) “Permanent ground signs shall not extend higher than seven feet above the finished grade.” and Section 153.532(A)(4) “…one industrial sign may be permitted for each main use within the required yards… and not within ten feet of a public street right-of-way…” and Section 153.523(J) “…No sign shall have animation, moving parts, flashing lights or changing colors…. Electronic signs shall only be permitted per 153.531(D)(11) and (12) and 153.538….”

Ms. Andrea Ward: I am with Holthaus Signs. After our last meeting in July, I met with the property owners to discuss their next steps for eliminating the proposed pylon sign to redoing the ground sign out toward the front of the property. We met on site and they determined that they would like to have a larger sign than what is out there currently and a little more updated, internally illuminated versus externally, as it is now; keeping with the brick base to tie in with the building but also moving it a little bit closer to Princeton Pike. It is still quite a distance away from 747 but a little more visible as you are heading north; it is blocked a little bit because of the vegetation. I did not realize that an electronic message center was not permitted at this property, I misread the code and misunderstood, and for that I do apologize. The message center is approximately 2’8” X 11’ on the brick base; it is kind of advertising new doctors, flu shots and any type of general advertising.

(At this time Mr. Campion read the Staff comments.)

Chairman Okum: There is clearly no one that has come as part of the audience to make comment.
Are you eliminating the pole sign?

Ms. Ward: Completely; yes. What they are proposing is to remove the existing ground sign that is currently in front on the building and replace it with the new one just a little bit closer to the street.

Chairman Okum: And you understand, based upon what Staff has indicated there is an ODOT easement there that would probably push it back further than what you are requesting?

Ms. Ward: That is correct; yes. I don’t believe the owners are aware of that.

Chairman Okum: Without the message board on there Staff has indicated that the sign would be 11’ in height; typically when we get that close to the right of way in Planning Commission level there is a requirement put on the applicant to landscape and put plantings around it. That type of review is typically handled by our City Planners office so that it is consistent for any monument signage. Could you make the sign work at 11’?

Ms. Ward: I believe so.

Chairman Okum: I guess that your request is that you would want the sign to go to a 0’ setback from the ODOT easement?

Ms. Ward: Correct. The owner would want it as close as possible.

Chairman Okum: Mr. Campion, that is going to move the sign back from where they requested to where; fifteen instead of twenty?

Mr. Campion: Yes.

Chairman Okum: If it is this Board’s decision to move it back, they can use a reference point of the ODOT easement?

Mr. Campion: That is correct.

Chairman Okum: We are going to need to bring it to the floor with a motion; there is nothing to do with the message board in the application so I don’t think the message board would be part of the motion because it was not part of the application, even though it is on an exhibit.
Mr. Campion: That is correct.

Mr. Weidlich: I would like to make a motion to grant a ground sign at 55 Progress Place; to be placed at a 0’ set back from the existing ODOT easement line and to be approximately 13’-6” wide X 11’ high, the construction being brick and internally lit; as presented by the applicant, also to have plantings and landscaping around the base of the sign to be approved by the City Planner.
Seconded by Mr. Reichert.

Chairman Okum: The record shows the digital sign that has been placed on an exhibit by the applicant is not part of the motion and it wasn’t part of the application; but I will comment about that. There has been an expansion by our Zoning Code for very large parcels to accommodate high level digital signs; Princeton Plaza, Tri-County Mall, the Commons. Huge developments like that do have a limited digital sign permitted space that is allowed. There are no digital signs permitted in any other zoning districts in Springdale. I would not support a digital sign in this location.
The illustration is o.k. at a lower level, without the digital sign?

Ms. Ward: Correct.

Mrs. Huber polled the Board of Zoning Appeals Members and with 6 “aye” votes (one member absent) the request for variance was approved for 55 Progress Place.



XI DISCUSSION

Mrs. Huber: About three years ago we issued a variance for a man on Kemper Road, just west of the Soul Winning Church of God to build a big garage; he didn’t do that. Is there a limitation when the variance becomes null and void?

Chairman Okum: I don’t believe so. I think that the Law Director’s office made a decision that once a variance has been granted, it applies to the property. We used to have a statement in our documents for Board of Zoning Appeals that said, “If there would be no construction within six months it would not be a viable variance.” I know that the Law Director’s office struck that.
Another item for discussion: The Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission has had a group of sessions that are educational in nature and they are free to Zoning Boards and Planning Commission Members. The next one coming up at the Tangeman Center is not as interesting as the final one, but it is dated January 21st from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; “Fiscal sustainability and Quality of Life of our Communities.” The speaker will be Michael Pangano. The speakers are pretty top-notch speakers and there has been a lot of grant money that has gone into getting this together and they are open. The final one will be on March 11th from 8:00 a.m. to12:00 p.m. at Cintas; “Sustainable Hamilton County, What can We do?”.
Mr. McErlane, I believe, can help you make reservations.


XII ADJOURNMENT

Mrs. Huber moved to adjourn, Mr. Hawkins seconded the motion and with a unanimous “aye” vote from the six Board of Zoning Appeals Members present, the meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2011 ___________________________________
            Chairman Dave Okum



________________________,2011 ___________________________________
            Secretary Jane Huber