BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 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 Joe Henderson, Scott Fulton, Karen Risher, Brian Downey, Mark Matthews, and Jason Heitmeyer.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 26, 2011. 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.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 23, 2011. Mr. Wells moved to approve, Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Wells voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.

3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:

A. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a deck at 224 Warbler Court (The Reserves at Pickerington Ponds).

Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Board members and stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a deck that is approximately 16 feet by x 33 feet (523 square feet). The deck would protrude 15 feet into the rear yard setback. The required setback is 35 for the R4 zoning district. The proposed deck would be located approximately 20 feet from the rear property line to the south. It protrudes approximately 15 feet into the rear yard setback. The property is surrounded by residentially zoned properties, however, the area is largely undeveloped. It appears that the deck would have a minimal impact on surrounding properties. Staff supports the rear yard building setback variance for the deck that meets the minimum zoning requirements and the following condition:

1. That the rear setback for the deck shall be reduced from 35 feet to 20 feet.

After being duly sworn, Mr. Brian Downey stated he is the applicant and that as you go out the back of the house there is quite a large ditch, then it goes back up. He is proposing putting a deck, constructed of wood, over that ditch for family use. He further stated they have two small children and it has been somewhat of a danger for them as far as falling into the ditch and he wants to get it covered. He stated the proposal is for 20 feet, however, he would like to reduce the setback to 15 feet so that he can put the deck up to the easement. Mr. Henderson stated he has spoken with the City and Staff Engineers regarding this and the concern is that on the recorded plat the easement actually shows as 18 feet on the neighbor’s property to the east and as it goes west it gets larger and at one point it is about 27 feet. He further stated 20 feet looks to be approximately what it was where they measured it and staff feels comfortable with saying 20 feet would be fine. Mr. Downey stated this is a little deceiving on the location survey that he was given when he purchased the home. On that it says that the easement is 14.5 feet on the left side and kind of implies that it's 14.5 along the whole side, and he appreciates staff researching that. He further stated that whatever is underneath those other five feet is so deep in the ground that if he took the platform over it, he doesn’t think they would ever have any concerns of that having to be ripped up.

Mr. Allen moved to approve that the rear setback variance request shall be reduced from 35 feet to 20 feet; Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Allen voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.

B. Review and request for a motion to approve a front yard (east) building setback variance, a front yard (east) parking setback variance, a side yard (west) building setback variance, a side yard (west) parking variance, a parking space number and size variance, and an aisle width variance for MMA Insurance located at 107 West Columbus Street.

Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Board members and stated the applicant is proposing an addition to the insurance agency located at 107 West Columbus Street. The addition would be a 29 feet by 36 feet (approximately 1,044 square feet)addition on the south side of the building. The existing structure is approximately 1,050 square feet in size, bringing the total square feet footage of the business after the addition to 2,094 square feet. The site is zoned C-2, Central Business / Mixed Use. The applicant is proposing 10 parking spaces. The access to the parking lot would be relocated from South Cross Street to Park Alley. The City’s zoning code was designed for development of property on larger lots more consistent with sites along Diley road and Hill Road North. There are many constraints that occur when developing, redeveloping, or adding on to property in and around the Olde Pickerington Village. The applicant needs the variances requested in order to proceed with the project and construct the proposed building addition and parking lot. Mr. Henderson further stated this is seen a lot with any business that wants to expand in the Olde Pickerington Village because our code is written for the one-half, one acre etc. lots, and it not designed to properly deal with the smaller and narrower lots. Other properties that come in to redevelop in the Olde Pickerington Village have had to come in and get variances or a rezoning to a planned district in order to get their setbacks changed. This is an existing building that will have an addition and it didn’t make sense to come in for a rezoning. The applicant did come through Planning and Zoning earlier this month and the request was approved with the condition that the applicant would get these variances approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Mr. Henderson stated that variance one and two are very common in the Olde Pickerington Village. On variance one the front yard building setback would be one-half the width of the right-of-way to the east, which is Cross Street at 50 feet, so this would require a 25 foot building setback variance. The building is approximately 13.1 feet from the property line, therefore a 12 foot building setback variance would be required. On variance two, parking would be 15 feet on that same side and they are showing three feet between the parking and property line, therefore a 12 foot parking variance would be needed. Both of these are very common variances in the Olde Pickerington Village.

Mr. Henderson stated on variance three, the side yard setback on the west, the commercial building abuts residential use on the side yard and not less than 25 foot setback would be required. The proposed building would have a 17.7 foot setback at the western property line, therefore a 7.3 building setback variance would be required. The building addition will not be any closer to the west property line than the current building is. On variance four, the side yard parking setback variance would require a 15 foot setback. The applicant is proposing a three foot setback, therefore a 12 foot variance is required and this is very similar to what is on the west side. On variance five, one parking space is required per 200 feet of gross floor area so the building would require 11 parking spaces and the applicant is proposing 10. This would require one parking space variance. There has not been a handicap parking space proposed other than in speaking with the property owner and the applicant, they are planning to put a handicap space in there and this would be one of their 10 spaces. Mr. Henderson further stated that the Engineer has reviewed this and does not have any objections to the plan as submitted. The parking is for the employees and 10 spaces will be enough. They also have street parking. Anything on the north side of West Columbus Street is not required to have parking, however, it is required on the south side of West Columbus Street. Staff has no problem with approving this.

Mr. Henderson stated variance six, Chapter 1292.07(a)(4), Design Standards for Off Street Parking, states that when parking stalls are at ninety degree angles the dimension of the parking stalls shall be 9 feet by 18 feet. The applicant is proposing stalls that are 9 feet by 17 feet. This was discussed at the Planning & Zoning meeting and the City Engineer had reviewed the proposed access and parking lot and does not have any objections to the plan as submitted. On Variance seven, Chapter1290.07)a)(4) states that parking stalls must have an access drive with an aisle width of 24 feet and the applicant is proposing 20 feet, therefore a four foot variance would be required. The City Engineer has no issues with this.

Staff supports the variance requests that comply with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:

1. That the front yard (east) building setback shall be reduced from 25 feet to 13 feet.

2. That the front yard (east) parking setback variance shall be reduced from 15 feet to 3 feet.

3. That a side yard (west) building setback shall be reduced from 25 feet to 17 feet.

4. That a side yard (west) parking setback shall be reduced from 15 feet to 3 feet.

5. That the number of required parking spaces shall be reduced from 11 spaces to 10 spaces.

6. That the parking space size dimensions shall be reduced from 9 feet by 18 feet to 9 feet by 17 feet.

7. That the access drive width shall be reduced from 24 feet to 20 feet.

Mr. Cline clarified that there is a residence on the west side and a business on the east side of Cross Street, that all of the neighbors were notified, and staff did not receive any feedback from the neighbors.

After being duly sworn, Mr. Mark Matthews stated that there is some difficulty with the space they are trying to maximize the use of. They have had productive discussions with the City and would like to be able to move forward with this. Mr. Allen clarified that the sidewalk is not on Mr. Matthew’s property so that would be another couple of feet that will be between the building and the street. Mr. Allen clarified there are no plans to change Park Alley to a two way street, and that anyone coming in from Cross Street would be turning against the one way regulation. Mr. Henderson stated the only way to get into the parking lot would be to come in off of Hill Road South. Mr. Henderson stated that the majority of time the parking lot will be for employees and that customers coming into the business usually park on West Columbus Street and that there is no parking on Cross Street. Mr. Matthews stated there is also a City parking lot near his business.

Mr. Cline moved to approve with the following conditions:

1. That the front yard (east) building setback shall be reduced from 25 feet to 13 feet.

2. That the front yard (east) parking setback shall be reduced from 15 feet to three feet.

3. That the side yard (west) building setback shall be reduced from 25 feet to 17 feet.

4. That a side yard (west) parking setback shall be reduced from 15 feet to three feet.

5. That the number of required parking spaces shall be reduced from 11 spaces to 10 spaces.

6. That the parking space size dimensions shall be reduced from 9 feet x 18 feet to 9 feet x 17 feet.

7. That the access drive width shall be reduced from 24 feet to 20 feet.

Mr. Allen seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Allen, Mr. Cline, and Mr.

Wells voting “Yes”. Motion passed, 3-0.

4. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Henderson stated that as of now there are no items on the agenda for next month, however there are a few more weeks until the deadline.

5. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Allen moved to adjourn; Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wells, Mr. Cline, and Mr. Allen voting “AYE”. Motion carried 3-0. The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting adjourned at 7:25 P.M. on August 25, 2011.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

____________________________

Karen I. Risher, Deputy City Clerk

ATTEST:

____________________________

Joseph P. Henderson, Development Services Director