BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS
THURSDAY,
MAY 28, 2009
7:00
P.M.
1. Mr.
Linek called the public hearing to order at 7:00
P.M., with the following members present:
Mr. Linek, Mr. Boruszewski,
Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline. Mr. Wright was
not present as he was out of town.
Others present were: Joe
Henderson, Lynda Yartin, Judy Folk, Larry Folk, Eva
Langston, Tracy Langston, Patsy Woodruff, Anita Meade, Loreta
Merringer, Brian Kessler, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 23, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mr. Wells moved to approve; Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Linek, and Mr. Cline voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review
and request for a motion to approve a front yard building setback variance, a
side yard (north) parking setback variance, side yard (south) building,
parking, and buffer setback variances, a rear yard buffer setback variance, an
access drive width variance, and an aisle width variance for Shear Perfection
Loft located at 101 Hill Road North.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Board Members and
stated the applicant is proposing to convert an existing home into a beauty
salon. He stated the site is zoned O
(Suburban Office) and a beauty salon is a permitted use for this site. He further stated the applicant is proposing
a 780-square foot addition to the front of the building increasing the total to
approximately 1,452 square feet. He
further stated a 14-space parking lot would be located at the rear of the site
and they are proposing to expand the existing curb cut from 10-feet to 16-feet
along Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson
stated the site is located near the Olde Pickerington
Village and has many setback and access constraints. Mr. Henderson stated there are six variance
requests being considered this evening as detailed in the report. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
variances for 101 Hill Road North with the following conditions:
1. That the front yard building setback
shall be reduced from 23.38 feet to 14 feet.
2. That
the side yard (north) parking setback shall be reduced from 9 feet to 1 foot.
3. That
a side yard (south) building setback shall be reduced from 25 feet to 7 feet.
4. That a side yard (south) parking
setback shall be reduced from 15 feet to 2 feet.
5. That
the southern (side) boundary buffer shall be reduced from 25 feet to zero feet.
6. That
the western (rear) boundary buffer shall be reduced from 50 feet to zero feet.
7. That
a six foot tall wooden privacy fence or a six foot tall continuous screen of
landscaping shall be installed on the southern property line.
8. That
six foot tall wooden privacy fence or a six foot tall continuous screen of landscaping
shall be installed on the western property line.
9. That
the access drive width shall be reduced from 24 feet to 16 feet.
10. That
the aisle width shall be reduced from 24 feet to 22 feet.
After being duly sworn, Mr. Larry Folk stated he represented
the applicants this evening. He stated
he has been working on this project for a couple of months and he would answer
any questions. Mr. Cline questioned why
the expansion was so far out in the front rather than toward the rear, and Mr.
Folk stated it would take up the parking space in the rear.
After being duly sworn, Patsy Woodruff
stated she lived to the south of the property being discussed. She stated her main concern was because of
the traffic on S.R. 256. She stated
right now to back out onto S.R. 256 she must go to the end of her driveway, and
if the expansion comes out that far she will have to go onto the sidewalk in
order to see traffic. Ms Woodruff stated
she has been hit already trying to get into her driveway, and her neighbor has
been hit three times. Ms Woodruff stated
also there would be a problem with kids, because small children ride their
tricycles, bicycles, etc. on the sidewalk and are hard to see. She stated she felt this would be a very
dangerous situation.
After being duly sworn, Anita Meade
stated she lives on the other side of the subject property and she has the same
problems trying to get in and out of her driveway on a daily basis. She stated the trees the City put up on the
sidewalks also contribute to the problem with seeing traffic. Ms Meade stated she also has a problem with
losing the privacy of the little neighborhood.
Ms Meade stated just trying to get here tonight she sat in her driveway
for seven minutes trying to get out. She
stated S.R. 256 was narrowed, and they took part of their yards, so with this
house coming out further it will make it that much harder to see.
After being duly sworn, Ms Lareta Merringer stated she owns
the property that abuts this property and she did not know why she was notified
of this meeting. Mr. Schultz clarified
that our Code requires anyone whose property is adjacent to or abuts the
subject property be notified. Ms Merringer clarified this would not affect her property
itself.
