BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 1999

7:00 P.M.

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Pro Tem James Squires.

  3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Chairman – Mr. Squires nominated David Okum and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. There were no other nominations and Mr. Okum was elected by acclamation.

Vice Chairman – Mr. Wilson nominated Frederick Borden and Mr. .Squires seconded the motion. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Borden was elected by acclamation.

Secretary – Mr. Wilson suggested that the three new members introduce themselves before we elect a secretary.

Mr. Apke said I have been a resident of Springdale for five or six years and have been active at the Springdale Elementary School and Princeton schools. Currently I coach my daughter’s softball team and have coached soccer teams. I work at Procter & Gamble and do research and development. I have a Bachelors in Zoology from Ohio State and an MBA from Xavier. My wife is Mary Kay and we have two kids.

Mr. Weidlich said my family moved to Springdale in 1951 and except for living a couple of years in Sharonville, I have lived here most of my life. I have a wife and one son who is in college. I helped coach youth sports in Springdale , was a cubmaster at Springdale School for four years and president of the Academic Boosters at Princeton High School for one year. I have worked for 33 years at G.E. as an engineering designer.

Mrs. Huber said I am a native Springdaleian and was employed by the City for 18 ˝ years, five years in the Police Department and the remainder of the time in the Building Department. I am a widow and have lived in my home on Kemper Road for 45 years. I am a past president of the Springdale PTA, Springdale Women’s Club, and the Parent Teacher Group at Princeton High School.

Secretary – Mr. Borden nominated Mrs. Huber and Mr. Wilson seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations, and Mrs. Huber was elected by acclamation.

III. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Fred Borden, Bob Apke, Councilman James Squires,

Bob Weidlich, Jane Huber, Councilman Robert Wilson and Chairman Okum

Others Present: Richard Lohbeck, Inspections Supervisor

IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 16 NOVEMBER 1999

Mr. Squires moved for adoption and Mr. Borden seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.

V. CORRESPONDENCE

    1. Zoning Bulletin – November 10, 1999
    2. Zoning Bulletin – November 25, 1999
    3. Planning Commission Minutes – November 9, 1999
    4. 11/18/99 Letter to Thomas Heckman re legal opinion on last month’s vote.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

21 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE TWO

VI. REPORTS

    1. Report on Council Activities – Bob Wilson
    2. Mr. Wilson reported the December 1st meeting we had swearing in ceremony and election of the new president of council, Kathy McNear and vice president Tom Vanover, and several appointments and reappointment to boards and commissions. On December 15th we had 10 ordinances passed, some of which were housekeeping issues. The biggest issue was a work session on the 2,000-city budget.

    3. Report on Planning Commission

Mr. Okum stated the discussion of the repainting of the Gold Star Chili building was tabled to January, since the applicant was not present.

There was a concept discussion for the proposed expansion of Office Resources Inc., 11711 Container Place. There was a lengthy discussion, and a number of variances are required that will come before this board. It would be good for all board members to get copy of the submission and the comments since it is a pretty intense change, and he will come before the BZA January 18th.

Preliminary plan approval of The Great Indoors to be located at 11925 Commons Drive. They will be building 30 of these in the next five years. The average store size is 150,000 square feet; this store will be 133,00 square feet. It will occupy the entire remaining portion of what was the Kroger Candy Plant. The trip generation is pretty intense; they had no trip counts and we asked that they provide t hose. It is as close to retail as you can get, but it is larger items. They did not receive preliminary plan approval because of lack of detail, and Mr. Vanover asked that it be brought before Council because it was considered a major change to the PUD. The final discussion was the city dues to the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission and we decided not to pay them because we get nothing out of it.

  1. STATEMENT CONCERNING VARIANCES
    1. A variance once granted would 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.

B. Chairman’s Statement

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.

  1. OLD BUSINESS
  2. NEW BUSINESS
    1. Calvary Pentecostal Church, 11970 Kenn Road requests approval of steeple 25’-9" (3’ increase)

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE THREE

VIII A CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 11970KENN ROAD – STEEPLE HEIGHT

Reverend Norman Paslay said Mike Johnson and I are here to ask for this three-foot increase. We apologize that it was not part of our original presentation for the height variance. The variable that brought us here tonight was the extent of the required base that we had to put on the roof to accommodate the wind shear concerns. This raised the height of the steeple three feet. It is the cross itself. The two units intersect and it is not illuminated in any way. While in some ways it is very small in comparison to the overall steeple, we would hope to be able to retain it because it is the essence of our name, Calvary

It is on now, and we would not want there to be any sense that we had any disregard for this committee or the protocol required to get a variance. We had the crane on site for the attachment of the steeple. It was about $1,000 to secure the use of that crane and it was no problem to do it at that time. To bring it back out would have been more expense, so our initial efforts were to contact either Mr. Lohbeck or Mr. McErlane to tell them what we were going to do, knowing we would have to come and make an appeal for that variance.

There is one other element to the steeple that I will have Mr. Johnson outline for you. Mr. Johnson added there were two reasons why we installed it. The steeple had been paid for, and they brought the equipment to set the cross. The other factor was the ball on top of the steeple. The way the steeple is manufactured, the cross slides through the ball and down into the steeple, and if there is no cross, there is no ball and if there were no ball, the steeple would look unfinished. If we lose the cross, we would have to have the ball modified to go up alone. The ball is not attached; it is being held in place by the cross. I faxed Mr. McErlane and tried to get in touch with Dick while the crane was on the site. I didn’t want them to think we were trying to pull a fast one.

