CITY OF PICKERINGTON
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, March
23, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a parking space variance for the proposed Violet Township Service Building located on the southeast corner of Pickerington Road and Stemen Road
Mr. Schultz stated Zoning History: Ordinance 2005-73 – City Council approved rezoning from AR (Rural District) to PM-1 (Planned Restricted Industrial District) on September 20, 2005. Proposed Use: Violet Township is constructing phase one of the new Township Service Center. The entire facility would encompass approximately 11,595 square feet and requires 39 parking spaces (1 space for 300 square feet of industrial use). A parking variance would be required because the owner is proposing 15 parking spaces. The site would have a single curb cut from Pickerington Road and Stemen Road respectively. Zoning Issues (Variances Required): Parking Requirements – one parking space per 300 square feet of additional floor space in an industrial use building. The proposed building requires 39 spaces (11,595/300 = 38.65 (round-up) = 39 spaces). Zoning code does not have a category for service garage parking and industrial uses is the nearest appropriate category. The owner is proposing 15 parking spaces. Conclusion
Staff supports the variance because the building is a service facility and the only visitors to the building would be those who work there. They would have 13 employees working at this site; one service director, one service person, and 11 part-time and full-time employees. They also took into consideration a maximum of two visitors. Giving them a total of 15 parking spaces needed. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the parking space variance with the following condition: That the number of parking spaces shall be reduced from 39 to 15 parking spaces.
Mr. Kevin Kenning, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the architect for Violet Township and verified the reasoning on the decreased need for parking and this would also decrease the amount of pavement on the lot. Mr. Kenning stated that this would be the maximum spaces ever needed if all staff was there at one time.
Mr. Bill Martin, after being duly sworn, stated that he is a neighboring property owner. He stated that at a recent meeting traffic flow and security was discussed. He stated his concern on traffic flow and security for the building with the decrease in spaces. Mr. Kenning clarified that there is no change in staff and hours staff will be in and out of the building, this is just to decrease the amount of payment. Mr. Martin also asked about the chance that this may also be office complex. Mr. Kenning stated that the office space will likely be constructed in Phase II, Phase I is the service center. Mr. Martin also asked on how water retention will be handled. Mr. Kenning stated that the detention basin will be in the southeast corner and will take care of any run off. Mr. Schultz stated that this will be reviewed at the engineering review process.
Mr. Cline confirmed that there would only be the 13 employees and that there would be no need for more parking spaces. Mr. Yaple verified that the staff stands at 4 full-time employees, 1 staff engineer, 2 part-time in the summer and 1 full time mechanic.
Mr. Wright asked if Mr. Martin had seen the drawings and understands what is being asked for. Mr. Martin stated that he has seen and understands them.
Ms. Kate Martin after being duly sworn, stated that she is a neighboring property owner. She asked about the landscaping for this project. Mr. Schultz stated that this was applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness and discussed at Planning and Zoning, conditions and requirements can be found in the March Planning and Zoning Commission minutes.
Mr. Wright
moved to approve with the following condition: That the number of parking
spaces shall be reduced from 39 to 15 parking spaces: Mr. Boruszewski
seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Boruszewski,
Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a side yard setback variance for a Pergola (landscape element) at 287 Blue Jacket Circle.
Mr. Schultz stated Zoning History: Staff approved a fence permit June of 2004. Proposed Use: The homeowner is proposing to construct a 14-ft x 10-ft pergola (140 square feet) in the side yard of the existing house. The pergola would be 9.5-ft tall. The pergola would be approximately 1-ft from the property line to the east. A pergola is a covered walkway or pavilion of pillars that support cross beams and a sturdy open lattice, upon which woody vines are trained. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a PR-4 district the side yard setback is 8-ft. The proposed pergola would be located approximately 1-ft from the side property line to the east. It protrudes almost 7-ft into the side yard setback. The owner bought two adjacent lots and is using the rear lot (041-10877-00) as a backyard. The variance would likely impact the lot to the east the most, which is owned by the same resident and treated as the rear yard for the property at 287 Blue Jacket Circle. The adjacent lot is fenced in and well landscaped. There are several houses with patios and/or decks, this proposal would not be out of character for this subdivision. Staff recommends that the pergola height to not exceed 9.5-ft tall. Staff suggests that the sidewalk along Shawnee Drive be completed along the second lot. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for a deck with the following conditions: 1. That the side setback for the pergola shall be reduced from 8-ft to 1-ft. 2. That the height of the pergola shall not exceed 9.5-ft tall. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to submission for building permits.
Mr. Scott Chapman, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the property owner and agreed with the report.
Mr. Cline verified that Mr. Chapman owned the back lot and fenced both lots as one. Mr. Schultz stated at some point in Phase II of Shawnee Crossing subdivision there does need to be a sidewalk installed on the back lot. Mr. Chapman stated that this will be done in the near future.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve with the following
conditions: 1. That the side setback for the pergola shall be reduced from 8-ft
to 1-ft. 2. That the height of the pergola shall not exceed 9.5-ft tall: Mr.
Wright seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Boruszewski,
Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a side yard and rear yard setback variance for a house at 51 Homestead Drive (Tabled 2/23/06).
Mr. Cline stated that by the request of the property owner’s attorney that they would like to table this until the April 27th meeting. There will be no official discussion at this meeting but, Mr. Schultz will be available for questions after the meeting.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning