WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
June 9, 2008

The Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on June 9, 2008 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center.  Members of the Board present were Mr. Horine, Mrs. Fischer, Mrs. Fish, Mr. Schwartz and Mrs. Gastineau (alternate).  Mrs. Mulligan was excused.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Horine explained the hearing format and voting procedure.

The Oath was administered by Mr. Horine.

MOTION – Mrs. Fish moved the minutes of May 12, 2008 be approved as submitted.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, abstain; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes; Mrs. Gastineau, abstain.

Case A-1540 – Chris & Katie Levens, 6487 Marshall Road

Request is for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from the required fifty feet (50’) to thirty-six feet (36’) to allow for a garage addition to a single family residence located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart, Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.

Mrs. Gastineau – Asked if the existing shed will remain.
Mr. Ehrhart – Yes.  The shed is shown on the site plan.

Applicant represented by Katie Levens, 5487 Marshall Road.  Mrs. Levens addressed the Board and stated that back in 1957 when the development was established, there were variances that were granted for other lots; some setbacks as little as 35’.  They would like to have a two-car garage and mud room with the washer and dryer out of the basement.  The building materials they will use are actual brick from a previous wall.

Mrs. Fish – Asked if the shed will stay after the garage is built?
Mrs. Levens – There is no reason to remove the shed.  It is a 10’ x 10’ shed.

Mr. Horine – When was the conversion of the garage into living space?
Mrs. Levens – Approximately 2 ½ to 3 years ago.  The accessory structure in the presentation is larger than the house.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:

Mark South, 5546 Durwood – Objects to the variance.  Their driveway would be into the back of their house and he does not want it any closer.  The lights shine into his yard.  Stated that it is going to be difficult to turn into the new garage.  Suggested bringing out the garage to face Marshall Road maybe as an accessory structure in the back yard.
Mr. Ehrhart – Clarified the setback requirements for an accessory structure.

Peter Mushovic, 5471 Marshall Road – Lives next door to applicant.  Indicated that the fence should screen the light from the back property.  Feels that the addition will improve the property for the owner as well as the overall neighborhood.  Mr. Mushovic has no opposition to the variance.  There are several homes in the area with 36’ setbacks with no serious issues.  Feels 36’ is an adequate setback.

Stephanie Wilbanks, 5503 Marshall Road – Stated her house was the first built in the development and the house is still on a septic system.  Would like assurance that there will be no problems with continuing to use that.  The public sewer is located along the back of the property and she want to make sure that she would still have access to that.
Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated that you can’t build on an existing easement, so there should not be a problem.

Chris Levens, 5487 Marshall Road – Understands the concerns of Mr. South.  Even if they were to build an accessory structure, they would still do a single car garage on the house so that would not solve the problem.  They would rather not do it that way.  It would chop up the lot and not be aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Horine – What about a solid screen for the light issue.  It would only be a small area between the shed and the addition where the lights would shine through.  You probably could/would put a fence or evergreen screen in that gap area.
Mrs. Levens – Stated there is a detached building on the Durwood property that also generates noise.

Public hearing closed.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:

Mrs. Fish – The proposed plan would look better than other options; better aesthetics, function for the household, existing setbacks on the other lots.

Mrs. Fischer – Stated that the variance is substantial.

Mr. Horine – Feels the owner created a hardship by converting the existing garage.  Suggested the applicant build a smaller addition to make the variance less substantial

Mr. Schwartz – Could build a detached in the back half of the yard.

Mrs. Fischer – Stated that there are other solutions but they have to consider the practicality.

Mr. Horine – Suggested placing a condition for screening for the light issue.

Mr. Schwartz – Likes the idea of a fence between the garage and the shed.

Hearing closed.

Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1540 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from the required fifty feet (50’) to thirty-six feet (36’) to allow for an addition to a single family residence located in a Residential (R-4) zoning district, subject to:  1) the applicant to provide screening/fence of six feet (6’) in height at the end of the newly proposed driveway and any other modifications requested by staff to fulfill the intent.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fish.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes; Mrs. Gastineau, yes.

Case A-1540 approved with modification.

Case A-1541 – Alex Moore, 9791 Paragon Road

Request is for a variance to decrease the distance from the property line for structures housing farm animals from the required one hundred feet (100’) to ninety-two feet (92’) on property located in an Agricultural (A) zoning district.

Jo Postle, Development Services Director, presented the case.

Mrs. Fischer – Asked why applicant did not come back and ask for a new location for the barn.
Mrs. Postle – Stated there were site considerations that the applicant has stated which is the reason for the move.  Why they did not come back and seek approval, you will have to ask the applicant.

Applicant represented by Alex Moore, 9791 Paragon Road.  Mr. Moore explained why the barn “jumped” around the site.  The pond to the south drains through the area we wanted to put the barn.  Once the decision was made to move it up towards the house there was a tree line that was in the way.  The decision was made to save the tree line and move the shed over.

Mrs. Fish – What type of animals will be housed in the barn.
Mr. Moore – Nothing specific.

Mrs. Fischer – Is there a reason why the location had changed and you did not come back?
Mr. Moore – There was miscommunication between the contractor and the applicant.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:

Jack Case, 715 Yankee Trace Drive – Stated that the issue is with what goes inside the barn.  The area is residential, not farm.  Depending on what kind of livestock is going in there, there is a potential impact on property values.  Information was received from the City of Centerville regarding pigmy goats, so maybe that is what is being considered by the applicant.
Mr. Ehrhart – We can control the placement of the farm animals but not whether they can be there.   The distance addresses the structure location and the pen area.  We need to remember that any livestock can be located in the barn so it cannot be approved based on a particular animal.

Mrs. Fischer – When they decide on the penned area, we also need to look at that.

Mr. Moore – Stated that the animals would be housed a minimum of eight feet (8’) from the south wall of the barn.

Public hearing closed.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:  None.

Hearing closed.

Motion – Mr. Schwartz moved in Case A-1541 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to decrease the distance from the property line for structures housing farm animals from the required one hundred feet (100’) to ninety-two feet (92’) on property located in an Agricultural (A) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Gastineau.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Fischer, no; Mrs. Fish, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes; Mrs. Gastineau, yes.

Case A-1541 approved.

Case A-1542 – McDonald’s Restaurant, 1570 Miamisburg-Centerville Road

Request is for 1) variances to allow for commercial activity to occur outside of the building (outdoor patio); 2) a variance to increase the height of wall signs from the required fourteen feet (14’) I maximum height to eighteen feet three inches (18’3”); and 3) conditional use approval for three (3) additional menu boards.  This property is located in a Business (B-2) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart, Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.  Mr. Ehrhart mentioned that applicant had a previous case for the use of “Quick Brick” materials.  The full submittal for a zoning certification included signage so that is why this variance is before the Board.  Applicant is constructing a total rebuild of the building with two (2) drive-thru lanes.  The existing parking is to remain.  The variances requested include the sign height, outdoor seating and conditional use approval for additional menu boards.

Mr. Horine – Are the menu boards larger than typical?
Mr. Ehrhart – They are larger than many but not much larger than what is there now.

Mr. Ehrhart explained the double drive-thru lanes to include two (2) preview display boards and two (2) menu boards.  Mr. Ehrhart explained the preview boards.

The outdoor seating is just seating and no ordering or food “delivery” with 16 seats total.  There does not appear to be any fencing or enclosure associated with the outdoor seating.

The requested height of wall signs is 18’3” resulting in a 4’3” variance.  Applicant has variances granted for height based on the canopy design similar to this proposal.

Mr. Horine – What is the height of the letters at 18’3”?
Mr. Ehrhart – Looks like a 15’ height if they are moved down to the building band.  The existing building including signage went through the Review Board.

Applicant represented by Char Sullivan, 2 Easton Oval, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio.  Ms. Sullivan addressed the Board and indicated that the menu boards are enclosed in brick, and the new sign is 9” wider and taller.  She stated that the new building proposed will be a great renovation.  The height of the existing sign is about the same as the proposed sign.

Ms. Sullivan addressed the double drive-thru concept which will serve more customers.  Customers served are at an estimated increase of 4% to 8% with double drive-thru lanes.

Mr. Schwartz – How tall is the privacy fence on the patio?
Ms. Sullivan – Checked the plans and stated that the fence is 3’ black aluminum.
Mr. Horine – Stated it is a nice fence but feels it could maybe be closed off with a gate to keep customers and the trash contained.
Ms. Sullivan – Will consult with the architect to maintain accessibility issues.

Mr. Schwartz – Where are the doors to the patio?
Mr. Ehrhart – They are located on the sides of the building.

Ms. Sullivan – Stated that the height of the sign is needed in conjunction with the trellis area.
Mr. Horine – Suggested that the awnings be fastened into the brick/stone so the sign could be moved onto the stone and then maybe remove the awnings to provide more space for the sign.
Ms. Sullivan – Mentioned that the wall height was raised to screen the roof mechanicals.

Debbie Wright, McDonald’s Local Manager, 1570 Miamisburg-Centerville Road – Stated that currently cars back up out onto the street.  The double drive-thru would address this problem.  The order process takes the longest so to have two ordering points will mediate the situation.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:  None.

Public hearing closed.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:

Mr. Schwartz – Questioned about fencing the patio area.
Mr. Horine – Feels that this would be a good idea.
Mrs. Gastineau – Stated that the fence doesn’t necessarily need a gate, but likes the idea of a fence.

Mr. Horine – Sees the need for the additional menu boards with the double drive thru lanes.  However, Mr. Horine does not like the height of the signs.  Feels that 15’ would be more appropriate than 18’3”.

Hearing closed.

Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1542 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to allow for commercial activity to occur outside of the building (outdoor patio) on property located in a Business (B-2) zoning district, subject to: 1) the fence to enclose the patio with access opening to meet ADA requirements.

Motion seconded by Mr. Schwartz.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes; Mrs. Gastineau, approved.

Case A-1542 approved with modifications in reference to the outdoor seating.

Ms. Sullivan – Addressed the Board and stated that they are willing to drop the request for 2 preview boards.

Motion – Mrs. Fish moved in Case A-1542 to approve applicant’s request for conditional use approval for one (1) additional menu board on property located in a Business (B-2) zoning district, subject to:  1) the size of the menu board as shown on the drawing.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mrs. Fish, yes; Mr. Schwartz, yes; Mrs. Gastineau, yes.

Case A-1542 approved with modifications in reference to conditional use approval for one (1) additional menu boards.

Mr. Horine – Has a concern that the architecture is dictating the sign height without taking sign restrictions into consideration.  Would like to see applicant try to get closer to the 14’.

Mrs. Fish – Maybe ask the applicant to consider options discussed and as a result be willing to consider tabling.

Mr. Ehrhart – Stated it would be appropriate to table with specific direction about options to explore or if additional information is needed.

Mr. Horine – Does not want to make applicant come back.  Maybe the Board can give them an approved height to work from.

Motion – Mr. Schwartz moved in Case A-1542 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to increase the height of wall signs from the required fourteen feet (14’) in maximum height to eighteen feet three inches (18’3”) on property located in a Business (B-2) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fischer.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, no; Mrs. Fischer, no; Mrs. Fish, no; Mr. Schwartz, no; Mrs. Gastineau, no.

Case A-1542 denied in reference to the wall signs.

Mr. Ehrhart – Explained to applicant that resubmittal would need to be substantial.

Case A-1543 – Cubby Hole, 8011 McEwen Road

Request is for a variance to allow commercial activity to take place outside of the building (outdoor seating) on property located in a Business (B-2) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart, Zoning & GIS Manager, indicated that applicant has requested this case be tabled until the next meeting.

Case A-1543 tabled.

Case A-1544 – Four Seasons Car Wash, 8311 Yankee Street

Request is for a variance to allow for the height of a wall sign to be increased from the maximum of fourteen feet (14’) in overall height to sixteen feet (16’) on property located in a Business (B-2) zoning district.

Jo Postle, Development Services Director, presented the case.

Applicant represented by Jane Fiehrer, Sign Connection, 90 Compark Drive.  Ms. Fiehrer addressed the Board and stated that they have tried many options to get the sign on the building at 14’ and have not been able to do so.  There is an elevation drop on the road from SR725.  The brick part of the building is not visible so they would like to put the sign on the siding.  The sign would be at 16’ on the building, but from the driveway the sign will be at 14’ because of the view from SR725.  The drop is 2’ from the Arby’s parking lot.  There is no room for a ground sign.  It is important to have visibility from SR725 since competition is there.  Although there are two different services, customers just need to know where Four Seasons is located.

Mr. Horine – Is the logo even with the top of the letters?
Ms. Fiehrer – Yes, the logo is actually a little smaller.  The words “Car Wash” is at the 14’ heights.

Mrs. Gastineau – What is the color of the letters?
Ms. Fiehrer – “Car Wash” is a different color than the “Four Seasons”.

Mr. Horine – What about moving “Four Seasons” to the next wall?
Ms. Fiehrer – It would not be visible from the street.
Mr. Horine – Is the elevation change depicted accurately?
Mr. Ehrhart – Yes, staff agrees.
Peter Botshon, 8555 Eagle Ridge, Springboro – Is the owner of the car wash.  He had his builder laser shoot from Arby’s and the 14’ sign height hit the car wash building at 17’.  This height would provide continuity.  Indicated he puts forth a lot of effort into making a nice building and would be disappointed if the sign did not get approval.
Ms. Fiehrer – Stated that the options at 14’ compete with the architectural details and ruin the look of the building.  The doors needed to be 10’ to get the equipment installed.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:  None.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:

Mr. Horine – Questioned the signs at County Inn & Suites.
Mrs. Fish – Stated that they did grant a variance for less than requested and a smaller sign.  Indicated that there is also an issue regarding people needing to locate businesses from the interstate.

Mrs. Fischer – Questioned if 14’ to 16’ is substantial?
Mr. Horine – Yes, it is substantial; however, the elevation issue has been identified in the previous cases.

Hearing closed.

Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1544 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to allow for the height of a wall sign to be increased from the maximum of fourteen feet (14’) in overall height to sixteen feet (16’) on property located in a Business (B-2) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Gastineau.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, yes; Mrs. Fischer, yes; Mrs. Fish, no; Mr. Schwartz, yes; Mrs. Gastineau, no.

Mr. Horine – Stated that the change of elevation is apparent and relief is provided to other cases in the past.

Case A-1544 approved.

Case A-1545 – Champps Restaurant, 7880 Washington Village Drive

Request is for a variance to allow for the height of a wall sign to be increased from the maximum of fourteen feet (14’) in overall height to seventeen and one half feet (17 ½’) on property located in a Planned Development Business (PD-B) zoning district.
 
Andy Ehrhart, Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case.

Applicant represented by Jane Fiehrer, Sign Connection, 90 Compark Road.  Ms. Fiehrer stated that a Cleveland company applied for signs and received approval.  The installation instructions were to install the sign at 14’.  There was damage from a previous fire so the installer asked the restaurant manager if the sign could be installed higher.  The manager gave the approval and the sign was installed.  According to the installer, there was a lot of wiring inside the wall and transformers need ventilation.  She stated that they need to be cautious about installing the sign where it was due to structural circumstances.  If the sign were installed at 14’, it may catch fire again.

Mr. Horine – What about installing another sign at 14’?
Ms. Fiehrer – The sign could be different in structure.

Mrs. Fischer – Indicated that the fire department says any new sign could not be energized without approval by the Montgomery County Building Regulations.  The wiring issue is serious.

Mrs. Fish – Maybe it should be repaired and reconfigured at the 14’ height.  The fire report says any “UL” approved sign fixture can be installed at any height and installed in compliance with the building code and not catch on fire.

Mr. Horine – Sounds like it should be re-installed at 14’ and the fire damage issues addressed.

Citizens voicing concerns, question and comments included:  None.

Board remarks, concerns, and questions included:  None.

Hearing closed.

Motion – Mrs. Fischer moved in Case A-1545 to approve applicant’s request for a variance to allow for the height of a wall sign to be increased from the maximum of fourteen feet (14’) in overall height to seventeen and one half feet (17 ½’) on property located in a Planned Development Business (PD-B) zoning district.

Motion seconded by Mr. Schwartz.

VOTE - Mr. Horine, no; Mrs. Fischer, no; Mrs. Fish, no; Mr. Schwartz, no; Mrs. Gastineau, no.

Case A-1545 denied.

In other business:

The Rules and Procedure information is being collected and working on a draft to be presented in the next month or so.

Cases for next month include The Cubby Hole and an administrative appeal.

Meeting adjourned.  A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning office.

Dan Horine, Chairman
Washington Township Board of Zoning Appeals