CITY OF PICKERINGTON
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, MARCH
24, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Linek called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wright present. Mr. Cline was absent. Others present were Susan Crotty, Lance Schultz, Judy Gilleland, Lori Aberman, Jim Parker, Bill Carnes, Joy Bench, Chuck Rieser, Jim VanKannel, Susie VanKannel, David Tomblin, Peggy Smith, Helen Vingle, Steve Hermiller, Lori Linek and others.
2. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES OF February 24, 2005. Mr.
Wells moved to approve; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Linek, Mr.
Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wright voting “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS
A. Review and request for a motion to approve front yard parking setback, side yard parking setback and rear yard parking setback variances for Giant Eagle in the former Pickerington Square Shopping Center (Casto). Mr. Boruszewski moved to remove from the TABLE; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion to remove from the TABLE passed, 4-0.
Mr. Schultz stated the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan on February 8, 2005 and Building Materials on March 8, 2005. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits for a gas station, drive thru pharmacy and drive thru bank on February 8, 2005. He continued the owner is proposing to raze the Drug Emporium Shopping Center, Huntington Bank and National City Bank. A new 87,466 square foot Giant Eagle with a gas station and 3,170 square foot National City Bank would be constructed on the site. The Giant Eagle gas station would be located on Hill Road North across from Kroger’s. The Giant Eagle would have a drive thru pharmacy and the National City Bank would have a three bay drive thru. Access to the site from Hill Road North and Refugee Road would likely remain the same. There are three variances required for the redevelopment of this site. The first variance request is for the front yard-building setback. The front yard-building setback is one half of the planned right-of-way. Parking may occur in 40% of the required front yard setback. The variance request is for the area of the parcel that fronts Refugee Road. The planned right-of-way for Refugee Road is 100-ft, which requires a 50-ft setback. A 30-ft parking setback is required. The owner is dedicating 40-ft of right-of-way and a 10-ft utility easement to comprise the 50-ft right-of-way requirement. The existing parking lot location and the proposed parking lot location along Refugee
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 24, 2005
Road is nearly the same. Therefore, the owner would not be required to dedicate right-of-way if they just changed tenants instead of redeveloping the site. The second variance required is for the rear yard parking setback. Where commercial uses abut residential uses, a rear yard setback not less than fifty feet will be provided, subject to the landscaping requirements set forth in the codebook. Where a commercial use abuts a single-family residential use a Type A buffer is required. This buffer requires opaqueness to six feet about grade. Buffering shall be provided by an opaque wood fence, an earth berm and plant material. The proposed site plan indicates an access road in the required 50-ft setback. In addition, the loading dock for the grocery store is located in this area. Also, this area serves as a fire lane. The proposed building would actually be located further away from the southern property line that the existing building. The existing building has a loading dock in nearly the same location as the proposed building. This area also serves as a fire lane. The City does not have a noise ordinance that would address loading docks. Therefore, staff recommends limiting deliveries between midnight and 5:00 in the morning. A variance would not be required if they just changed tenants instead of redeveloping the site. Presently there is an old wood fence and tall pine trees separating Mingo Estates from the existing building. The fence and pine trees are located on the subject site. Staff recommends installing a new 6-ft high opaque wood fence along the entire length of the rear yard property line. If the existing pine trees are damaged from the installation of the new fence, they must be replaced with the same or nearly the same size pine trees. The third variance request is for the side yard-parking setback. Mr. Schultz stated where commercial uses abut residential uses; a side yard setback of not less than 25-ft will be provided, subject to the landscaping requirements set forth in the code. He continued where a commercial use abuts single-family residential use a Type A buffer is required. This buffer requires opaqueness to six feet above grade. Buffering shall be provided by an opaque wood fence, an earth berm and plant material. Approximately 16 new parking spaces are proposed in the side yard-parking setback. Presently there are approximately 25 parking spaces and an access drive located in this area. Staff recommends installing a new 6-ft high opaque wood fence along the entire length of the rear yard property line. If the existing pine trees are damaged from the installation of the new fence, they must be replaced with nearly the same size pine trees. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the requested variances with the following conditions. That a 6-foot high wood opaque fence shall be installed along the southern property line to replace the existing fence. If the existing pine trees are damaged from the installation of the new fence or any other reasons, they must be replaced with the same or nearly the same size pine trees. That a 6-foot high wood opaque fence shall be installed along the eastern property line. If the existing pine trees are damaged from the installation of the new fence or due to any other reason, they must be replaced with the same or nearly the same size pine trees and that there shall be no deliveries to the loading dock between midnight and 5:00 a.m.
Mr. Visco after being duly sworn stated he would like to address some of the comments made in Schultz’s report. He stated the one thing they really have a concern with is the proposed delivery hours. The hours have never been restricted, nor have they been a problem at this site for the last twenty-five years. He continued most of the deliveries take place between 6 and 12.
Mr. Bill Carnes of 10045 Circle Drive West, after being duly sworn stated his property is located directly being the proposed Giant Eagle. He continued he is glad to see something being done with the current building, however, if they plan to bring the lot fifty foot closer to his property, it will increase the possibility of damage to their fencing during delivery times. In regards to the delivery times; there have been times in the past where the trucks have sat on the site with their engines running all night. Mr. Carnes stated the proposed location of the loading docks is directly behind his home. He continued that he does not mind that Giant Eagle is coming to town and will be improving this location, just that he would like the Board to take into consideration the concerns he has stated. Mr. Visco stated they are not moving the building fifty feet closer to the residential properties, they are moving it fifty feet away from the residential area.
Mr. Visco stated they do not allow trucks to park overnight in their lot.
Ms Joy Bench after being duly sworn stated she lives next door to Mr. Carnes and her concern is the big delivery trucks making noise at nighttime. Sometimes the truck motor runs the whole time the delivery is being made and sometimes the refrigeration unit on the truck is what makes the most noise. She stated she just wants the Board to take the noise issue into consideration before approving the variance request.
Mr. Chuck Rieser after being duly sworn stated the noise is very loud in the summertime at night. He stated if they have the applicant install a wood fence how often would the fencing materials be replaced and whose job is it to maintain that fencing. Mr. Schultz stated it is the applicant’s responsibility to maintain the fencing. Mr. Rieser stated he feels they need to consider a true noise barrier. Mr. Schultz stated the current noise ordinance does not pertain to loading docks. In regards to most of the deliveries being made in the early morning hours, how many deliveries will be made a day? Mr. Visco stated Giant Eagle receives eight to twelve deliveries per day between 6:00 am and Noon. He continued there are two deliveries that are made late at night as well. Mr. Rieser stated he is glad to see Giant Eagle come to Pickerington. He continued he feels this is a good opportunity to address the ongoing noise problem from this location, so this project can start off of the right foot with the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Rieser stated he is also concerned with the entrance into the bank area that comes right off of the service road by Goodyear Tire.
Ms Susie VanKannel of 10005 Circle Drive, after being duly sworn stated their bedroom backs right up to this site. She continued the building isn’t what is contributing to the noise problem; it is the loading dock, which is being moved closer to the residential area.
Ms VanKannel stated she is also concerned with the use of the service road for the bank traffic, which is behind Goodyear Tire. Mr. Visco stated that road behind Goodyear Tire is only going to be used for the deliveries and bank traffic. Ms VanKannel stated they really need to take into consideration the fact that there is another road coming right by that service road and the traffic will increase.
Mr. Jim Parker of 9922 Melody Lane, after being duly sworn stated he is present on behalf of the Mingo Estates Civic Association. He continued that the residents do not have a problem with Giant Eagle coming to this site and revitalizing the area. The major concern is the noise that will be coming from this site once it is occupied at full capacity. The other issue is the increased traffic that will be generated from this site. He continued that several of the residents are concerned with there being a way for them to still be able to walk to the shopping center after a fence is installed. Mr. Parker stated he was present just to keep the Civic Association members informed of any changes that are planned and they do support this development.
Mr. Jim VanKannel of 10005 Circle Drive, after being duly sworn inquired has a traffic study been completed to determine what the increase in traffic will do to the roads? Mr. Schultz stated a traffic study was not completed. The primary reason it was not completed was because this is an existing site. If a tenant occupied this site without tearing it down the City could not keep them from occupying the site. He continued the City Engineer did look at the potential impact this will have on traffic. The applicant is providing some off-site modifications along Hill Road. They are extending the left hand turn lane into the Giant Eagle site, the south bound turn lane at the Kroger light and they are also putting an island in where there will be no left hand turns into the Burger King, it will be a right-in, right-out only. Some of the exit roads have been widened to 38 feet to allow for a right-out, a straight thru and a left out. Mr. Van Kannel inquired would it be better to require a six-foot vinyl fence. Mr. Schultz stated the wood fencing is in the Code, however, the applicant could request to modify the variance for a vinyl fence.
Mr. Van Kannel inquired as to whether they could move the location of the gas station, is there a specific reason why it has to be located on the site where the applicant is proposing?
Mr. Steve Hermiller, after being duly sworn stated the existing facility is actually closer than the proposed facility. The proposed facility is approximately 75 feet further away. Mr. Schultz stated the gas station would be located where the existing building is today. The proposed building will be located approximately 50 feet east of the gas station. Mr. Van Kannel stated is there reason why the gas station is located closer to the residential than where
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 24, 2005
the bank is now. Mr. Hermiller stated the gas station site was chosen based on the least impact on the parking field.
Ms Helen Vingle of 10100 Melody Lane, after being duly sworn inquired is the dock a three bay dock? Mr. Visco stated it was a three bay dock. Ms Vingle stated she builds stores for Best Buy and one thing that she has seen is a wall that is the same height as the building that extends past the building to cover part of the area and at the same block noise that comes from the dock. She also inquired will there be a pressurized compactor on the loading dock? Mr. Visco stated he believes there is a compactor back by the loading dock. Ms Vingle inquired will there be a wall to block the noise? Mr. Visco stated there would be a wall to block the noise. Ms Vingle they should make the wall go the entire length of the compactor.
Mr. Wright moved to approve the variance with an 8 foot solid wood fence in back on the southern side of the building and on the eastern side, with all pine trees that are damaged during installation of the fence be replaced, there be no deliveries between Midnight and 5:00 am and no trash pick-up between Midnight and 5:00 am. Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Wells moved to approve with staff recommendations
with an 8-foot solid wood fence on the southern side and a 6-foot solid wood
fence on the eastern side, with no trash pick-up between Midnight and 5:00 am;
Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wright voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
|
|
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard setback variance for a deck at 110 Shawnee Drive in the Shawnee Crossing Subdivision (Key Homes). Mr. Schultz stated the builder is proposing to construct a 16-ft. by 16.660-ft. deck (267 square feet) on the west side of the existing house. Because the grade slopes from south to north approximately 4 to 6 feet, the eastern portion of the deck would be several feet about grade. In a PR-4 district a 30-ft. rear yard setback is required. The proposed deck would be located approximately 21- ft. from the side property line to the north. It protrudes almost 9-ft into the setback. The site has double road frontage; therefore, by code the builder is permitted to determine the location of the rear and side yards. The variance would likely impact the lot to the west the most, which is currently vacant. There is an existing home to the north. This subdivision (Parade of Homes in 2003) has small lots with large and expensive homes. Therefore, there are several houses with large decks and the proposal would not be out of character for this subdivision. Staff recommends the deck be buffered by pine trees or a fence due to future development to the west. Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for a deck with the following conditions: that the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 30-ft to 21-ft.; that a row of 6-ft high pine trees at installation or a 6-ft wood opaque fence shall be
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 24, 2005
installed along the western property line. Mr. Schultz stated an approved zoning
certificate is required prior to submission for building permits. Peggy Smith of Key Homes after being duly
sworn stated they have a buyer for this property and the deck is very important
to the future homeowners. She continued
they would not object to the installation of the pine trees as required by
staff. Mr. Wright inquired are the
buyers set on a 30-ft deck. Ms Smith
stated the buyers want this area for their children to play. Mr. Wells moved to approve with the staff
recommendations that the rear setback for the deck be reduced from 30-ft to
21-ft and that a row of 6-ft high pine trees or a 6ft wood opaque fence is
installed along the northern property line when the deck is installed; Mr.
Linek seconded the motion. Roll call
was taken with Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wright voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a minimum dwelling size variance for a new house on lot 9 of the Milnors Grandview Subdivision on North Center Street (Tomblin Property). Mr. Schultz stated the owner is proposing to construct a new house on the vacant site. The one-story house would have a two-car garage and would encompass approximately 1,335 square feet of livable space. In an R-4 district the minimum dwelling size for a one-story house is 1,500 square feet. The parcel is zoned R4 and is a lot of record. The proposed house would meet the front, side and rear yard setback requirements. The other houses along North Center Street apparently range from 700 to 1,200 square feet in size. Therefore, the proposed house would be compatible in size to the other houses in this area. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the minimum dwelling size variance request for a new house with following condition: that the proposed new house shall be a minimum of 1,334 square feet excluding garage and basement area. He continued that an approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for a building permit. Mr. David Tomblin after being duly sworn stated he was present to answer any questions the board may have. Mr. Linek inquired that the 1,334 feet is just for the house. Mr. Tomblin stated the house is 1,334.89 square feet, that is living space only. Mr. Linek moved to approve the variance of minimum square feet of 1,334; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
4. OTHER BUSINESS. No other business was brought forward.
5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Linek seconded the motion. Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski and Mr. Wright voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 8:23 P.M., March 24, 2005.
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 24, 2005
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_____________________________________
Lori L. Aberman, Deputy Municipal Clerk
ATTEST
_____________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning