DRAFT
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
October 9, 2003
CALL TO
ORDER:
Cherry Linder, Chairman
ROLL CALL:
James Rinehart, Cherry Linder,
Robert Bender, Mark Pyles, and Alt. Brian Leary were present. Pat Cain was
absent. Also present was Attorney Doug Miller.
MINUTES:
Minutes Board of Zoning
Appeals, September
11th, 200
Discussion &
There was discussion and changes made to the minutes as follows: Page 1 in
Recommendation
the last sentence change the” #3” to “#2.” On Page 3 in the second
paragraph change the word “lineal” to “square.” On Page 4 in the second
paragraph reverse the words “does” and “this.” In the last paragraph
Cherry Linder corrected the statement that “Tim gave her another book.”
She said it should be “Tim took away her book.”
Motion
There was a motion by Mark Pyles to approve the minutes from
September 11th,
2003 with 4 noted changes. There was a second _by
Cherry Linder.
Roll Call Mark Pyles-yes, James Rinehart-yes, Cherry Linder-yes, Robert
Bender-abstained
Cherry Linder
Swearing in of those
who will be giving testimony.
CASE
2003-576
8927 Columbia Road, Sign Variance 1st National Bank
Staff
Presentation
Mayank Kumar explained the
location of the proposed sign and the future right of way location of Montgomery
Road when ODOT decides to widen it,
which is called the Montgomery Road Expansion Plan. He
showed maps and photos of the site. He showed the comparisons between what
is allowed and what is proposed. He pointed out another nonconforming sign
nearby. Robert Bender asked if the neighboring sign is relevant to this
discussion tonight. Tim said Mayank is trying to display the intensity and
what is the nonconformance of the property as a whole. Mr. Bender said he
didn’t see how they are linked.
Cherry Linder said she likes to know all these things about the property.
Tim Hershner asked Doug Miller if this is appropriate. Attorney Doug
Miller said this discussion is not particularly relevant to the sign issue but
explaining everything about the property is allowed. There is a smaller
sign on the bottom of the larger one which says “ATM Drive Through” and the
staff recommends that be removed. Mr. Kumar said in the event the board
chooses to approve this variance there are 7 conditions.
Board
Questions
Mark Pyles asked about the
rationale of Condition #6 which says, “Limit ingress/egress to “enter only”
along Montgomery Road and north access on
Columbia Road with “exit only”
at south access on Columbia Road. Robert
Bender and Mark Pyles agreed
with this suggestion for safety reasons. Doug Miller asked if they could
tear down their old sign and rebuild a new sign which would be in compliance
with the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution, could it still be allowed to sit
in the ODOT right of way? Tim pointed out where the sign could be removed
permanently and not have to be moved when ODOT comes through. It could
stay and be on the edge of their parking lot. Tim explained what
Mayank represented on his display as right of way and future right of way.
Doug Miller said when ODOT comes through there, if there is a validly existing
sign, they have to pay for that and actually the township may be the one paying
for some of those road improvements. You’ve got to buy the right of
way and if you have a validly existing sign, there is a cost that is assessed to
that and you have to pay the cost of that sign. So if you allow them to
have a sign there, you may well be setting someone else up to have to pay to
have that sign taken down in 5 years. Now we do have the language in here
that says it’s only good for 5 years, and it comes along, but there may well be
an argument that you can’t give a “temporary variance”, once you give a
variance, it’s a variance. If the applicant is willing to concede that yes
we’ll take it down and we won’t charge anybody for it when ODOT comes along in 5
years, that’s one thing but with not, somebody may end up paying for that sign 5
years from now or 3 years from now or whenever it comes through. Doug
said, that’s the point that I am trying to make. If they could move the
sign and be compliant and ODOT is still going to take it in 5 years then I don’t
know that it makes any difference. That’s why I am trying to find out if
they build the sign, compliant with our code today and ODOT is still going to
have to take that sign, then you may as well let them put it there because
somebody is going to have to pay for it in the future anyway. Tim said
they need to drop the sign down to 6 feet maximum height. Tim said the
sign would have to be pulled back and still have 10 feet on either side before
you hit the property line. It needs to be pulled back to right where the
front of the parking lot is on order to comply. Doug Miller said they
could comply with our zoning and ODOT would still need to take the sign when
they come through. Tim said I don’t think they would have to take the sign
if it is put by the curb on the parking lot. Doug said he represented
another community which had to pay $60,000 to take a sign down.Jim Rinehart said
if they move it back now where would it be in order to comply. Mayank said 15
feet setback is required for the sign structure as it is more than 6 feet in
height or the height of the signage structure shall be lowered to 6 feet for
10 feet setback and then it would have to be right in the
front where the parking lot is.
