BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER
26, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard setback variance for a house at 630 East Columbus Street.
Mr. Schultz stated the staff report: There being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner has constructed and is leasing the house at 630 East Columbus Street. After a mortgage location survey was prepared on the property, the owner was informed the house was built 4-ft in the front yard-building setback. The owner is requesting that the front yard-building setback be reduced from 35-ft to 31-ft. Variance Request The property is located in an R-4 Residential District which requires a 35-ft front yard setback. The Shadow Oaks Subdivision record plat indicates the parcel having a front yard-building setback of 40-ft. In this circumstance, the 35-ft setback requirement would govern because the house was constructed under current zoning requirements. The house is located approximately 31-ft from the front yard property line to the south. It protrudes approximately 4-ft into the front yard-building setback. Seven Practical Difficulties Standards for Area Variances – the Board of Zoning Appeals should examine the following standards when deciding whether to grant a landowner an area variance. 1. Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The beneficial use of the property would not likely be compromised without the front yard building variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered substantial because it would protrude approximately 4-ft (11%) into the front yard-building setback. The front yard-building setback is 35-ft. The front yard building setbacks should be maintained to uphold the aesthetics and integrity of the subdivision. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." There are existing houses to the north, east and west of the subject property. To the south is a large vacant site. The front façade of the building would be located 9-ft closer to the street then all other houses on East Columbus Street. The adjacent houses were constructed utilizing the 40-ft setback requirement. The front property line is approximately 50-ft from the edge of pavement of Columbus Street (SR 256). The right-of-way is extremely wide is this area. This house and the other houses along Columbus Street in this area are setback approximately 80-ft from the street. Therefore, the subject house does not drastically standout from a visual perspective and would not likely be a substantial detriment. 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The health, safety and general welfare of the subject property and adjoining properties would not likely be impacted. 5. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The front yard setback requirements are documented on the record plat and the zoning code is public record. 6. Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely without relocating the house. 7. Whether the variance preserves the "spirit and intent" of the zoning requirement and whether "substantial justice" would be done by granting the variance. The spirit and intent of the front yard-building setback would not be preserved because it would not be consistent with the existing houses. However, because of the increased right-of-way in this area, the subject house does not drastically standout from a visual perspective and is minimally out of character from a setback perspective. There are not any recent BZA cases that have been approved requesting a front yard building setback variance for single-family house. Conclusion: The Board of Zoning Appeals enforcement options range from requiring the owner to remove the portion of the structure that is non-compliant with the zoning setback requirement to approving a variance as constructed. Staff recommends installing trees and shrubs to reduce the visual impact of the house being constructed 4-ft in the front yard setback and 9-ft in front of the other houses. The above recommendation is based on the following reasons: The front property line is approximately 50-ft from the edge of pavement of Columbus Street (SR 256). The right-of-way is extremely wide in this area. This house and the other houses along Columbus Street in this area are setback approximately 80-ft from the street. Therefore, the subject house does not drastically standout from a visual perspective and is minimally out of character from a setback perspective. The house has been constructed over 1-1/2 years ago without any adjacent residents complaints and apparently the owner became aware of the situation by the lending institution while trying to sell the property. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the front yard building setback variance with the following conditions: 1. That front yard setback shall be reduced from 35-ft to 31-ft. 2. That trees and shrubs shall be installed to reduce the visual impact of the reduced front yard setback.
Rob Mason, after being duly sworn, that he is the property owner and agreed with staff’s report.
Mr. Cline
moved to approve. . That front yard setback shall be reduced from 35-ft to
31-ft. 2. That trees and shrubs shall be installed to reduce the visual impact
of the reduced front yard setback Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll
was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a variance to the Residential Building Design Standards (Chapter 1276.23) for the remaining buildings within the Villas at Milnor Crossing Condominium.
Mr. Schultz stated the staff report: Zoning History: City Council approved zoning change from R-4 to R-10 in June of 2002. Planning and Zoning Commission approved final development plan in July of 2002. Board of Zoning Appeals approved front and side yard setback variances in July of 2002. City Council approved final development plan in August of 2002. Proposed Use: The developer of the Villas at Milnor Crossing has approximately 9 of the 17 condominium buildings completed with one under construction. On July 20, 2006, the Residential Design Standards became effective, which would require the builder to make design modifications to the condominium buildings. The builder is requesting a variance in order to complete the condominium development with the proposed buildings having the same design, style and appearance as the existing buildings. Variance Request: 1276.23 Residential Building Design Standards – Purpose. The Residential Development Building Design Standards and criteria are hereby established for the following purposes: (1) To establish and enforce a set of criteria applicable to all residential developments that ensure that future residents of the City of Pickerington are provided a minimum level of quality for their respective neighborhoods. (2) To provide clear policy direction and standards to the development community that ensures that the City of Pickerington improves its quality of life through a set of consistent standards for residential development. (3) To enhance the value of private property and a sound investment climate through the establishment of consistent design criteria. (4) To protect the public's health, safety, and general welfare through a set of citywide design criteria that encourage a consistent quality in all neighborhoods and residential developments. (5) To allow architectural creativity and compatibility with surrounding housing conditions is recognized and encouraged. (6) Exceptions to the standards set forth in this Ordinance shall be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The existing and proposed condominium buildings would not comply with the following residential building design standards: Some of the Villas at Milnor Crossing Condominium buildings would not comply with the required 50% natural material on all elevations. The windows on the rear and side elevations do not have trim around them. It appears that the condominium buildings do not have the required amount of landscaping. Seven Practical Difficulties Standards for Area Variances – the Board of Zoning Appeals should examine the following standards when deciding whether to grant a landowner an area variance. 1. Whether the property will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be a beneficial use of the property without the variance. The beneficial use of the property would not likely be compromised without the variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered substantial because the buildings within the condominium development would not achieve compliance with the residential design standards. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." There could be substantial detriment to the existing condominium buildings because the design, style and appearance of the development would most likely not be consistent with any future buildings that would have to meet the residential design standards. 4. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The health, safety and general welfare of the subject property and adjoining properties would not likely be impacted. 5. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The condominium development was initiated in 2002 prior to the adoption of the residential design standards (7/20/06). 6. Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely. 7. Whether the variance preserves the "spirit and intent" of the zoning requirement and whether "substantial justice" would be done by granting the variance. The spirit and intent of the Villas at Milnor Crossing Condominiums would be preserved because the development would have a consistent design, style and appearance. Conclusion: Staff supports the requested variance for the following reasons: The existing buildings are aesthetically pleasing and appear to be a quality product and comply with several of the design standards. Ensures a consistent design, style and appearance for the entire condominium development for the existing and future owners. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the variance request to the Residential Building Design Standards (Chapter 1276.23) for the remaining buildings within the Villas at Milnor Crossing Condominium Community with the following condition: That the proposed buildings design, style and appearance match the existing buildings. Additional Comments: An approved zoning certificate is required prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy.
Tom Pfister, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the property manger and that the new guideline standard came to his attention when submitting for zoning permits in August. Mr. Pfister, stated that the three things stated in the staff report: 1. All windows are trimmed but are covered by window shutters and may not be totally visible. 2. Landscaping – there is an average of over five trees per home, over 40 bushes and shrubs per home with planting of over 325 trees and over 3,000 bushes and shrubs as a whole. To date there has been over 1,500 bushes and shrubs and over 200 trees planted. 3. In regards to the 50% of natural materials All elevations are built with stone and/or hardie plank siding. We would like to be able to continue the project with the same standards and look as the existing units.
Don Stepleton, after being duly sworn, stated that he is a resident at 177 Robin Court, adjacent property to the Villas at Milnor Crossings Condominiums. He indicated these condominiums met and exceed his expectations compared to the other condo developments in the City.
Mr. Wells asked if there are any addition comments. Mr. Schultz stated that there are two other condominium developments in the City where a variance may be required. The City attorney has recommended that we support any variances for these that were caught in the middle of development when the new Residential Design Standards where adopted.
Mr.
Boruszewski moved to approve. That the proposed buildings design, style and
appearance match the existing buildings and approved zoning certificates are
required prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Wells seconded the
motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline and Mr. Boruszewski voted
“Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
A. Schedule: The November meeting date needs to be changed due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Staff suggests it be rescheduled to Thursday, November 30, 2006.
Mr. Cline
moved to approve. That the November BZA meeting be rescheduled to Thursday,
November 30, 2006 due to Thanksgiving. Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion.
Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0.
5. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further. Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Aye”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M., October 26, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning