CITY OF
PICKERINGTON
BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, MAY 27,
2004
PUBLIC HEARING
7:00 P.M.
A. Review and request for a motion to approve variances for a rear yard building setback and the required number of parking spaces for a 3,700 square foot retail building for The SR 256 Company on approximately 0.724 acres located just south of Advance Auto Parts (Morris Property).
Mr. Schultz stated zoning history: Planning and Zoning Commission approved Commercial Design Guidelines Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan/Building Materials on May 11, 2004. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 3,700 square foot retail building on the 0.724-acre site. Access to the site would be through an access road located east of the proposed building. Two curb cuts would be provided from the above-mentioned access road. Consumer retail uses require 19 parking spaces while 18 spaces are provided (1 space per 200 square feet of retail area). Storm water would likely be detained in the parking lot. Zoning Issues (Variances Required): 1). Building Setback – a 35-ft building setback is required in the rear yard: The southeastern portion of the proposed building protrudes into the 35-ft rear yard-building setback. Approximately 26-ft of the 90-ft width of the building protrudes into the setback. The owner dedicated a 30-ft easement for the access drive located just east of the building. The purpose of the access drive is to provide controlled access at the traffic light for this property and the nursing home to the south. The curb cut for the nursing home would be eliminated. 2) Parking Requirements – one parking space per 200 square feet is required for consumer retail buildings: The proposed building requires 19 spaces (3,700/200 = 18.5 (round-up) = 19 spaces). The owner is proposing 18 parking spaces. Conclusion: Staff supports the variances because the owner dedicated an easement to construct an access road that eliminates a curb cut on SR 256 (nursing home). Without the dedication of the easement and construction of the access road, the owner would have enough land to meet the rear yard building setback and parking space requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard building setback and parking space variances with the following conditions: 1. That the rear yard building setback on the southeastern portion of the building shall be reduced per the plan submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. That the number of parking spaces shall be reduced from 19 to 18 parking spaces.
Paul Woodruff, after being duly sworn, stated that he is acting as the attorney for this applicant. Mr. Woodruff stated that it is pretty clear issue as Mr. Schultz stated.
Mr. Cline moved to approve: 1. That the rear yard building setback on the southeastern portion of the building shall be reduced per the plan submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2. That the number of parking spaces shall be reduced from 19 to 18 parking spaces. Mr. Linek seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, Mr. Borusewski, and Mr. Wright voted “Aye”. Motion carried 5-0.
B. Review and request for motion to approve front yard building setback variance for a fence at 417 Kaye Drive (Meadowbrook Estates Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated zoning history: None. Proposed Use: The owner proposes to construct a 6-ft high privacy fence around his property. The property is a corner lot with frontage on Kaye Drive and Violet Drive West. The variance is required along Violet Drive West. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.15 – Fences in Front Yards – No fence, as defined in Section 1270.11(74), shall be located in the required front yard. The front yard setback in the R4 district is 35-ft. On the record plat, the Kaye Drive and Violet Drive West road right-of-way connect to form a corner lot. However, in reality Kaye Drive and Violet Drive West do not connect. There is an approximate 15-ft of grass between the two streets. Apparently there is a large gas line in this area that did not allow the two streets to connect. Therefore, technically (on the plat) this is a double frontage lot but in reality it is not. A fence along Violet Drive (15-ft from the pavement) would not have the same impact as it would when two streets intersect (i.e. block view lines around corners and into driveways). The properties to the south and southwest have a chain link fence that is located approximately 15-ft from the pavement of Violet Drive West. Conclusion: Staff supports the variance because the site is unique and does not have double frontage in reality. Also, two properties have a fence in the same location the applicant is requesting. And finally, the fence would not block view lines around corners or into driveway entrances for motorists. The owner should be aware that there is a 40-ft utility easement (gas lines) where they are proposing the fence and should take precautions not to damage the lines.
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the front yard setback variance request for a fence with the following condition: 1. That the fence setback adjacent to Violet Drive West shall be reduce from 35-ft to 0-ft (There would be approximately 15-ft of grass area from the fence to the edge of pavement).
Frank Hamelin, after being duly sworn, stated that he is the property owner. Mr. Schultz stated that this is not a corner lot that there are gas lines there and this caused the properties not to be connected and left an easement, so it looks like this property has two front yards. BZA members verified where the property is to neighboring properties along with other properties with fences. The property front yard is actually Kaye Drive and that Violet Drive is actually the side yard.
Mr. Wells moved to approve: That the fence setback adjacent to Violet Drive West shall be reduce from 35-ft to 0-ft (There would be approximately 15-ft of grass area from the fence to the edge of pavement). Mr. Cline seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, Mr. Borusewski, and Mr. Wright voted “Aye”. Motion carried 5-0.
C. Review and request for motion to approve a front yard parking setback variance for a 22,000 square feet retail building for Plaza Properties on an approximate 2.551 acre Marcus Theater out lot on SR 204.
Mr. Schultz stated zoning history:
None. Proposed Use: The owner is proposing to construct a 22,000 square foot of
retail building on the 2.551 acre Marcus Theater out lot. The primary access
point would be from a signalized curb cut (Freedom Way) on SR 204. The site
plan identifies 139 parking spaces on the site and 56 new parking spaces on the
Marcus Theater parking lot just east of the site for a total of 195 parking
spaces. Storm water detention is not shown on the plan but is required.
