CITY OF PICKERINGTON

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003

PUBLIC HEARING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Linek called the hearing to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Blake were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Dave Donley, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 24, 2003, Hearing. Mr. Sells moved to approve, Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve building and parking setback variances for 150 Hill Road North (Donley Concrete Cutting Company). Mr. Schultz stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved a zoning change request from C-3 (Community Commercial) to PM (Planned General Industrial), at their April 8, 2003, meeting. He stated Council has had two readings on that zone change and the final reading will be on June 3, 2003. Mr. Schultz stated a condition of the zone change is the approval of the variances by this Board. Mr. Schultz stated the owner proposes to construct a garage/office facility on this site that would serve as an expansion to his current business. He continued the garage and office building would be approximately 172’ by 40’ and would accommodate up to eight vehicles and two to three offices. He stated the site plan would need a certificate of appropriateness approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for building materials, landscaping, lighting, and signage if the zone change and variance requests are approved. He further stated the owner has committed through the planned zoning district requirements to the location of the proposed garage/office building and parking lot. The owner has further committed, upon approval of the zoning and variances, to donate his property fronting on S.R. 256 to a depth of 110 feet to the city and, therefore, there would not be an additional curb cut on S.R. 256. Mr. Schultz stated this property could be used for landscaping as an entrance into the old village area. Mr. Schultz stated buffering adjacent to the residential districts would have to meet the zoning code requirements of mounding, fencing, landscaping, or a combination of the three. Mr. Schultz stated the first variance is a front yard setback variance along the western property line. The city requires a 50 foot setback along a front yard and the applicant is proposing between a 25 to 50 foot setback, with the building set back along the extreme southwestern portion of the property adjacent to the residential property to the west. He continued the variance encompasses approximately 4-1/2 percent of their building, so a very small portion of the building would encroach into this 50 foot setback. Mr. Schultz stated the other variance is a front yard parking setback. He stated the City requires a 30 foot parking setback along the front yard and parking is permitted in 40 percent of the required building setback in planned districts. He stated this means they can park 20 feet in the setback and need a 30 foot setback variance. He stated the applicant is proposing a 15 foot parking setback along the western portion of the site adjacent to the residential property to the west, and the variance would not likely impact the adjacent residence when buffering is installed. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the variance requests because the building setback variance and parking setback variances are minor due to the size of the building and parking lot compared to the lot size, and there would be fencing and landscaping blocking the views from the adjacent residential houses to the building and parking lot. He stated mounding is not feasible because there is a 30 foot sanitary easement along the property line. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed use is less intense than other permitted commercial uses and any future general industrial uses because of the conditions placed upon the zoning change approval. Mr. Schultz stated the Planning and Zoning Commission had conditioned their approval on that this building could only be used for storage of vehicles and for offices. He stated, therefore, other general industrial uses would not be allowed. Mr. Schultz stated staff further supported the variance requests contingent upon the building and parking setbacks be as submitted on the site plan, that a minimum 6’ high opaque wood fence be constructed adjacent to the residential properties to the south and west, that landscaping which includes trees and shrubs be installed on the side of the fence that faces the residential properties to the south and west, and, that the site plan and building meet the City’s commercial design guidelines.

After being sworn, Mr. Donley, the applicant, stated his business is expanding and this piece of property would allow him to do that without having to relocate. Mr. Donley stated his trucks leave at 6 a.m. and return at 6 p.m., so this is not something that would create a lot of noise. Mr. Linek clarified that all of the neighbors were notified of this hearing, as well as, the hearings at Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Mr. Schultz stated one neighbor, Mrs. Spears, had some concerns she had voiced at the Planning and Zoning hearing, however, he felt all of her concerns were addressed by the condition that the property is limited to storage and offices.

Mr. Wells moved to approve the variance request for a building and parking setback for 150 Hill Road North with the conditions set out by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning and Zoning Director, Mr. Schultz; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0.

4. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Schultz stated the next meeting is scheduled for June 26, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., and he understood there would be at least one agenda item. Mr. Schultz further stated this would be Mr. Blake’s last meeting as City Council has appointed him to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated Mr. Jack Bowman has been appointed by Council to fill Mr. Blake’s position on this Board and he would be sworn in prior to the June meeting.

5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Blake moved to adjourn; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Mr. Blake, Mr. Cline, Mr. Sells, Mr. Linek, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:14 P.M., May 22, 2003.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

_______________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

_______________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director, Planning & Zoning