CITY OF PICKERINGTON

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2003

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wells called the hearing to order at 7:10 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sells, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline were present. Mr. Linek and Mr. Blake were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Dale Estep, Diane Estep, Dale Whims, Bertie Heitmeyer, Chad Shirer, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 19, 2002, Hearing. Mr. Sells moved to approve, Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Wells, Mr. Sells, and Mr. Cline voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0.

Mrs. Yartin stated prior to continuing with the agenda, as this is the first meeting of the year, it would be appropriate for the Board to reorganize and appoint their Chairman, Vice Chairman, and scheduled meeting time and day.

Mr. Cline moved to appoint Mr. Linek as Chairman and Mr. Wells as Vice Chairman; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

Mr. Cline moved to keep the scheduled meeting time and day for the Fourth Thursday of the month, as needed, at 7:00 P.M.; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve a variance for maximum enclosed garage area requirements in an R3 district for 321 East Columbus Street. Mr. Schultz stated this was actually an R2 district not R3. Mr. Schultz stated a conditional use for the garage was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 11, 2003. He stated the applicant proposed to construct a 24 by 32 foot garage, for 768 square feet. He continued this would be in the rear of the property and access would be from the existing driveway that would be extended. Mr. Schultz stated as there is an existing attached two car garage, this addition would cause the allowable garage area to be approximately 288 square feet over the enclosed area allowed in an R2 district. Mr. Schultz stated the building would be constructed of materials to match the house, it would meet all the zoning set backs, and the 1.17 acre site is an uncommonly large parcel in an R2 district. Mr. Schultz stated staff cannot support the application as it would set a precedent, however, if no adjacent residents have issues that are directly related to the proposed garage, it would likely have minimal impact on the neighborhood.

After being sworn, Mr. Shirer, the applicant, stated he would like to construct the structure in the southwest corner of the property. He stated the purpose of the structure would be for storage of lawn equipment, riding mowers, vehicles he would like to get under shelter, and other equipment.

Mr. Dale Whims, after being sworn, stated he is Mr. Shirer’s next door neighbor and he has no problem with this garage being constructed. Mr. Whims stated his property is on the east side of Mr. Shirer’s property. Mr. Shirer stated his property backs up to a corn field.

Mr. Wells moved to approve the variance for the maximum enclosed garage area allowed in an R2 district for 321 East Columbus Street; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Sells voting “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0.

B. Review and request for motion to approve side yard parking setback variances in a C2 district for 5 West Church Street. Mr. Schultz stated the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for building materials and site plan for this property on April 8, 2003. Mr. Schultz stated the owners propose to renovate the house into an office with a six-space parking lot in the rear of the property. He stated the parking would be oriented to the west to save an existing tree on the east portion of the site. Mr. Schultz stated typically a 25 foot set back is required along adjacent residences, and the applicant is proposing a 10 foot set back with a buffer of a four foot high white picket fence with pine trees evenly spaced. He stated along North Center Street a 9 foot set back is required, and the applicant is proposing to construct the parking lot on the property line and it would be approximately 7 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Schultz continued the City would install a 4 foot high white picket fence and landscaping between the sidewalk and the proposed parking lot as a part of the City’s streetscape project. Mr. Schultz stated the City’s zoning code does not require parking for sites in the old village area, and the City’s parking standards were likely directed for larger sites along commercial corridors such as S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed parking lot is much needed in the old village area, and, therefore, the City should be flexible with the parking requirements as long as they do not negatively impact the adjacent residents. He stated staff supported the parking lot with the conditions that the parking lot be set back 10 feet from the western property line and be located adjacent to the eastern property line, and that a 4 foot high white picket fence with pine trees evenly spaced be located along the western side of the parking lot to buffer the adjacent residence.

After being sworn, Mrs. Bertie Heitmeyer stated the request was for a set back of 5 feet on the western property line. Mr. Schultz stated the request was for 5 feet, and right now the parking lot has the normal 18 feet for cars to back out. He stated if the adjacent neighbors did not have any issues with the 5 feet, it could be approved with the appropriate buffers. Mr. Schultz stated staff did support the 10 foot set back, however, if the adjacent neighbors did not oppose another 5 feet, that would be their decision.

Mr. Dale Estep, after being sworn, stated he owned the property next door and they did not have a problem with this request, even with the 5 foot set back, and they were in favor of the entire project. Mrs. Diane Estep, also having been sworn, stated she concurred with her husband and she had no objections to the 5 foot set back.

Mr. Cline moved to approve the variance request with staff recommendations, and with a 5 foot set back on the west side; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0.

4. OTHER BUSINESS. No other business was brought forward.

5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Cline, Mr. Sells, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:30 P.M., April 24, 2003.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

_______________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

_______________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director, Planning & Zoning