Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
A Regular Meeting of the Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order on Tuesday, June 18, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Robert Kehoe, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Present: Robert Kehoe
George Kozan
Carmon Liversedge
David Martus
Patrick O’Callaghan
Absent: None
Others Present: Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer
Edward G. Henneke, City Attorney
Approval of Minutes – Motion by Liversedge, seconded by O’Callaghan, to approve the March 18, 2002 meeting minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals as written.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Agenda Approval – Motion by Martus, seconded by O’Callaghan, to approve the agenda of the June 18, 2002 meeting.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
MEETING
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
Chris Common, 212 Mary and Elva Cook, 315 Sunnyside, addressed the Board.
PUBLIC
HEARING:
Variance – 1413 Flushing Road – An application for 1413 Flushing Road was received requesting a variance from the provisions of the Sign Ordinance Section 156.15.1 Nonconforming Existing Signs, Permits and Terms, and from the requirements of Section 156.05.9(1) Commercial, CC, L1 - Permanent Signs, whereby a freestanding sign is required to be a minimum of twenty (20’) feet from the nearest edge of pavement. The existing post to be reused is approximately twelve (12’6”) feet six inches from the nearest pavement, resulting in a variance request of seven (7’6”) feet six inches.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Two
The chairperson opened the hearing to the public.
Glenn Crannie, Signs By Crannie, stated that they plan to change the sign from a red and white TOTAL to a blue and white Marathon sign. This change requires that the existing sign be brought in line with the 10’ setback from the right of way to the edge of the sign cabinet and the maximum 48 square foot area. The new sign is 118” x 55” for a total of 45 square feet in area. The present distance from the right of way to the edge of the cabinet is 3’. The sign is located too near the Pierson Road right of way. The sign can not be moved away from the Pierson Road right of way because there are utility lines running along Flushing Road and the sign would not have proper clearance to these lines. This application for variance asks permission to allow the new Marathon sign to be placed in the same location as the original, existing TOTAL sign.
Mr. Crannie stated that:
(1) The hardship is particular to this property because the property is a point of land bounded by Flushing Road and Pierson Road. Within this narrow point are located the sign and utility lines. It is the unusual shape of the roads joining each other and the widening of the original road right of way to allow additional lanes that created this condition. This condition does not generally exist throughout the City.
(2) The hardship is more than mere inconvenience due to the proximity of the utility lines running along Flushing Road. These utility lines make it impossible to move the sign toward Flushing Road. Since the sign has been reduced in height to meet the current code requirements for size and would remain in the original location of the existing sign, there is no financial benefit to granting the variance.
(3) Allowing the variance will result in substantial justice because the sign has been brought into compliance in all aspects possible considering the unique presentation of this site. When completed, the sign will comply with the code except that the original non-conforming location will be maintained.
If the variance is not granted, the business will not be able to display its pricing or corporate identity. In the gasoline business, brand recognition and price per gallon are necessary components of doing business. It is just to allow the current business to display the same information as the previous business.
Rights of neighboring businesses will not change as the sign is not changing its location. It is a smaller sign cabinet on the same pole in the same location. There are no abutting properties at the sign location.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Three
The chairperson closed this portion of the public hearing.
Variance – 1413 Flushing Road – Motion by Liversedge, seconded by O’Callaghan, to grant the variance for 1413 Flushing Road based on the information presented. There are some unique circumstances involved, together with the fact that the problem is not self-created
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Variance – 1561 E. Pierson Road – An application was received requesting a five (5) parking space variance from the required one hundred eighty-four (184) parking spaces mandated at this facility, and a variance to allow parking spaces to be reduced in length from the required 10’ x 20’ space requirement to a 10’ x 18’ space requirement. Only perimeter spaces and those adjacent to interior landscaped islands and raised concrete walkways are proposed to be 10’ x 18’.
Section 153.132 of the Zoning Ordinance requires retail stores to have one parking space for each 150 square feet of otherwise usable floor space. Section 153.130(L) states that “The Board of Appeals may waive strict compliance with 153.131 where it is determined that strict compliance with these minimum requirements is not reasonable.”
The chairperson opened the hearing to the public.
James Sporer, Landscape Engineer with CHMP, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. They are in the process of developing the corner of Pierson and Elms Roads with a Rite Aid facility, and revising the existing buildings to the north of the proposed facility. A fifteen (15’) foot greenbelt is required along Elms Road, and due to the fact that the existing greenbelt is only three (3’) feet wide, the parking area must be moved to accommodate the additional twelve (12’) feet of greenbelt. This caused a problem with the number of parking spaces. This results in a reduction of five (5) parking spaces out of the total required. The other variance they are requesting had to do with the depth of parking spaces that are on the perimeter of the site and abut interior landscaped islands or seven (7’) foot wide pedestrian sidewalks. The ordinance requires a twenty (20’) foot depth, however, as a practical matter, when the cars pull in they come to a curb and the car overhangs. They requested that this overhanging condition be over landscaped areas rather than an additional two (2’) foot of pavement. This would create more interior landscape space for ground cover and grass. This also allows pedestrians to immediately get out of their cars onto a sidewalk without interfering with movement on a seven (7’) foot wide walkway.
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Four
Chris Common, 212 Mary Street, questioned when you are talking about the overhang on the grass area, are you making sure that the light posts are way back so you don’t bump into them? Mr. Sporer responded that the posts typically are set back four (4’) feet and they are lined up on a paint strip so that you are parking in between posts. Mr. Common also questioned if the lighting requirements were being adhered to? Mr. Sporer responded that they were.
The chairperson closed this portion of the hearing.
Mr. Kozan stated that he had measured parking spaces at Kessel’s and Bueche’s and that they are all eighteen (18’) feet.
Variance – 1561 E. Pierson Road – Motion by Kozan, seconded by Martus, to approve the requested variances for 1561 E. Pierson Road (5 parking space variance and reduced depth of lots to 18’) based on that strict compliance would make compliance unnecessarily burdensome, the variance would do substantial justice, that the problem requiring the variance is unique, that it is not self-created and the spirit of the ordinance would be observed.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Appeal – 730 E. Main Street – Mr. Chris A. Common, 212 Mary Street filed an application for appeal for 730 East Main Street. He stated in his appeal that “The Special Use Permit and Variances granted to 730 East Main Street are in conflict with the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance and therefore should be repealed.”
Master Plan: p. 1, 5, 28, 34, 35, 56, 69
Zoning Ordinance: 153.002, 153.122(A)(1), (2), (3), (5)
153.053(B)(1)(a), (c)
153.107(K)
153.206
The chairperson opened the hearing to the public.
The following individuals addressed the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the appeal:
Chris Common Nigel Fox Elva Cook
212 Mary Street 733 Fountainview 315 Sunnyside
Jack Sanders Dan Fralick Kelly
Sanders
413 Coutant 812 Thomas 413 Coutant
Flushing Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes
Page Five
Susan Little Rebecca Fox
The chairperson closed this portion of the hearing.
Attorney Henneke stated that under a B-2 zoning, under uses permissible for a Special Use Permit, are: 1) Outdoor sales space for exclusive sale of new and second hand automobiles, mobile homes, or recreational vehicles subject to: lighting, ingress, fence (if necessary) and major repair. This use is within the ordinance. The appeal goes not to whether they violated the type of lights, not whether people complained or didn’t complain – the only purpose of an appeal is to decide whether or not the Planning Commission violated the ordinance by not following the standards pertaining to a special use. In this case, this is the only issue the Board of Appeals should look at. If the other issues don’t go to this, they are extraneous and not relevant. The only thing the Board of Appeals must do is not substitute your judgment for the Planning Commission, but simply make a determination based on what has been presented whether or not the Planning Commission failed to follow the standards set forth in the ordinance. Those standards are set forth in Ordinance 153.122(A).
Appeal – 730 E. Main Street – Motion by O’Callaghan, seconded by Kozan, that due to the fact that no evidence has been presented that shows the Planning Commission did not follow standards as set forth in the ordinance, the appeal be denied.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
(Mr. Chris Common submitted the attached notes to the Board.)
Adjourn – Motion by Kozan, seconded by Martus, to adjourn.
Yea: Kozan, Liversedge, Martus, O’Callaghan, Kehoe
Nay: None
Motion Carried.
Adjourn: 9:15 p.m.
_____________________________
Nancy G. Parks, City Clerk/Treasurer