Mr. Cline clarified staff recommendation
was for a fence along the southern and western property line, and questioned
why it was not recommended on the northern property line. Mr. Henderson stated the property to the
north is zoned Office and does not require the Type A buffer as required
between residential and Office. Mr.
Henderson stated Ms Woodruff’s property is zoned Office but is used as
residential. Ms Woodruff inquired why
her property was zoned Office and stated she has lived there since she was four
years old and it has never been zoned, rented, or anything else. Mr. Schultz stated the City’s zoning map goes
twenty to thirty years and it identifies that property as being zoned Office.
He stated he could do some research and determine when it was zoned Office, but
right off hand he could not tell her when that occurred. Mr. Schultz stated there are pockets of zoned
areas in the old downtown that are not residential.
After being duly sworn, Mr. Brian Kessler
stated he would like to know the definition of Office, and Mr. Schultz stated
our zoning code has essentially three different categories; residential,
office, commercial, and other variations of commercial and office. Mr. Schultz stated office zoned property
allows offices and retail uses on those properties. He stated these lots could have office or
retail uses based on our Code, but does not allow residential. He stated that is why it is interesting to
determine when Ms Woodruff’s property was zoned office because we have a lot of
areas in the downtown that are zoned commercial, and people live there, but
once they sell the house it must go to an office or commercial use. Mr. Schultz clarified as an example a use
that would not be allowed in office zoning would be a tavern or any kind of
auto related use. Mr. Kessler stated he
shares the concerns already voiced about the traffic. Mr. Kessler stated he has seen ambulances and
fire trucks go up on the sidewalk to get around traffic. He also stated he would question if the
members of this Board would want to live next to this business when there were
other options in the City, such as by the old Big Bear, where the buildings
exist that you can rent and you have the road space, and you are not affecting
residential people. He stated he was not
saying this was a bad business and he had nothing against these people, but he
would like the Board to take that into consideration. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to clarify
that this use is allowed at this location, the only thing being discussed
tonight were the variances. Mr. Kessler
stated he understood that, he was just asking the Board members to consider if
they would like to have this next door to them when there are other options in
the town. Ms Woodruff stated with the
insurance agent on the other side of her, this would make her house sandwiched
between two businesses. Mr. Schultz
stated the insurance property is shown as being zoned residential and he would
have to research to see why there is an office there. He stated it might have been grandfathered in.
Mr. Schultz stated the reason staff would
support this, if there were minimal opposition, is because there are several
other uses in the downtown, for example, Papa Joe’s, J’Nicholes,
and the Lisk Dental Office, that have similar
characteristics as this site. Mr. Linek stated these uses do not have curb cuts in the front;
they are accessed through an alley in the back.
Mr. Schultz stated some of them do, that is correct. Mr. Schultz stated they do have a memo from
the engineer and they do not have any issues with the additional traffic this
site would generate. Mr. Schultz stated
if the owners would not put a parking lot in the back or increased the size of
the building, they could put a beauty salon in there. He stated adding the parking lot creates the need
for most of the variances, and adding to the front of it created the other
variances.
Mr. Cline stated there is a lot here to
think about. Mr. Schultz stated if the
Board would like to review this, it could be tabled this evening. Mr. Cline moved to table this issue until
the June meeting; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Linek, Mr.
Cline, and Mr. Wells voting “Yea.”
Motion passed, 4-0. (TABLED)
Mr. Schultz stated the next meeting would
be June 25th and everyone would be notified.
4. OTHER
BUSINESS. Mr. Schultz stated the July
meeting if needed would fall on July 23rd, and that is during the
Violet Festival. He stated if the Board
concurred he would like to reschedule that meeting for July 30th if
there are any agenda items. Mr. Cline
moved to schedule the July meeting, if there are agenda items, for July 30th;
Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wells, Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Boruszewski
voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further Mr. Boruszewski moved to adjourn, Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Mr. Linek, Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:35 P.M., May 28, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk