BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY HALL,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Wells called the public hearing to order at 7:10 P.M. with the following members present: Mr. Wright, Mr. Wells and Mr. Cline. Mr. Linek and Mr. Allen were absent. Also present were Joe Henderson, Karen Risher, David Conwill, Denise Nelson, Kim Yenni and Megan Yenni.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 16, 2010 Regular
Meeting. Mr. Wright moved to approve;
Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells and Mr. Wright voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 3-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to approve a front, side and rear yard building setback variance for Pickerington Pointe Residential Subdivision located behind the Police Department off Fuller’s Way for Pride One Development. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Board members and stated the applicant is proposing to develop the remaining 23.413 acres of Pickerington Pointe Condominiums into a senior targeted luxury apartment community that will consist of approximately 112 new ranch style apartments with one and two car attached garages. The proposed development would have approximately 44 units less than the approved development. The existing street network throughout the site would remain as originally approved with the deletion of a small portion of a street in order to create a larger open space in the middle of the development. The building footprints would be relatively consistent with the approved development. The plan shows minor changes to the footprints and staff does support this. Mr. Henderson stated that the applicant is proposing to have the site platted to create four new parcels. Two of these parcels, proposed lots one and two, 0.916 and 0.318 acres respectively, would be split and then would be transferred to the existing Pickerington Pointe Homeowners Association for the purpose of creating open space and an additional condominium building. The remaining two parcels, proposed lots three and four, 7.816 and 14.363 acres respectively, would be for the new apartment development. Each phase will be a separate parcel. The developer needs to divide the two phases into separate parcels in order to secure financing for the project. Mr. Henderson stated that due to the previous foreclosure action on the property, the proposed development provides a viable alternative to develop a half-built residential project and improve an otherwise negative situation. The proposed lot splits will require variances for front, side and rear yard building setbacks internally throughout the development for it to be constructed as proposed. Without the variances the site could not be constructed as proposed. The setbacks along the outside of the two parcels would not be altered. If this had come in as a condominium development there would be no lot splits, the condominiums would be built and there would be no worry about setbacks internally. The external setbacks remain the same.
Mr. Wright clarified that the
parcel will be split into four lots and it is lots three and four being
discussed today. Mr. Henderson stated that lot three will be Phase one. Phase one is being financed separately and so
it needs a separate parcel number for banking purposes.
Mr. Henderson stated that staff supports the front, side and rear yard setback variance request for Pickerington Pointe Apartments with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition:
1. That the interior parcel lines within the Pickerington Pointe Apartment Development shall have the front, side and rear yard building setbacks reduced to 0-ft.
After being duly sworn, Mr. David
Conwill stated he was the applicant and would answer any questions. Mr. Wright clarified that this was going from
the 156 units originally approved to 112 units, that these will be single
story, slab on grade apartments that are 1200-1300 square feet in size with
two-car attached garages. Mr. Wright
clarified the green space will be an open courtyard, that there will not be a
community center, club house or playground and that basketball hoops will not
be allowed. Mr. Wells clarified that if the proposed Phase One on lot three is
built and something happens and Phase Two on lot four doesn’t happen, then
someone comes in and wants to do something else on lot four that there would
not be issues with these setbacks as long as they are tied to this development only.
Mr. Cline clarified that we should add that this approval is for this project
as seen tonight. Mr. Conwill stated that
the infrastructure is in the ground for the entire development. If he did Phase One, went bankrupt and
someone else comes in with a different development proposal they would have to
tear out the sewer lines, etc. and reconfigure the streets to do that. Mr. Cline stated he thinks this was brought
up for the Board so they can get the technical wording in place for the motion.
Mr. Wells stated things happen and he
does not want to back here in two years with the now Phase One having been
built and have something different being proposed yet again for the now Phase
two and wanting to change the setbacks.
Mr. Henderson stated if that is a concern his suggestion is that wording
be tied into what is passed tonight that states that this applies to this
development as presented tonight. Mr.
Wright clarified that the street network would continue to remain the same as
approved at the time when this development first came in, with the exception of
the change that removes part of the street that ran through the previous green
space, and this will allow for the creation of the larger green space. Mr. Wells stated his only concern is if
something happens and that boundary for Phase One and Phase Two becomes the
outside perimeter of that parcel, that would change all of the setbacks. In the event that Phase Two doesn’t happen
and four or five years from now someone different comes it changes things.
Ms Denise Nelson stated she is with the Homeowner’s Association for the condominiums currently there and they are more than happy to see that someone is coming in and building something that is going to compliment the condominium development instead of having the empty space filled with weeds. Mr. Henderson stated that this is one of the larger developments that had partially started and then the development stopped. The City is excited to see this being completed at the level of quality that it will be.
Mr. Cline moved to approve, based on the plans that have been submitted,
that the interior parcel lines within the Pickerington Pointe Apartment
development for Phase One and Phase Two shall have the front, side and rear
yard building setbacks reduced to 0 feet; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr.
Cline and Mr. Wells voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.
4. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Henderson stated that Mr. Bill Vance, the City Manager, asked him to advise the Board that he does plan on attending one of the Board of Zoning Appeals meetings and will probably attend the next one. Mr. Henderson further stated that Mr. Vance did ask him to relay to this Board that things appear to be going well here.
5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further Mr. Wells moved to adjourn, Mr. Cline seconded the motion. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M., February 28, 2011.
RESPSECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Joseph P. Henderson, City Planner