BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, AUGUST
23, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 543 Stonebridge Boulevard in the Preston Trails Subdivision.
Mr. Henderson stated that there being no zoning history. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a deck that is approximately 16-ft x 22-ft (352 square feet) and would protrude 8-ft into the setback. Variance Request: Chapter 1282.10 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a PR-4 district the rear yard setback is 30-ft. The proposed deck would be located approximately 22-ft from the rear property line to the east. It protrudes approximately 8-ft into the rear setback. The property is surrounded by residential properties and would likely have a minimal impact on the adjacent residents. 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 porch variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered minor because the deck would protrude approximately 27% (approximately 8-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 property is surrounded by single-family homes. The deck would likely impact the property behind it the most but not likely to 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. 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 rear yard setback would be preserved because the porch would protrude only 8-ft into the 30-ft setback (approximately 27%). The BZA has approved several similar requests where decks/porches protruded less than 50% into the rear yard setback. There are a lot of shallow lots in the City and it only makes practical sense to allow homeowners utilize their rear yards when the requests are not extreme. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for the deck with the following condition: That the rear setback for the porch shall be reduced from 30-ft to 22-ft.
Mr. Cline arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Linek asked if there was anyone here to speak on this case and staff informed commission that the homeowner was in and out of the hospital all week and no one is in attendance.
Mr.
Linek moved to approve with the following condition: That the rear setback
for the porch shall be reduced from 30-ft to 22-ft. Mr. Boruszewski seconded
the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski, and
voted “Yea”. Motion carried 3-0
B. Review and request for a motion to approve a parking space variance for Walgreens located at 1101 Hill Road North.
Mr. Schultz 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 Walgreens on August 14, 2007. Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru on August 14, 2007. Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Walgreens on August 14, 2007. Proposed Use: The owner is requesting a parking variance for Walgreens from the required 73 parking spaces to 57 parking spaces. The sixteen parking space variance is partially due to the required dedication of additional right-of-way per the ODOT Safety Grant. 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; 14,490 square feet of retail = 73 parking spaces needed, Owner is requesting a variance to eliminate 16 spaces, leaving 57 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 reduction in building square footage would be required to meet current parking requirements based on the size of the parcel. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The parking space variance could be considered minimal based on the fact that they are asking for only a reduction of 16 spaces (approximately 22 percent of total parking spaces). Walgreens is an outlot to the Hill Road Plaza redevelopment project and could likely accommodate overflow parking. Walgreens indicated the reduction in parking would not compromise their business. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." The Hill Road Plaza redevelopment meets or exceeds parking requirements while the applicant is requesting a relatively minor variance (approximately 22 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) requested dedication of additional right-of-way per the ODOT Safety Grant. 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 square footage. 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 parking variance could be considered minor based on the type of use going into the site, thus preserving the spirit and intent of the parking spaces requirements. Furthermore, Walgreens has agreed to provide landscaping within the City’s right-of-way at the intersection of SR 256 and Refugee Road. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the Board of Zoning Appeals variance with the following condition: That the parking space requirements for Walgreens shall be reduced from 73 to 57.
Kathy Rojina after being duly sworn, stated she is the representative for Meadowood Development. Ms. Rojina stated that based on the size of the building that the right amount of green space is provided and that some developable land will be removed by right-of-way dedication. There is ample parking area available for this size building. Walgreens typically operates with 55-65 spaces. Mr. Boruszewski asked if the required amount of handicapped spaces would still be provided. Ms. Rojina assured him that there would be no change to the amount of handicapped spaces required per ADA standards.
Rocco Sabatino after being duly sworn, stated he is a resident of Violet Township and a property owner in the City just south of this project and that he supports the Walgreens project.
Mr. Wells moved to approve with the following condition: That the parking space requirements for Walgreens shall be reduced from 73 to 57. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Boruszewski voted “Yea”. Motion carried 4-0
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning