CITY OF PICKERINGTON

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 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. Bowman were present. No members were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joyce Bushman, Jeff Feyko, Rita Ricketts, Bill Goldman, Linda Menery, Steve Barnard, Sadie Nicodemus, Carl Smith, Gail Oakes, Dan Oakes, Stephanie Brobst, Richard Shaffer, Bob Harding, Tim Bryant, Norman Mathis, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 22, 2003, Hearing. Mr. Wells moved to approve, Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Linek, Mr. Wells, Mr. Sells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Bowman voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for motion to approve front yard building setback variances for Portrait Homes condominiums located at the terminus of Fuller’s Way (behind the police station). Mr. Schultz stated City Council approved the rezoning to C-2 in August of 1997, and the City Attorney has determined that as the lot split for this parcel was approved on October 25, 2002, prior to the initiative petition referendum that was approved by the city electorate in November 2002, and certified by the Board of Elections on December 2, 2002, the density of the development of over two units per acre complies with the city requirements. Mr. Schultz stated the owner proposes to develop 250 single family condominium units in 48 buildings on the 34 acre site for a density of 7.35 units per acre. He stated access to the site will be through Fuller’s Way, and a clubhouse will be located near the entrance into the development. Mr. Schultz stated the roads throughout the development will meet the new city street standards in multi-family developments, and sidewalks will be located in the common areas to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access, and detention basins are located throughout the site. Mr. Schultz stated the condominium buildings will be two story and range from 1,200 to 1,520 square feet, and have a one car garage with one visitor’s parking space. He stated all condominium units are required to be a minimum of 1,200 square feet in this zoning district. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed plan meets the zoning code except for one variance, and the applicant is requesting a variance of the front yard setback from 40 feet to 25 feet. He stated in a C-2 district a 40 foot variance is required for condominiums, and in a PR-10 district a 25 foot setback is required for condominiums. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed plan has elements that are required and consistent with planned developments. He stated for a planned development to be approved two of the following five elements are required: Public open space, bikeways, a community center, a swimming pool, or innovative open space. Mr. Schultz stated the proposed plan has four of these elements. Mr. Schultz further stated the reduced front yard setback from 40 feet to 25 feet allows for clustering of the buildings and allows for more open space. He stated it is likely the same amount of units could be constructed on the site without the front yard setback variance, and the result would be a reduction of open space. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is also proposing a comprehensive internal landscape plan, easements for potential bike paths are being dedicated to the city, and these easements are important as they will allow linkage with other potential bike paths per the City Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Master Plan, and a clubhouse and pool are proposed within the development. Mr. Schultz continued the developer is proposing sidewalks within some of the open spaces to provide access through the development and staff believes this meets the intent of the new sidewalk requirements in private developments. Mr. Schultz stated, in conclusion, staff can support the front yard setback variance request because the request is consistent with setbacks in a planned district that permits condominiums and the proposal has elements of a planned district. Mr. Schultz stated staff supported the front yard setback variances with the following conditions: (1) that the front yard setback variance shall be reduced from 40 to 25 feet for all buildings, (2) that 20 foot bike path easements shall be dedicated to the City along the southern and eastern portions of the site, (3) that the landscaping shall be installed per the approved plan, (4) that a three to five foot high mound with landscaping shall be installed along the western property line, (5) that each condominium unit shall have a minimum floor area of 1,200 square feet excluding garage area, and (6) that the condominium association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Fuller’s Way cul de sac.

Mr. Schultz further stated last July, this Board approved a similar setback variance in the Milnor Crossing condominiums, and last August this Board approved a similar setback variance for Homestead condos. Mr. Schultz stated the rationale was those two developments have the elements of a planned district, similar to this one.

After being sworn, Mr. William Goldman stated he was representing Portrait Homes. He stated Portrait Homes will begin building a development in Gahanna, and this will be their second development in the area. He stated they are a family builder, and they build approximately 3,000 units per year and their main offices are in Chicago. Mr. Goldman stated Portrait Homes cater primarily to single residents, with 60 percent of the residents of condominiums they have built to date being single women. Mr. Goldman stated this particular location fits their needs and the needs of the community. Mr. Goldman stated they were not present this evening to debate the units, they will sell for $120,000 to $140,000, they are a good value, they were present this evening simply to request a variance on the front yard setback from 40 to 25 feet. Mr. Goldman stated in a private development of this nature, where everything is primarily turned to the inside, what they have attempted to do is pull the units closer to the street and create effective green space with effective walk paths to the community center. Mr. Goldman stated they have a railroad track behind them, agricultural on one side, and a police station on one side. Mr. Goldman stated they understood this has been a time of turmoil in Pickerington for various reasons, but the one primary factor is this particular development in terms of Pickerington’s needs, is a prayer answered. He stated it will generate over $300,000 in excess taxes for the schools, it will generate over $1,300,000 in taps, it will generate over $150,000 in parks, and $150,000 in storm water. He stated it is in a perfect location and is the way you would want to develop land, it is not intruding on any other single family development around them, and they felt it would be a tremendous plus to the community. Mr. Goldman concluded that with this variance they will add two acres of open space to the development. Mr. Cline clarified 90 percent of the units will be two bedroom units and there is a loft that could be created into a third bedroom.

After being sworn, Linda Menery stated she was representing Portrait Homes, and in similar developments they have found they do not need the 40 foot setbacks, and it amounts to extra pavement that takes away from open space. She stated this represents an acre in size, so you could lose quantities of green space by adding that extra amount of pavement, and you end up having more run off. Ms. Menery stated she believed green space is better than pavement and she hoped the Board agreed with that as well.

After being sworn, Mr. Steve Barnard, stated he also represents Portrait Homes and he was present this evening to answer any questions.

Upon being administered the oath, Mrs. Rita Ricketts, stated she would tell the truth as she saw it. Mrs. Ricketts stated she contests the fact that this was an approved plat before the November vote. She stated she felt that at no time the public was aware it was platted or even being done. She stated she felt it was zoned, but it was not platted prior to the election. Mrs. Ricketts stated when this was rezoned it was very definite this was not to be a residential, C-2, which it has turned into being. She stated it was supposed to be a mix and it was stated in Planning and Zoning when it was rezoned that it would be a mix of office space, retail, and residential. Mrs. Ricketts stated it is all residential except for the police station. Mrs. Ricketts further stated after this was zoned C-2 there was nothing happening until after the city was given the acreage for the police station. She stated immediately after that it became apparent the apartments were coming in, and she was told they were automatic in a C-2, there needed to be no review by the public in any way, shape, or form, they just appeared, and the City took care of all the details. She stated the public was not privy or allowed to address any of the details of the apartments being there. She stated now we have condos, and she was not saying they were not nice condos. She stated the developer was saying they would do it like a planned district, but this is not a planned district, this has never been apparent or available for people to come in and look at, to even know or address in a public meeting, what was happening back there. She stated in no way, shape, or form, whether it meets the criteria for a planned district or not, it is not a planned district, it is C-2 zoning, mixed use zoning. Mrs. Ricketts stated she questions the green space as with this being private streets what public will be going back in there to utilize the green space. She stated no one but the people in the complex will utilize any of the green space that is supposedly a part of a planned district. She stated her point is, it is not a planned district and, therefore, it cannot have a reduction in the setback from 40 feet to 25 feet. She stated it simply does not meet the total requirements. Mrs. Ricketts stated she was sorry she had missed the others that were granted, she had missed those, but this one she caught. Mrs. Ricketts stated she is very interested in this parcel as when it was originally rezoned it was so Mr. Helwig could sell his property for $30,000 an acre. She stated the buyer did some land borings, and all of a sudden Mr. Helwig’s property, because of unstable ground, was not worth $30,000, it was worth $5,000. She stated she questioned how these developments could be built on unstable ground. She further stated she was glad if this was approved, these are private streets so the City is not stuck with maintaining them because the ground was deemed unstable. Mrs. Ricketts further stated also according to her information the police station had to be redesigned from a two story to a one story building because the ground would not support two stories. Mrs. Ricketts stated she is opposed to the setback variance basically because it is not a planned district, and the City has taken care of all the design and the requirements, and it has not been a public process as a planned district needs to be.

Mr. Sells inquired if there was any documentation supporting Mrs. Ricketts’ statements regarding the unstable ground. Mr. Goldman stated the engineers have done extensive land borings and testings and what is being shown in terms of design has been approved engineering-wise. He stated before the first shovel of dirt is turned, the city’s engineers will reanalyze all of the data and approve it or it will not be built. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to clarify that he had stated this is not a planned district, but has the elements of a planned district and that is why staff supports the variance.

After being sworn, Mrs. Gail Oakes stated she has a memorandum to the school district signed by Mr. Goldman, and it states Heatherbrook Developers will make a donation of $375,000 to the school district, however, now it has the name of Portrait Homes. Mr. Goldman stated Heatherbrook is the seller of the land and Portrait Homes is the buyer. He stated the seller and the buyer of the land had made a commitment to donate $375,000 to the school district. He stated the reason that donation is being made is not to influence the zoning, it is already zoned. It is not to influence the platting, it is already platted. He stated the donation is to help become a part of the solution which developers within this community are going to have to face. He stated Portrait Homes comes from Chicago and they are more willing to face the problem than local developers. He stated they want to donate $375,000 to help defer the costs of after school activities. He stated they want to make this donation because they want to become a part of the solution of a problem that has got to be fixed. Mrs. Oakes stated the specific memorandum states “…the funds are being donated to the school system in consideration of the development and construction of the condominium development…” and she questioned what the “in consideration” meant. She stated further if this development is two and three bedrooms it may put more children in the schools than have been projected. Mrs. Oakes stated she does serve on the Board of Education and to the best of her knowledge they have nothing more than the memorandum regarding committing to this donation. Mrs. Oakes again stated she did not like the “in consideration” terminology as it sounded like there were things behind that.

After being sworn, Stephanie Brobst stated she felt this was a good looking development, however, her concerns pertained to the school district and the idea that condominiums do not put children into the school district. Ms. Brobst stated she is a bus driver for the school district and if there was a condo development anywhere within the Pickerington school district that did not put some children in the schools she did not know where it was. She stated further she felt, as Mr. Goldman had stated, single-mother families would be in the condominiums and if she were a single mother there would be a level of security as they were located next to the police station. Ms. Brobst stated she asked the Board to bear in mind that there will be an impact on the school system and that is something that needs to be considered.

After being sworn, Richard Shaffer stated he concurred with Mrs. Ricketts. He stated he is an owner of a condo here in Pickerington and the city put a road in that doesn’t even have a sign, the 256 by-pass, where you cannot even get emergency vehicles in there. He stated what’s happened is the zoning commission wanting to get people to buy bad land that they want to hustle. He stated there is a Holiday Inn where the swimming pool is sinking. He stated once the developments are done, they are private operations and the city has no authority to go back in there. He stated no matter what you say about the setback, it is going to cause a problem with the settling of the land.

Mr. Schultz stated last March, Council approved new street standards in private developments, and in these standards they have to meet the width requirement and the standard requirements for compaction and depth of pavement. Mr. Schultz stated the plans for this development were sent to the Fire Department and they had no comments.

After being sworn, Mr. Bob Harding stated having been a Refugee Road driver, and seeing the development going in there, he would like to know if the developers will be required to put in a left turn lane at the Fuller’s Way and Refugee Road intersection, as Refugee is the only real east/west road in and out of town.

Mr. Bowman stated it was his understanding the issue before this Board is to approve the variance or not as the project is approved as it is. Mr. Linek stated that was correct. Mr. Bowman stated whatever this Board does is not going to stop the project from being built. Mr. Linek stated it would only alter their plans. Mr. Bowman stated as he understood it, the number of units will not be reduced if the variance is not approved. Mr. Goldman stated with the variance they would be taking out pavement and replacing it with green space. He stated with the variance the driveways would be 25 feet long instead of 40 feet long. Mr. Wells stated he thought if they put less units in the development they would not need the variance, and Mr. Goldman stated even without the variance they would have the same amount of units with less green space and more concrete. He stated the variance has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the number of units.

After being sworn, Mr. Norman Mathis stated he lives next to the police station and he questioned if Refugee Road will be widened, and if the water and sewer lines were public or private. Mr. Schultz stated ultimately Refugee Road will be widened, and with regard to the utilities this would be public sanitary, but the utilities within the development will be private lines.

Mr. Linek ascertained there was no further discussion or comment on this issue.

Mr. Cline moved to approve the variance request with the six contingencies listed by Mr. Schultz; Mr. Sells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sells and Mr. Wells voting “Nay,” and Mr. Cline, Mr. Linek, and Mr. Bowman voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-2.

4. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Schultz stated the next meeting is scheduled for July 24, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., and presently there are no items on the agenda.

5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wells moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Mr. Bowman, Mr. Cline, Mr. Sells, Mr. Linek, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 5-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:45 P.M., June 26, 2003.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

_______________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

_______________________________________

Lance A. Schultz, Director, Planning & Zoning