Proponent
Paul Herdman, Lawyer, Chairman of the Board for 1st National Bank,
730 Main Street,
Lebanon, OH
45036, said he was concerned about the landscaping. He quoted Chapter 21
Section 21.02 and said the township cannot make him do anything. He said he will
make it look nice. He gave the history of the sign and said that it was
installed in 1977 by the 1st Mason Bank when the building was built.
Mr. Herdman said he bought the bank from Joe Thompson. He said the
sign has constantly been in use by banks since then. He said yes they will
give the sign to the State of Ohio but not the land. ODOT will have to purchase the land.
He said the ATM was moved from the front of the bank where it was a walk up ATM
and put it in the back to become a drive through ATM. Mr. Herdman said if
this board says “no” he will just leave the sign sit there. He said they
recently put up a $15,000 sign on
Mason Montgomery Road for their
other new bank. Cherry Linder asked the board for any questions.
Robert Bender asked Mr. Herdman, if you know in a couple
years that you must replace that sign, and you know it is not in compliance now,
why don’t you take the ODOT plans and the township code, and put a sign in now
that will be in compliance when the road is widened. Why go through this
twice or even 3 times maybe? Mr. Herdman said he wants to get the bank opened up
and
time is the problem. He said things don’t go fast when you try to
get permits. He said the sign for the new bank in Mason took 5 months.
Jim Rinehart asked
him what is the answer to Bob’s question. Mr. Herdman
said
time is the answer. Robert Bender asked him why he doesn’t want to
come into compliance now. Mr. Herdman again said time. Mr.
Herdman said ODOT changes their plans constantly. Brian Leary asked him
about ownership of the sign. Mr. Herdman said the sign is not that costly
but moving it would be.
Cherry Linder asked for
public comments. There were none so she closed the open portion of the
case.
Discussion /
Cherry Linder cautioned the
board to not be concerned with the future and
Recommendation
not to make decisions on what
or what may not happen in the future. Robert Bender said you do
have to have some vision on what could happen in the future. Robert Bender
said if a variance is granted and they later want a new sign, can we put in
writing that they must comply. Doug Miller said that you can’t tie the
hands of a future board and not allow a variance. Doug Miller said if you
know something is coming like road widening, it is good to prepare for it.
Robert Bender said our goal is to have everybody in compliance. Brian
Leary said there was a suggestion to take some lettering off the sign about the
ATM. That way it would reduce some of the square footage. Mr.
Herdman said they would agree to do that. Cherry Linder told Mr. Herdman
he is not allowed to talk at this time. Mr. Herdman said now he will leave
the ATM sign on there. Jim Rinehart told Mr. Herdman that he is threatening this board and is being
antagonistic. Mr. Herdman said this board can’t make him take his sign
down. Mr. Herdman said he will follow the law and he will see that the
zoning board follows the law.
Cherry Linder explained to Mr. Herdman the way the meeting is organized.
Doug Miller asked the board to look at the Resolution that he has prepared for
this case. Cherry Linder said that on #2 if we ask them to reduce the sign
can he use the old sign. Mayank said the minimum height that can be
achieved using existing signage structure is 6 feet and 2 inches. Brian
Leary said the 3 faces of the old sign make the square footage too large.
Brian asked Mayank if the old sign is in compliance and Mayank said it is not.
Mayank said for 6 feet high sign you need a 10 feet setback. Mayank
there is currently no wall sign.
Motion
There was a motion by Robert Bender to deny Case 2003-576, the request
for a sign variance at
8927 Columbia Road. There was a 2nd_by James
Rinehart.
Roll Call Mark Pyles-no, Brian Leary-no, James
Rinehart-yes,
Cherry Linder-yes, and
Robert Bender-yes
The motion to deny was approved.
CASE
2003-583
9942 Kings Automall Drive, Sign Variance Borcherding
Staff
Presentation
Mayank Kumar pointed out on the
map the location of the signs. He showed the old signs and the proposed
signs. Brian Leary asked about the ground mounted sign. Mayank said
that the ground mounted Borcherding sign is not on this property. That
sign is on the Automall property. Mayank said that each tenant is allowed
1 wall sign, and 1 ground mounted sign, 2 per occupant. The applicant is
proposing 5 signs. In the event this board chooses to approve this case
there are 3 conditions. Cherry Linder said she didn’t think we should be
discussing the ground mounted sign since it is not on the above referenced
property. Ms. Linder asked Doug Miller if the board can talk about the
ground mounted sign if it is not on the same parcel as the other signs.
Doug said this board can consider this since it is part of this application.
Mayank said this should be considered as an outdoor advertising sign according
to code definitions.. Cherry Linder asked the proponent to come forward.
Proponent
Mark Begley,
9737 Kings Automall Road,
Cincinnati,
OH
45249,
said this site was formerly a Michel Tire Store. He said he went to
Warren County for two
days in order to learn how and when all these signs were put there. Mr.
Begley said they want to put a sign with less square footage than what was there
before and get these signs up. Mr. Begley said he looked but found no
records or documents regarding the property where the ground mounted sign is
located. Mr. Begley said they installed some locust trees which were
suggested by Mr. Hershner. Ms. Linder asked him about the documents.
Mr. Begley said he found nothing at the county regarding this area where the
ground mounted sign is located. Mr. Hershner asked Mr. Begley if that is
an easement. Tim said the short history is that Michel’s store was not
part of the Automall. There were no public comments. Ms. Linder
closed this portion of the meeting.
Board Discussion /
Mark Pyles said having
“Borcherding Collision Center” on the ground mounted
Recommendation
and then having the “Collision
Center” where the Subaru sign currently is, seems a little overkill to him.
Mr. Pyles said if he had his way, he would eliminate that particular wall sign
and put the “E” up there, put the ground mounted sign back, get the easement and
have a total of 4 signs, 3 wall signs and 1 ground mounted sign which would
still give each occupant the allotted 2 signs. Mr. Pyles said
Enterprise
is just getting one sign. He said having the collision center on the
building next to the Enterprise
sign in addition to the ground mounted sign that says “Borcherding Collision
Center” is too much. Ms. Linder asked Mayank to clarify. Mayank said
technically they are allowed to have 4 signs which will include 2 ground mounted
signs and 2 wall signs. Jim Rinehart said it looks good the way they are
proposing. Robert Bender said it looks good, the square footage is good.
Ms. Linder asked the proponent to come back. Mark Begley said there is
hardware sticking out on the side of the building and that is another reason for
the location.
Motion
There was a motion by Robert Bender to approve Case 2003-583, with the
Resolution prepared by legal counsel including 3 staff
recommendations.
There was a 2nd by Mark Pyles.
Doug Miller asked the board if
they plan to include Condition #1 concerning the copy of the easement of record.
There was discussion. Mr. Miller agreed to make appropriate changes to
Condition #1 for the Resolution.
Roll Call Robert Bender-yes, Mark Pyles-yes,
Brian Leary-yes, James Rinehart-yes, and
Cherry Linder-yes
The motion was approved.
CASE 2003-584
Pool / Clubhouse, Chestnut Hill Subdivision
Staff Presentation
Mayank Kumar displayed the
location of the proposed building, pool, playground, baby pool, and fire
pavilion. There are pedestrian paths shown and 14 parking spaces are
shown. There is no means of security shown after the day-time use of the
facility. If this board decides to approve this plan there are 6 staff
conditions. Cherry Linder asked the board if there were questions.
SECURITY - Robert Bender asked about Condition #4, “Address
the issue of security of the facility after the day-time use.” Mr. Bender
asked is there a concern that the pool is not gated? Mr. Bender said he
lived next door to a pool for a few years, and when someone purchases a house
near this facility, they should realize that there will be activity there and
some noise. Mr. Bender said
the neighbors usually take care
of any noise or problems. Mayank addressed
this issue as a part of urban
design and said if surrounding single family homes
can be oriented so that
residents act as observant of the facility.
PARKING - Brian Leary asked if there was a certain number of
parking spaces required at the pool. Tim Hershner said that in the past we
have not allowed off-street parking. Mayank said most people going to the pool
would be walking so it is difficult to estimate the number of parking spaces
needed. Also there is no specific formula in the code to calculate the
number of parking spaces for such a facility.
LOADING SPACE - Mark Pyles asked Mayank about the lack of a
designated loading space and the requirement for one. Mr. Pyles said a
designated space could be used for chlorine delivery and other supplies.
Ms. Linder asked for the proponent to come forward.
Proponent
Jim Kiefer, Great Traditions Development Group, 3650 Park 42 Drive,
Sharonville,
OH,
said this plan was approved by the Warren County Planning Commission.
The sidewalks will connect to walking paths within the 50 acre
Deerfield Township Park.
He said the trees that are shown will remain. Mr. Kiefer said there is a
HOA. Regarding security, there will be a fence around the pool and the
residents have a card which gives them access to the pool and that area.
Robert Bender asked Mr. Kiefer about the off street loading space and how they
would comply. Mr. Kiefer said he wasn’t sure what the loading space was
for. Mr. Hershner said it would be for supplies, chlorine, etc.
Cherry Linder asked if it is just a matter of painting a space on the asphalt
for loading. Mr. Kiefer said the turn around area would be designated for
loading on the plan. Mark Pyles asked Mr. Kiefer if he could comply with
the conditions. Mr. Kiefer said there would be no problem for them to comply
with the conditions. Doug Miller said on the 6 staff conditions that
Condition #4 should be deleted and on Condition #3 “Gatehouse and other” should
be deleted. Cherry Linder closed the open portion of the case.
Motion
There was a motion by Brian Leary to approve Case 2003-584 with the 6
conditions from the Staff, modifying #3 and deleting #4.
There was a
2nd_by Robert Bender.
Roll Call
Cherry Linder-yes,
Robert Bender-yes, Mark Pyles-yes, Brian Leary-yes, and James Rinehart-yes
The motion was approved.
OLD BUSINESS
CASE 2003-392
Bardes Rd & Wilkens Blvd, Family entertainment center, Memory
Lanes, Site Plan Review
Staff Presentation
Mayank Kumar described the
proposed 36,500 square feet building. There are 16 non-smoking bowling
lanes and 14 bowling lanes with smoke eaters planned. Also there are four
bar areas, a dining area, billiards, private party rooms, and meeting rooms
planned for this family entertainment center. Mayank said there have been
comments sent to us from Warren County Water & Soil Conservation, Warren County
Regional Planning, Deerfield Township Fire Rescue, Warren County Engineers, and
the Warren County Water & Sewer Department. Mayank said they are not in
compliance with the number of parking spaces, size of parking spaces, loading
space, and interior landscaping for parking lot. Mayank said if this board
decides to approve this case, there are 9 Staff Conditions that must be adhered
to. Cherry Linder asked the board for questions.
Board Questions
Robert Bender asked about pylon
signs. Mayank said that Warren County discouraged pylon signs for this
site in their comments. Robert Bender asked about Condition #9 regarding
sidewalks and whether there are sidewalks near to warrant this recommendation.
Tim Hershner said there are sidewalks nearby on Wilkens Boulevard. Mr.
Bender asked if the applicant must come back here on lighting. Mr.
Hershner said no they do not come back but Condition #8 suggests the down
directional maximum 24 feet high poles. Mr. Hershner said on signage they
must come back to this board and with Light Manufacturing zoning they could have
a 100 square feet sign but since they are surrounded by General Business
Zoning 150 square feet could be considered.
Parking – Tim Hershner said on Condition #1 we ask that there
not be any off street parking. There are 210 parking spaces on their plan.
Cherry Linder said if we
correctly calculate the number of square feet for the building there
should be 365 spaces and the 210 spaces is very minimal. Bob Bender asked
if the DTFR sets an occupancy amount.. Tim said the Warren County Building
Department and the DTFR sets that number. Mark Pyles asked Mayank
how do they calculate the number of parking spaces. Mayank said the
parking spaces number is based on commercial use, zoning of the property, and
the size of the building.
Signage - Mark Pyles asked if the code allows for a
pylon sign. Per Mayank, the code allows for 1 wall sign and 1 ground
mounted sign. Robert Bender asked Mayank if there is a need for
directional signs and Mayank said no.
Cherry Linder asked about the calculations of the square feet and told Mayank
that it was good that he didn’t include the bowling lanes in some of the
calculations for parking spaces. Cherry Linder reminded the board that if
the total square footage was included many more parking spaces would be
required.
Traffic - Mark Pyles asked who is responsible for the traffic issues, what time
of day cars are leaving, traffic congestion, etc. Mayank said the Warren
County Engineers will review that.
Proponent
Tim Cassidy,
5907 Keystone Court,
Liberty Township, said they are planning a family entertainment center.
Mr. Cassidy said on the sign, it doesn’t have to be a big sign on the door.
They will comply. On the parking, bowling alleys don’t always have 4
people per lane using the facility. Dan Neyer, 10335 Southland
Drive, Cincinnati, said he feels the parking will be adequate since the
lanes will not have 4 per lane. Mr. Neyer said if you average 3 people per
lane, there will be plenty of parking. He said 3 persons per lane
will take 120 spaces and there will be parking left for other activities.
Mr. Neyer said he agrees with Condition #1 that there will be no off street
parking. He said on the signage they will work with the township to get
the signage in compliance. Mr. Neyer said the plan Mayank reviewed for
landscaping was not the final plan. He said they will have landscaping and
mounding which will help with the noise problem. There was discussion on
each of the proposed 9 Conditions. #1 On the parking, Mr. Cassidy said if
parking becomes a problem they could restrict the use by closing some of the
lanes. Mr. Cassidy said if 250 spaces are mandatory they could reduce the
footprint of the building. #2 They could comply. #3 The loading zone
could be designated for a certain area which Mr. Cassidy pointed out.
#4 Mr. Cassidy said they would submit a landscaping plan. #5
They will comply. #6 On signage they will comply. #7 They will
comply. #8 They will comply. #9 They will comply.
#10 “Developer shall submit additional plans to be reviewed by the board
to deal with any potential noise considerations on surrounding properties.”
There was more discussion on the signage.
Cherry Linder asked if there were any public in attendance would like to come
forward and give their opinion.
Public Comments
Bob Beck 4981 Bridge Lane, Deerfield Township,
said his company is in the process of engineering for an adjoining site which is
a 28 acres parcel currently owned by Ken Natorp. His company is planning
low density residential condos in the $285,000 to $380,00 price range. Mr.
Beck was concerned about the sound which could possibly be generated by the
outdoor volley ball games. He is asking that there be no outdoor activity.
He is concerned that this could hurt the sale or resale of these condos.
Mayank quoted a condition regarding noise on this property which was agreed upon
at the first review of this plan from this board. Robert Bender asked Mr.
Bender what is the current zoning of this property. Mr. Beck said it is
currently zoned General Business and Office Warehouse PUD. Mr. Beck said
due to a large gulley on the property it would not be suitable for O-W or G-B.
Robert Bender asked Mr. Beck why he would want to put residential in this area.
Mr. Beck said there is a demand for condos. Robert Bender said if people
purchase a condo here, that is their decision to move there but noise may come
with this type of zoning.
Chuck Thornton, Attorney Becklebe, Ltd.
8534 East Kemper Road, Cinti.,
said he is concerned about the Red Roof Inn which is located near the planned
Memory Lanes, and the possible noise. Mr. Thornton said he is also
concerned about possible overflow parking from there. He asked for
mounding and dense landscaping. He said he wants Memory Lanes to not
affect this property. Robert Bender asked if there could be a better
configuration of the proposed development to help this hotel. Mr. Thornton
said there are 112 hotel rooms and was concerned about the possible noise and
lighting from the development. He said a 50 foot noise buffer will not be
enough to help with the problem.
Bob Krumdeck, 6257 Springdale Road, Cincinnati, said he owns the
Wildcat Storage facility. Mr. Krumdeck said there will already be noise
coming from the Wilkens Boulevard. He said the noise from this proposal
would not be a problem. The proposal shouldn’t produce any more noise than
Home Depot and
Wilkens Boulevard.
He said this will not be the problem they think it will be.
Mr. Cassidy said he doesn’t want to offend his neighbors and he said this
development should help the sewer system for the whole area there. Mr.
Cassidy said the swimming pool at the hotel generates some noise. Mr.
Cassidy said he would like to work with the hotel and have bowling tournaments
and promote those patrons staying at the hotel. Brian Leary suggested
moving the proposed building to help with the noise problem. There was
some discussion on the location of the volley ball courts. Tim Hershner
asked Doug if there is some type of legal language to cover the control of the
noise. Doug Miller said there are complaints about Tabby’s Restaurant
volley ball and the music coming from the open door. Cherry Linder closed
this portion of the meeting.
Board
Discussion
Cherry Linder said this case reminds her of the St. Margaret of York case and
the way this board was able to
work with them and get the noise located so it doesn’t bother the surrounding
residents. She said the board should not allow the outside activities.
Jim Rinehart said this could cause a hardship on both parties, The Red Roof Inn,
and Memory Lanes. Mr. Rinehart said maybe they could meet and try to work
something out. Brian Leary said these 2 parties could meet and try to get
a plan which would accommodate both. Robert Bender asked them when they
plan to get started on the project. Mr. Cassidy said that they need to
start ASAP to be able to open next July. Mr. Cassidy said we need to
separate the building issue and the volley ball issue. Doug Miller said
this board could approve the conditional use and say “no outside activity,” and
later on come up with a plan to help with the noise problem. Mr. Cassidy
said we could plan to provide additional buffering and put a fence. Bob
Beck said
he knows Mr. Neyer would try to work something out.
Jim Rinehart said if they knew
this was going on 30 days ago why are they trying to get us to make a decision
tonight. Jim Rinehart asked if we must wait 30 days to have another
meeting on this. Robert Bender said if we approved the site plan minus the
outside activity, how do we go about doing that? Doug Miller said the
board could give partial approval of that portion of the site plan, but what if
they decide to move the whole building. Vanis Lakeman said the volley ball
court needs to stay nestled among the trees and not be moved over near
Wilkens Boulevard.
Tim asked if the playground area could be used to buffer the volley ball.
Brian Leary said at the previous meeting noise abatement and a noise resolution
was Discussed. They should have come here with a plan. Robert Bender
said we didn’t have the input from adjoining property owners. Bob Beck
said we arespeculating that there could be a problem. Robert Bender asked
Chuck Thornton from Red Roof Inn, if there were rules that the Volley Ball must
stop at 10:00, would that make a difference? Mr. Thornton said he is in a
General Business area and there will some noise but would there be outdoor
music. Mr. Thornton said the noise should stop at 9:00.
Bob Krumdeck, 6257 Springdale Road, Cincinnati,
it is frustrating for
developers to have to continue coming back to the board for their approval.
He reminded the board of “Night of Fright” which was owned by Becklebe, and the
problems it caused and now they are concerned that the possibility of noise.
Mr. Krumdeck said if this board stops this approval for another 30 days that
would hold up their construction. Doug Miller said the site plan shows all
the details including the parking lot and volley ball. Doug said that the
last time they didn’t want to spend all the money for the detailed plans and
have the board turn themdown because they didn’t like the concept. Cherry
Linder said what incentive does the applicant have to work with their neighbors.
Robert Bender said this is a General Business area. Jim Rinehart said we
are addressing the noise issue.Tim said we could add a number 10 condition which
would be a requirement that the two parties work together. Tim said if we
get a noise complaint, and if they don’t correct it they must go to court.
The cost would be $100 per day until it was corrected. Robert Bender asked the
board about parking. Mark Pyles said he would like to change #1 to say
there would be no off-site parking. Doug Miller said how could we enforce
that? Robert Bender said we can’t control that. Doug said the
solution is to make sure they have enough parking. Mark Pyles said that
occupancy is a better way to gage how much parking would be needed. Doug
Miller said on many of the stores such as Lowe’s or Home Depot the parking lot
is not ever full. Brian Leary said there are 210 parking spaces on the
plan and the increased landscaping will take some, leaving 190 parking spaces.
Tim suggested that the parking requirement be 1/3 of the maximum occupancy
number. Robert Bender said landscaping complies. Robert Bender said
on the loading space they will be in compliance. Mr. Bender said the
landscaping plan will comply and they will comply with installing sidewalks.
On the signage the board decided to allow 2 – 200 square feet, wall signs and no
other signs on the property. On the outdoor lighting the board agreed that
was fine in Condition #8. There was discussion on adding a Condition
#10 regarding the noise from the volleyball courts. They could say “no
outside amplification” or limit the hours of operation. Robert Bender said
none of
us are “acoustical experts.”
Doug Miller said we could put in there that they establish buffering so that the
noise will not be a problem. Jim Rinehart said we need to get that in
writing now. Bob Beck said he believes Mr. Neyer would work with him to
remedy the noise situation. Tim said instead of coming back to the board
could we require a letter to Becklebe from Neyer and to us. Mr.
Neyer said 3 people will come to an agreement, Bob Beck, Chuck Thornton, and Dan
Neyer. Mark Pyles said they need to come back at a later time with a plan
to try to prevent the noise from bothering the surrounding people. Robert
Bender said he is comfortable with the plan and if there is noise they can take
care of it if there are problems. Jim Rinehart said we don’t even know
what the noise will be and you can’t buffer all the noise. Cherry Linder
said there are measurements for decimals of noise. Doug Miller said he can
add an additional Condition #10
which would read, “Developer
shall submit additional plans to be reviewed by the board to deal with any
potential noise considerations on surrounding properties.”
Doug said there may be nothing
we can do. Robert Bender said they will take care of this to keep
themselves as a good neighbor. Doug said this would force them into at
least talking to the neighbors if noise was a problem. Doug said we would
be granting them approval with the additional condition. Mark Pyles says
he doesn’t see any problem with it. Robert Bender said this just puts an
extra step in there. Mr. Cassidy said we could meet with the surrounding
owners and take care of this. Doug Miller said Condition #1 should
read: “The number of parking spaces shall
be a minimum of 190
or 1/3 of the maximum occupancy of the facility which ever is greater. No
off street parking shall be permitted.”
Robert Bender said
Condition #6 should read, “Comply with Section 22.11 for signage requirements.
Maximum signage allowed is for 2 - 200 square feet wall signs. There
shall be no other signage on the property.”
Brian Leary said on Condition #3 that we
delete the word “one” and add
the word “designated.”
Motion
There was a motion by Robert Bender to approve Case 2003-392 A with
modifications as previously noted. There was a 2nd_
There was a second
by Brian Leary.
Roll Call James Rinehart-yes.
Cherry Linder-yes, Robert
Bender-yes Mark Pyles,-no, and Brian Leary-yes
The motion was approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Doug Miller said on the CHCA
case the board should re-pass another resolution.
Robert Bender complimented Mayank Kumar on the good staff report he did.
ADJOURNMENT
11:30 PM
There was a motion to adjourn by Robert Bender.
There was __2nd___by
Cherry Linder.
Roll Call Brian Leary-yes, Mark
Pyles-yes, James Rinehart-yes, Cherry Linder-yes, and Robert Bender-yes
The motion was approved.
__________________________________________
_________________________________
Cherry Linder, Chair Person
Date
Pat Cain, Secretary
Date
|
