BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, JANUARY
24, 2008
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a variance to the Residential Building Design Standards (Chapter 1276.23) for the remaining buildings within the Pickerington Pointe Condominium Development (Portrait Homes).
Mr. Henderson stated the Staff Report: Zoning History Ordinance 97-55 – City Council approved rezoning from AGR (Rural District) to C-2 (Central Business/Mixed Use) on August 19, 1997. The City Attorney determined that because the lot split (final plat) for this parcel was approved (October 25, 2002) prior to the November 2003 initiative petition referendum that was approved by the City electorate (certified by County Board of Elections on December 2, 2002), the density of the development does not have to comply with the 2 units per acre maximum of the initiative petition. Board of Zoning Appeals approved a front yard building setback in June of 2003. Proposed Use: The developer of Pickerington Pointe has approximately 14 of the 48 condominium buildings completed. On July 20, 2006, the Residential Design Standards became effective, which would require the builder to make design modifications to the condominium buildings. The builder is requesting a variance in order to complete the condominium development with the proposed buildings having the same design, style and appearance as the existing buildings. Variance Request 1276.23 Residential Building Design Standards – The Residential Development Building Design Standards and criteria are hereby established for the following purposes: 1. To establish and enforce a set of criteria applicable to all residential developments that ensure that future residents of the City of Pickerington are provided a minimum level of quality for their respective neighborhoods. 2. To provide clear policy direction and standards to the development community that ensures that the City of Pickerington improves its quality of life through a set of consistent standards for residential development. 3. To enhance the value of private property and a sound investment climate through the establishment of consistent design criteria. 4. To protect the public's health, safety, and general welfare through a set of citywide design criteria that encourage a consistent quality in all neighborhoods and residential developments. 5. To allow architectural creativity and compatibility with surrounding housing conditions is recognized and encouraged. 6. Exceptions to the standards set forth in this Ordinance shall be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The existing and proposed condominium buildings would not comply with the following residential building design standards: The Pickerington Pointe Condominium buildings would not comply with the required 50% natural material on all elevations. The windows on the rear and side elevations do not have trim around them. It appears that the condominium buildings do not have the required amount of landscaping. 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 variance. 2. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would be considered substantial because the buildings within the condominium development would not achieve compliance with the residential design standards. 3. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or adjoining properties suffer a "substantial detriment." There could be substantial detriment to the existing condominium buildings because the design, style and appearance of the development would most likely not be consistent with any future buildings that would have to meet the residential design standards. 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 condominium development was initiated prior to the adoption of the residential design standards (7/20/06). 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 Pickerington Pointe Condominiums would be preserved because the development would have a consistent design, style and appearance. Conclusion: Staff supports the requested variance for the following reasons: The existing buildings are aesthetically pleasing and appear to be a quality product and comply with several of the design standards. Ensures a consistent design, style and appearance for the entire condominium development for the existing and future owners. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the variance request to the Residential Building Design Standards (Chapter 1276.23) for the remaining buildings within Pickerington Pointe Condominium Community with the following condition: That the proposed buildings design, style and appearance match the existing buildings.
Jeffery M .Lewis, after being duly sworn, stated he is legal representative for Portrait Homes. He stated that it has been a pleasure working the staff on this issue. Mr. Lewis stated that he agreed with the staff report and that there has been a staff change within Portrait Homes in reference to this project and the representative is now Barkley Hallowell, who would be willing to answer any questions. Mr. Wright asked to clarify what kind of finical impact there would be to the project if they did not get the variance. Mr. Lewis stated that there would be an approximate $15,000 increase per unit, over $3 million for the entire project. Mr. Schultz stated that the Board has approved other developments with the same request in the past.
Mr. Wright moved to approve with the following condition: That the proposed buildings design, style and appearance match the existing buildings. Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells and Mr. Wright voted “Yea”. Motion passed 4-0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_________________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning