BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009

 

PUBLIC HEARING

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.  Other present were:  Joe Henderson, Lance Schultz, Angie Perrine, Larry Folk, Eva Langston, Patsy Woodruff, Anita Meade, Brian Kessler, and others.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 28, 2009, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Boruszewski moved to approve; Mr. Cline 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:  Mr. Wells moved to remove the scheduled item from the Table; Mr. Linek seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Linek, Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Wells voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0.

 

            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  stated he would like to again briefly go over the following conditions:

 

Zoning History:  Planning and Zoning Commission approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan and Architecture in May 2009.

 

Proposed Use:  The applicant is proposing to convert an existing home located at 101 Hill Road North into a beauty salon, Shear Perfection.  The site is zoned O- Suburban Office, a beauty salon is permitted use for this site.  The applicant is proposing a 780 square foot addition to the front of the building increasing the total to approximately 1, 452 square feet.  A 14 space parking lot would be located at the rear of the site.  In addition, they are proposing to expand the existing curb cut from 10-ft to 16-ft along Hill Road North.  The site is located near the Olde Pickerington Village and has many setback and access constraints.

 

Staff Recommendation:         1.         That the front yard building setback shall be reduced from

23.38-ft to 14-ft.

                                                2.         That the side yard (north) parking setback shall be reduced

                                                            from 9-ft to 1-ft.

                                               

3.         That a side yard (south) building setback shall be reduced

                                                            25-ft to 7-ft.

                                                4.         That a side yard (south) parking setback shall be reduced

                                                            from 15-ft to 2-ft.

                                                5.         That the southern (side) boundary buffer shall be reduced

                                                            from 25-ft to 0-ft.

                                                6.         That the western (rear) boundary buffer shall be reduced

                                                            from 50-ft to 0-ft.

                                                7.         That a 6-ft tall wooden privacy fence or a 6-ft tall

continuous screen of landscaping shall be installed on the

southern property line.

8.         That a 6-ft tall wooden privacy fence or a 6-ft tall continuous screen of landscaping shall be installed on the

            western property line.

9.         That the access drive width shall be reduced from 24-ft to 16-ft.

                                              10.         That the aisle width shall be reduced from 24-ft to 22-ft.

 

After being duly sworn, Mr. Larry Folk stated he represented the applicants this evening.  He asked if anyone had any questions from last months meeting.  Mr. Folk stated that all of the variances being requested are compatible with the existing commercial properties around the area.  Mr. Linek stated that Mr. Henderson and Mr. Schultz feel that a variance request is the proper way of dealing with this rather than writing a whole new code.

 

After being duly sworn, Ms. Patsy Woodruff stated she lived to the south of the property being discussed.  Ms. Woodruff asked what does that mean have they shortened the front of the plan from 14-ft to 23-ft or is it still remaining the same.  Mr. Henderson replied that what that is saying is if you take an average of the properties 100-ft. on the same road its 23.38-ft., two properties north and two properties south.  The applicants are requesting 14-ft. from the property line, basically they are asking for a 9-ft variance.  Ms. Woodruff asked if this is the same from last week when they went home and measured.  Mr. Henderson replied yes.  Ms. Woodruff commented so we will still not be able to see to get out of the driveway that was the problem last time.  She also stated that people have been parking on the sidewalks and police have been issuing citations.  But still her main concern is being able to use the sidewalk, children and people in wheelchairs.  Mr. Folk commented that what they are proposing is no worse than what is already existing north or south. 

 

After being duly sworn, Ms. Anita Meade stated that she has the same concerns as the Woodruff’s.  She stated when pulling out of her driveway she almost hit a city worker on a John Deere gator.  With so much traffic and trees it is very hard to see when pulling out of your driveway.  Ms. Meade stated she still had issues with the additional frontage being added to this

 

 

house, its hard enough pulling out of your driveway.  Ms. Woodruff stated other businesses had 6 to 10 parking spaces.  She didn’t understand why the applicant doesn’t build to the back of the

house.  Mr. Linek asked how many parking spots the applicant would have to have.  Mr. Schultz replied one space per 200 sq.-ft., would be 7 or 8 parking places. 

 

After being duly sworn, Eva Langston stated she purchased the property because it was already zoned business; otherwise she wouldn’t try to change the zoning.  I hired the architect to draw these plans up to be the best for my business.  I certainly wasn’t trying to block everyone’s view.  I think the building will look nice and bring up the value of the property.  Would you rather have the property the way it looks today or a property that looks a lot nicer.    Mr. Cline asked why again did you decided not to build to the rear of the property.  Mr. Folk stated because of the parking and the access, and also how the house is already built on the property.  When I first talked to Mr. Henderson they said no parking in the front. 

 

After being duly sworn, Brian Kessler stated he felt that these types of businesses should be located down on 256 North and Diley Road where there are five lanes.  There are a lot of existing commercial buildings setting empty.  Also I believe that a business like this doesn’t increase your property value it decreases it.  If you where buying a house today you wouldn’t want this type of business next to it.  I would like you to keep this in mind when you make your decision.

 

Anita Meade stated she had a question she would like to ask in regards to the northern property line and where her driveway and there driveway is located there is a 6-ft fence and a small green space where the fence ends, how will this effect me.  Will there be a boundary or fence.   Mr. Folk stated there would be a chain link fence there.   Mr. Schultz stated that right now there is no fence or boundary buffer recommended for that however, the commission could request that a fence or buffer be installed, and could add this as a condition.  Ms. Meade wanted to know how the driveway would come over to hers.  Mr. Schultz commented the intent is not to have the applicant’s driveway connect with yours.  Mr. Linek asked if the chain link was on Ms. Meade’s property.  Ms. Meade answered that part of the fence is on the applicant’s property and right side is where mine starts.  Mr. Cline asked if the new addition goes to the edge or what is beside that.  Mr. Folk stated that the new addition would be 7-ft away from the property line.  Mr. Wells questioned the house to the north where does that set in regards to the front yard set back.  Mr. Henderson answered that is 24.5-ft from the front yard property vertical line.  On page 3 of the report its lists the two properties to the north and two properties to south and there distance.  Mr. Wells commented that the 81 Hill Road North is really the one that obscures all these numbers.  Mr. Cline replied that is correct. 

 

Mr. Linek asked if anyone had anything else.  Mr. Linek moved to approve the variance with the ten staff recommendations as stated; Mr. Boruszewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken Mr. Wells, Mr. Boruszewski, and Mr. Cline voting “Nay,” and Mr. Linek voting “Yea.”  Motion failed, 3-1.

 

4.  OTHER BUSINESS:  Mr. Schultz stated that the next meeting would be July 30th   a week later due to the Violet Festival if we have any agenda items.    

 

5.  ADJOURNMENT:  There being nothing further Mr. Linek moved to adjourn, Mr. Wells seconded the motion.  Mr. Boruszewski, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, Mr. Linek voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 4-0.  The Board of Zoning Appeals adjourned at 7:35 P.M., June 25, 2009.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

____________________________________

Angie Perrine, Administrative Assistant 

                 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

___________________________________

Lance Schultz, Planning & Zoning Director