BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, APRIL
26, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 22, 2007 Regular Meeting: Mr. Wells moved to approve, Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken:, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline voted “Yea”. Mr. Boruszewski abstained. Motion failed 2-0. Approval of minutes will be carried over to the next hearing.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance for a fence at 549 Warrick Lane.
Mr. Henderson stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to build a 6-ft solid wood privacy fence that would encompass the backyard and be located approximately 20-ft from the front property line along Courtright Drive (approximately 21-ft from the sidewalk). The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from approximately 30-ft to 20-ft. Variance Request Chapter 1276.15 – Fences In Front Yards – No fence shall be located in the required front yard. In a R-6 district the front yard setback is 30-ft. The existing 6-ft high solid wood privacy fence is located along the property line to the south and west. The fence stops at the front yard setback line, along Courtright Drive. The proposed fence would be located approximately 20-ft from the property line along Courtright Drive West (approximately 21-ft from the sidewalk). The neighbor to the rear has a picket fence which is approximately 4-ft tall that is located one foot from the front yard property line. There are no driveways, whose line of site along this stretch of Courtright Drive that would be affected by the fence. The fence would protrude into the front yard setback by approximately 10-ft. 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 fence variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because it would protrude approximately 33% (approximately 10-ft) into the required 30-ft rear yard setback. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The subject property is a corner lot, the proposed solid wood privacy fence would be extended to within 20-ft of the property line (21 from the sidewalk), it would likely cause minimal obstruction of views of property owners along Courtright Drive. 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. Staff would not have any knowledge of this information. 6. Whether the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance. Not likely. If the variance were not granted, the result would just be the amount of land enclosed within the fence in back yard would be reduced. 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 variance request approval would likely preserve the spirit and intent of the front yard setback because it would be reduced minimally. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the front yard setback variance request for the fence with the following condition: 1.That the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 30-ft to 20-ft.
Richard Skowronski, after being duly sworn, stated he is the property owner and that he would like to be able to utilize as much of his property as possible along with the increase value of the home at time of resale. Mr. Cline made notice that the neighbors fence was a foot a way for the property line . Mr. Schultz stated that that was likely done prior to the fence setback requirements. Mr. Schultz stated that we have approved something similar in the past.
Mr. Cline moved to approve, that the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 30-ft to 20-ft. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0.
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a parking space variance for the Shops at Hill Road a 20,846 square foot retail development at 1400 Hill Road North (Exxon Gas Station site).
Mr. Henderson stated that the zoning history is as
follows: Planning and Zoning Commission
approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials,
Lighting and Landscaping for the Shops at Hill Road on February 22, 2007.
Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive
Thru on the northern end of the 16,800 square foot building on February 22,
2007. Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Comprehensive Sign Plan for the
Shops at Hill Road on April 10, 2007. Proposed Use: The owner is requesting a
parking variance for the Shops at Hill Road.
The uses in the Shops at Hill Road would require 167 spaces. The owner is requesting a variance for 12
parking spaces. The owner stated that
the mix of tenants are shops, restaurants, and breakfast restaurants and since
their peak hours of business are different they would likely be able to share
parking spaces. Variances Requested: Parking spaces Section 1290.06
Specific Off-Street Parking requirements: (c)(2) Consumer retail – (C3 and C4
Districts) 1.0 spaces per 200 square feet of gross floor area; 8,223 square
feet of retail = 41 parking spaces needed (c)(12) Full-service restaurant – 1.0
space per 100 square feet of floor area; 12,623 square feet of restaurants =
126 parking spaces needed Total parking spaces required = 167 spaces. Owner is
requesting a variance to eliminate 12 spaces, leaving 155 spaces. 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. Not likely. A small reduction in building square footage or a
change in the tenant mix would be required to meet current parking requirements.
2. Whether the variance is substantial. The parking space variance would
likely be minimal based on the fact that they are asking for only a reduction
of 12 spaces (approximately 7 percent of total parking spaces) and that their
proposed users would likely have hours of operation that would allow the
tenants in the center to use the same spaces. 3. Whether the essential
character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining
properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The adjacent retail
and office developments meet or exceed parking requirements while the applicant
is requesting a minor variance (approximately 7 percent). Therefore, it is not
likely that the adjoining properties would suffer any “substantial detriment”
with this variance. 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 applicant was aware of the parking requirements but the
City’s development review process (Planning & Zoning Commission,
Engineering, etc) revised the site layout reducing the parking spaces. 6. Whether
the problem can be solved by some manner other than the granting of a variance.
Not without impacting the site plan which would likely require a reduction
in building area. 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 variances
approved would be minor based on likely future land use conditions (proposed
tenant mixes), thus preserving the spirit and intent of the parking spaces
requirements. A parking space variance may not be required if the restaurant
square footage is less than proposed. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the
Board of Zoning Appeals variances with the following conditions: 1. That the
parking space requirements for the Shops at Hill Road shall be reduced from 167
to 155 based on the submitted mix of tenant uses.
Jerry Hetterscheidt, after being duly sworn, stated he is representative for the property owner and agreed with staff’s report. Mr. Boruszewski asked that in the future when there is turn over in leases that there would still be enough parking spaces. Mr. Hetterscheidt, stated that it should be in the lease that would be signed stating the parking ratio. Mr. Schultz stated that this variance would allow a mix of almost 75% of the site to be restaurant . Mr. Henderson stated that staff had reduced the site by three spaces due to traffic control issues. Discussion clarified that this variance was to allow the owner to have appropriate parking for the submitted mix of restaurant and retail uses and not for the reduction of three spaces by staff. The reduction would not likely effect the site adversely. Mr. Cline verified that the plans submitted are with the fifteen parking space decrease and that there would be no more spaces removed than what is submitted at this time. Mr. Schultz stated that this is where the Exxon station and car washes are located and they should be razed within the next few months.
Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve, that the parking space requirements for the Shops at Hill Road shall be reduced from 167 to 155 based on the submitted mix of tenant uses. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0.
5. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further. Mr. Cline moved to adjourn; Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Wells and Mr. Cline voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7: 15 P.M., April 26, 2007.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning