BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, JUNE 28,
2007
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance for a fence at 431 Pinebud Court in the Manor House Estates Subdivision.
Mr. Henderson stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to build a 4-ft split rail fence that would encompass the backyard and be located approximately 25-ft from the front property line along Sheryl Drive (approximately 26-ft from the sidewalk). The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard setback from approximately 30-ft to 25-ft. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.15 – Fences In Front Yards – No fence shall be located in the required front yard. In a R-4 district the front yard setback is 35-ft. The house was built in 1979 and appears that the front yard setback for R4 back then was approximately 30-ft.The proposed fence would be located approximately 25-ft from the property line along Sheryl Drive (approximately 26-ft from the sidewalk).The fence would be a three rail split rail fence that would be approximately 4-ft tall. There is a driveway to the east of the site. The fence does not appear as if it will cause any line of site issues. The fence would protrude into the front yard setback by approximately 5-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 16.6% (approximately 5-ft) into the required 30-ft front 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 and the proposed split rail fence would be extended to within 25-ft of the property line (26-ft from the sidewalk). Therefore, it would likely cause minimal obstruction of views of property owners along Sheryl 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. The neighbor to the east has a fence in the front yard and there are other houses in the subdivision with similar fences in the front yard.
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 25-ft.
Patricia Brotzge, after being duly sworn, stated she is the property owner and that they would like to put the fence up to utilize the yard for the fullest for her family and that this would fit in with the rest of the community. Mr. Henderson stated that the neighbor to the east has a split rail fence and the neighbor to the rear has a chain-link fence. Commission had discussion and verified that neighboring properties owners were notified.
Mr. Wright moved to approve with the following conditions; that the front yard setback for the fence shall be reduced from 30-ft to 25-ft. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a sight triangle and setback variance for a ground sign at 194 West Church Street for State Farm Insurance.
Mr. Schultz stated the zoning history is: Planning and Zoning Commission approved a rezoning from R4 Residential to PO Planned Suburban Office in December of 2005. Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Comprehensive Sign Plan in June of 2007. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a ground sign for 194 West Church Street that would be located within the sight triangle and be less then 5-ft from the property line. Variance Request: Chapter 1292.06(i) – Setbacks – All ground signs shall be set back from the right-of-way line at least five feet and be located outside the sight triangle (20-ft x 20-ft). The sign is proposed to be located at the intersection of Hill Road North and Church Street, 3-ft from the respective sidewalks. Chapter 1296.10(b) - Required "Sight Triangles." - A "sight triangle," defined as that area from the intersection point of a street right of way on the lot to a point twenty feet back from this point on the lot lines, shall be required on corner lots at all street intersections. To ensure that traffic visibility is not obstructed and driving hazards are not created, visibility between two and ten feet above the ground shall be clear of landscape materials, vehicles, fences, signs or any other view obstructing structures. Only deciduous trees may be permitted in the sight triangle, so long as only the trunk is visible within ten feet above the ground, except during early growing stages. The sign would be located inside the sight triangle. Engineering Department: The staff engineer reviewed the proposed sign location and maintains the sign can be placed just inside the sight triangle without causing a sight obstruction (see attached memo). Therefore, the staff engineer recommends that the western edge of the sign is allowed to extend no further west then the edge of the house. 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 sign variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because it would not likely create a sight obstruction. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The property is located in the Pickerington Olde Village and abuts residential and commercial properties. The sign would not likely create a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the size of the sign on June 12, 2007. 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 knowledge of this information. 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 sight triangle and distance from right-of-way would be preserved because the sign will not likely cause an additional sight obstruction. The Olde Downtown area is in a state of transition with the anticipation of future residential houses converting to office/commercial uses that would likely lead to additional ground sign requests. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the setback and sight triangle variance request for the ground sign with the following conditions: 1. That the western edge of the sign shall not extend any further west then the house. 2. That the sign shall be located three feet from the Church Street sidewalk .
Keely Weaver, after being duly sworn, stated she is the property owner and introduced more photographs into record to show further clarification. She stated that the City requirement is that there be a seven (7) foot set back on both corners and I am requesting a four (4) foot set back from St. Rt. 256 side and a three (3) foot set back from Church Street sidewalk. Ms. Weaver, stated that she had already removed three arborvitae bushes that where already effecting the line of sight at that corner. People usually stop at the stop bar and inch forward and by the picture that is submitted you can see that where the sign would be placed with the variance that it would not impede the line of sight. If the sign was placed at the City required placement, then it would not be viewable against the building. Ms. Weaver stated that she is willing to work with the City in any way and that this request is to help her to be visible at this location. Mr. Schultz stated that staff had recommended that there be a three (3) foot setback from Church Street seven (7) foot setback from Hill Road and that Ms. Weaver is requesting a four (4) foot setback from Hill Road. Commission had discussion about how the sign would effect the line of sight at this corner and if there was any known history of traffic problems or accident reports. They also verified that neighboring properties owners were notified. Mr. Schultz confirmed that proper notification was made.
Mr. Wells moved to approve with the following conditions; 1. That the western edge of the sign shall be located four (4) feet from the sidewalk on Hill Road North. 2. That the sign shall be located three feet from the Church Street sidewalk. 3. That if there are any official police reports made in regards to the sign obstructing the line of sight that the sign placement shall be revisited. . Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a porch at 99 Glengary Court in the Simsbury Estates Subdivision.
Darrel Price, after being duly sworn, stated he is the property owner and they would like to put a three-season room on the rear of the house and agreed with the staff report. Commission had discussion and verified that neighboring properties owners were notified. Mr. Schultz confirmed that proper notification was made.
Mr. Cline moved to approve with the following condition; that the rear setback for the porch shall be reduced from 35-ft to 32-ft. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
Mr. Cline moved to approve to reschedule the meeting to Thursday, August 2, 2007 if the submission date stays the same as the July meeting. Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
5. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further. Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wright, Mr. Wells and Mr. Cline voted “Yea”. Motion carried 4-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7: 20 P.M., June 28, 2007.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning