BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY HALL,
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2011
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Wells called the public hearing to order at 7:00 P.M. with the following members present: Mr. Allen, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Cline. Mr. Linek and Mr. Wright were absent. Others present were Bill Vance, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky, Karen Risher, David Conwill, Kim Kilmartin, Shane Farnsworth and Joy Davis.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 31, 2011, Regular Meeting. Mr. Cline moved to approve; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells and Mr. Allen voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to approve variances to the Residential Design Standards (Chapter 1276.23) for the Pickerington Pointe Luxury Apartments located behind the Police Department on Fullers Way.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Board members and stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals
approved a variance to allow the remainder of the development to be built to
the existing building style and appearance in January of 2008. The remaining undeveloped area went into
receivership and was then bought by the current applicant. The applicant will take a half built Condo
development and complete it with apartments.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Preliminary Plat in
February, 2011, the Service Committee approved a Final Plat in February, 2011,
and the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance for the interior parcel
line setbacks to be reduced to 0 feet in February, 2011. City
Mr. Henderson that he would go over the variance requests one by one. The first one would be the exterior materials and in Chapter 1273.23(d) of the Residential Design Standards states that on two- family units a front elevation minimum of 50 percent shall be natural materials and on buildings of three units or more a minimum of 50 percent shall be natural material on all four sides. The proposed development does not meet this standard. Mr. Henderson further stated Staff does not have any issues with the variance and supports this because the previously approved development at this site had already obtained a variance for natural material. If the applicant were building what is already in this half built development they would not have to come in for this variance, however, because they are changing the style of product they have to come in for this variance.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the second variance request and stated that after review of the landscape plan for the apartment complex Staff feels that the landscape plan clearly meets the intent of the landscape requirement. This is the first new multi-family development to come in since the Residential Building Design Standards have been in place and Staff believes that maybe the tree requirements need to be reevaluated as it seems to be excessive. Mr. Henderson further stated that Staff supports this variance.
Mr. Henderson stated the third variance request is for vinyl siding thickness. The code states that vinyl siding shall be a higher end vinyl siding with a minimum of 0.044 inches of thickness and the applicant is proposing 0.042 inches of thickness. Staff does not support the variance request for the siding with the information that has been provided.
Mr. Henderson stated the last
variance request is for the main roof pitch. The Residential Design Standards
states that the main roof pitch must be at a minimum of 6:12 (excluding porches,
garages, bay windows, etc.) The
applicant is proposing a structural engineer standard roof pitch of 5:12 on the
building elevations and this would be the same as other developments the
applicant has built around
Mr. Henderson stated Staff supports the Residential Building Design Standards variance requests for the Pickerington Pointe Apartments with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the proposed two-family and multi-family Pickerington Pointe Apartments elevations shall be constructed as proposed.
2. That the required amount of ornamental trees shall be waived.
3. That the roof pitch shall be 5:12 or greater.
Mr. Banchefsky introduced himself and stated he is with Schottenstein, Zox, and Dunn, that he works with Phil Hartmann, the Law Director, and generally represents the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that since this is the first time we have applied these Residential Design Standards to a project such as this, the City Manager asked that he attend the meeting to be able to field any questions. He stated that as these are four separate variances that are not co-dependant on each other, his recommendation, and it is just a suggestion, is that four motions are made so that each can be voted on individually. That way the applicant will have a better idea of where they stand as to what was approved and what wasn’t. Mr. Henderson stated that this residential development is a 10,000,000. project. It would bring in 270,000. in impact fees to support the City and 120,000. in building permit fees. It is a very large investment in the Pickerington Community. Mr. Cline clarified that there are four variances being reviewed tonight and Staff supports three of the four and does not support the variance for the vinyl siding to be 0.042 thickness.
Mr. David Conwill, after being duly sworn, stated they were here a couple of months and would have submitted these variances at that time if he had known. He stated he was at fault for this not being done at that time; he had incorrectly assumed that this had already been approved. He stated they support Residential Design Standards, build high quality projects, and had submitted letters of support. They support heavy landscaping, however, he concurs with Mr. Henderson that it would be a jungle if they had to comply with what the code reads. Mr. Conwill further stated that on the pitch of the roof, if they change that to 6:12 it will affect the truss design and a lot of other things and he appreciates Staff’s recommendation on this. They have a high grade, high quality vinyl siding in the Woodsman Select series and the 0.042 thickness is a superior product to most 0.044 products that are on the market, however they would be willing to back off on that if it is not granted. He further stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Cline stated he was not familiar with the vinyl siding as to the difference between the 0.042 and the 0.044 and why that is critical. Mr. Henderson stated the Residential Design Standards set it at 0.044 and at that time he believes they were trying to get a better quality of vinyl, however he has no doubt that there is a better quality 0.042 vinyl siding out there. He further stated that all of our residential buildings have been required to use the 0.044. Mr. Conwill stated that 0.044 is a higher quality and stated that they can live with the 0.044. Mr. Allen clarified it has been Mr. Conwill’s experience during the building of approximately 2,000 units over the past 8-9 years that the 0.042 vinyl is of good quality and that the 0.042 vinyl used on the first project built still looks great.
Mr. Cline move to approve that the proposed multi-family Pickerington
Pointe Apartments elevations shall be constructed as proposed; Mr. Wells
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Allen and Mr. Wells voting “Yes”. Motion
passed, 3-0.
Mr. Cline moved to approve that the required amount of ornamental trees
shall be waived and that it shall meet the plan as seen tonight; Mr. Wells
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells
and Mr. Allen voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.
Mr. Cline moved to approve that the roof pitch shall be 5:12 or
greater; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Allen,
Mr. Cline and Mr. Wells voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.
Mr. Cline moved to approve that the vinyl siding be at 0.042 thickness; Mr. Allen seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline and Mr. Allen voting “No”. Motion failed, 3-0.
Mr. Conwill clarified that that the motion to approve the 0.042 thickness vinyl siding failed, and the other three variances were approved.
4. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Henderson stated that it appears there will be one variance request for next month’s meeting and that would not interfere with the Violet Festival, however it may do so for the July meeting.
5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Well moved to adjourn; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Allen, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Wells voting “AYE”. Motion carried, 3-0.The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:24 P.M. on May 26, 2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
____________________________
Joseph P. Henderson, City Planner