Mr. Wilson commented I drove by there and to see the cross you would have to be awfully close, so I would question whether you would see it clearly from the expressway or Kenn Road. The trusses were added because of the weight distribution. That being the case, your designer or engineer must have goofed. Mr. Johnson answered the building was originally supposed to be designed for a steeple, it was on the original plans. However the contractor at the time failed to have the truss company have the trusses designed to hold the steeple as it was constructed. Mr. Lohbeck asked for the truss calculations in July and the contractor didn’t know what that meant. We then went back and looked at our options to get our steeple, because the steeple was already built and paid for. We conferred and came to the conclusion that rather than tear the roof off and set two new trusses for support, it would be more economical and faster to go ahead and build a tier, which is the same steeple that we were going to put up before. We built the tier to distribute the weight among seven trusses rather than two.

Mr. Wilson said so you are saying that having been paid for, there was no way you could redesign or cut off something to lessen the weight without incurring additional costs. Mr. Johnson confirmed this, adding we would have had to eliminate a whole tier. It is only a thousand-pound steeple, so even if we had cut the steeple in half, it would still have been too heavy for the way the trusses were designed for.

Mr. Wilson said realizing that you initially were only supposed to have 20 feet above the roofline, why was it designed to be 25 feet above? Mr. Johnson answered the original steeple was built according to the drawings submitted to the city. All we did was add a 3-foot tier; that is the height of the section added at the base.

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE FOUR

VIII A CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 11970KENN ROAD – STEEPLE HEIGHT

Mr. Johnson added we did that because the steeple did not have to be modified. It was built to accommodate the 4 and 12 pitch of the roof and pyramid shape. All we have done is raise the pyramid of the building up 3 feet.

Mr. Wilson said my point is when the steeple was designed and you realized the zoning code required the steeple to be only 20 feet above, and it was 22’-9" and you got a variance for that. Now we are actually going another 3 feet. At that point, couldn’t you have modified it because the steeple was paid for? Is the cross three feet; it is awfully small.

Reverend Paslay answered when you pull in, it looks good. Mr. Wilson responded from the expressway and Kenn Road, it looks like a point. What would it cost you to take the cross down? Mr. Johnson answered I would have to call the crane rental plus the modification of the ball on the top. It would have to be taken down, modified and put back, and would involve two crane rentals. Mr. Wilson asked the dollar amount and Mr. Johnson answered the minimum cost for the crane is $450 per hour.

Mr. Okum said if I recall correctly, we were not regulating the cross. We were regulating the height of the steeple itself, 56’-6" plus the cross. I thought the crosses were not considered for variances; I don’t think we ruled on the cross.

Mr. .Squires commented I was chairman and according to my notes and the document I signed, the 22’-9" included the cross. The steeple was 19’ 9". That is the variance we approved, Variance 2-1999. It is my understanding from their explanation and from the letter from the building department, that same steeple was automatically raised three feet because of the redesign of your roof.

Mr. Okum said the variance was for the height of the structure, greater than 50 feet. The way this document is prepared, it doesn’t show 59’-6" on the drawing; it shows 56’-6".

Mr. Squires said the code we were going by was to allow the steeple to extend 20 feet above the roof. Mr. Okum said it was for a building structure in excess of 50 feet. Ultimately we are looking at 59’-6" and we are actually talking 62’-6" to the top of the cross, which would be 12’-6" above the allowable 50 feet. I separated the cross out of it, and my recollection is that we were talking about the structure of 56’-6".

Mrs. Huber commented being a novice, I looked at it and the steeple, cross and all, is miniscule to the size of the building. They have structurally have made it sound and I think we probably should see more crosses in this country. I see no reason not to grant the variance. From line of sight you can hardly see it . I was in their parking lot and it was very hard to even see the cross. If that is making it three feet more than they had the variance for, I don’t see not allowing them to keep what they have.

Reading from the code, Section 153.071 *(A)(5) , Mr. Lohbeck read "The maximum height for buildings and structures shall be 30 feet. However, domes, steeples, crosses, religious symbols, chimneys, and radio and television antennae located on and constituting an integral part of the main church building may extend to a height not to exceed 45 feet above the average finished grade."

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES

21 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE FIVE

VIII A CALVARY PENTECOSTAL CHURCH 11970KENN ROAD – STEEPLE HEIGHT

Mr. Okum said your submission included the cross, is that correct? Reverend Paslay answered I would think it did. Mr. Okum added one picture shows the cross and one doesn’t. Mr. Okum wondered if they would do something with that black base. Reverend Paslay answered it is all being covered. Mr. Johnson added it looks like one steeple now; it is thoroughly integrated with the building. It has a railing around it, which is aluminum like the rest of the steeple. The average person won’t know this happened; it won’t be like an alteration.

Mr. Borden moved to grant the variance and Mr. Squires seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson commented one of the things we look at when we make a decision is how the variance would affect the overall design of the building and the cost to change it. I thought about it long and hard, and I really don’t see a problem. The church is beautiful and I will be voting in favor of the variance.

Mr. Squires concurred with Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Huber, adding you just can’t see the cross from I-275 or Kenn Road. You would have a considerable expense to change that, and it was done through no fault of yours. I see no problem and will vote to grant the variance.

Mr. Okum added it was done in good taste and not a deliberate act. It is proportional to the building and the site; it is appropriate. I’m quite pleased with the outcome and will vote in favor of it.

Voting aye were Mr. Borden, Mr. Apke, Mr. Squires, Mr. Weidlich, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum and Mrs. Huber. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

IX DISCUSSION

Mr. Squires said for the benefit of the new members as well as the returning members, I can’t compliment the people who worked on the new Zoning Code enough. It is a wonderful document and so easy to use compared to what we had before. This is so organized, particularly with the map.

X. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Wilson moved to adjourn and Mr. Apke seconded the motion,. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_______________________, 2000 _____________________________

David Okum, Chairman

 

_______________________, 2000 _____________________________

Jane Huber, Secretary