Variance Request: Table I – Front yard building setback is one half of
the planned right-of-way. Parking may occur in 40% of the required front yard
setback. The variance request is for this parcel and the 2.551-acre parcel to
the east (east of access drive). The right-of-way of SR 204 is 100-ft which
requires a 50-ft setback. Therefore, a 30-ft parking setback is required (50-ft
x 0.6 = 30-ft). A 10-ft parking setback is being proposed. The variance can be
justified because the right-of-way is reduced by 20-ft in front of the site because
of the past road widening. There would be approximately 40-ft of green space
from the parking lot to the edge of pavement. Required landscaping would have
to be located in the 10-ft setback and not in the right-of-way. In addition,
the owner is proposing to dedicate 20-ft of right-of-way along the eastern
portion of their property to the City. Also, Marcus Theater also may dedicate
20-ft of right of way to the City. This would extend the widened right-of-way
to the eastern City limits. The dedication of right-of-way in this area would
likely allow for any future widening of SR 204 without the City having to
purchase any additional property.
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the front yards parking setback variance request with the following conditions: 1. That the parking setback shall be reduced from 30-ft to 10-ft on the two 2.511 acre Marcus Theater outlots. 2. That the parking setback shall be reduced from 30-ft to 10-ft on the Marcus Theater property if they dedicate 20-ft of property for right-of-way to the City.
Mr. Cline asked why is Marcus Theater requiring a variance if they dedicated right-of-way? Mr. Schultz stated that if they dedicate right-of-way that the City would give them the variance. They are in compliance today for the parking lot setback but if they dedicate the land they would be out of compliance and would need a variance.
Jack Reynolds, after being duly sworn, stated he is attorney with Smith and Hail, representing the Pickerington Retail Ventures, who is the applicant. Marcus Theaters is still the owner of the subject property. Pickerington Retail Ventures is in contract with Marcus Theaters to purchase the property. Mr. Reynolds showed a diagram of the property and changes to the area. He stated that they have gone to Planning & Zoning previously and that the buildings will conform to the City codes. Mr. Schultz stated that the east building has been approved and the west building has not been approved but want this variance so that both buildings can have similar parking setbacks. Mr. Reynolds also stated that he is representing Marcus Theaters and there would be no problem with the dedicating of 20-ft of property for right-of-way to the City.
Mr. Linek verified that there would be no change in parking lot spaces. Mr. Schultz stated that even with the dedicated 20-ft of property there would be no loss of parking spaces. Mr. Wright asked about the entrance at SR 204 being able to handle the growing traffic patterns. Mr. Reynolds stated that they have been in conversations with the City engineer, and that there should be no problems. Mr. Schultz stated that there is likely land if another turn lane is required and that the fire department is aware of the project.
Debbi Synder, after being duly sworn, stated that she was the president of the Holy Redeemer Lutheran Church Council. The church is located just west of the site. She stated that she just wanted to know how the 20-ft dedication would affect the churches property. Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Schultz stated that this would not affect the churches property.
Mr. Cline moved to approve:
1. That the parking setback shall be reduced from 30-ft to 10-ft on the two
2.511 acre Marcus Theater outlots. 2. That the
parking setback shall be reduced from 30-ft to 10-ft on the Marcus Theater
property if they dedicate 20-ft of property for right-of-way to the City.
Mr. Wells seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek,
Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, Mr. Borusewski, and Mr. Wright
voted “Aye”. Motion carried 5-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to approve a rear yard building setback variance for a screened porch for Rockford Homes at 978 Gray Drive (Windmiller Ponds Subdivision).
Mr. Schultz stated zoning history: None. Proposed Use: The builder constructed a 14-ft x 16-ft enclosed porch that actually is a room addition with a foundation. Essentially the submitted site plan (enclosed) indicates a porch while the submitted building plans indicates a room addition. Porches are permitted to protrude into rear yard setbacks but inhabitual structures are not. The final occupancy permit was issued on August 14, 2002. Variance Request: Chapter 1276.09 – Required Site and Building Dimensions – In a R-4 district the rear yard setback is 35-ft. The 14-ft x 16-ft addition is located approximately 26.05-ft from the rear property line. It protrudes almost 9-ft into the setback. Conclusion: Staff supports the variance because the owner purchased the house from the builder without knowledge of the situation and should not be penalized for the builder’s error.
Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the rear yard setback variance request for a building addition with the following condition: 1. That the rear setback for the building addition shall be reduced from 35-ft to 26.05-ft.
Ron Bauchmoyer, after being duly sworn, stated he was representing Rockford Homes. He verified that the report that Mr. Schultz submitted was correct and stated that everything was done within the City codes. The home has been occupied since April 2002. That the homeowner had brought this to the builder’s attention.
Mr. Wells moved to approve: 1. That the rear setback for the building addition shall be reduced from 35-ft to 26.05-ft. Mr. Linek seconded the motion. Roll was taken: Mr. Linek, Mr. Cline, Mr. Wells, Mr. Borusewski, and Mr. Wright voted “Aye”. Motion carried 5-0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________________________
Dawn-Elizabeth M. Romine, Administrative Assistant
ATTEST
_______________________________________
Lance A. Schultz, Director of Planning and Zoning