Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/2/1985 "" ,-" BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 2 ,1985 PRESENT: Dan Goldthwaite, Marlene Herzing, Anne Hintz, Kevin McGee, David Nitkowski STAFF: Paul W. Ehrfurth, Planning Director; Darlene Matulle, Recording Secretary Vice-Chairperson Anne Hintz called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. . 1. Appeal of Al Huntington, agent for ToddJ.Mueller, Qwner of property located at 540 w. 7th Avenue, requests that the Boara 'of'Appeals determine the appropriate zoning classification for the lot in question. The zoning district line separates C-3, Commercial Zoning District, from M-l, light Industrial Zoning District; splitting the lot in question in half. .. The Board of Appeals must review and determine whether the lot should be entirely C-3, Commercial Zoning District or M-l, light Industrfa1Zoning District. " Mr. Ehrfurth stated that presently the lot in question is divided into C-3 and M-l Zoning Districts. It appears that this zoning line was not drawn correctly and it will be necessary to adjust the zoning boundary line to encompass the entire above referenced property into the M-l Zoning District. Atty. Russ Reff, 404 N. Main Street; Todd J. Mueller, 4823 Van Dyne Road; and Al Huntington, 1920 Beech Street, appeared before the Board. Mr. Reff stated that he had discovered what seems to be a long standing error in the zoning map. He passed out copies of the 1965 Zoning Map which clearly indicates that the zoning district line on 7th Avenue ea.st of Ohio goes from C-3 to M-l and divides the lot down the middle. He pointed out that the district zoning line at 9th and 5th Avenues is on the lot ,line. There appears to be no reason for this discrepancy. Referencing the 1965 Zoning Ordinance 30-2, Subsection 2, Mr. Reff stated that "where the district boundaries are not otherwise indicated and where the property has been or may hereafter be divided into blocks and lots, the district boundaries shall be construed to be lot lines". He stated that this line is not on the lot line and possibly should be. They are asking not for a variance, but for a confirmation that the lot should be zoned M-l. This would then conform to the M-l lot 1 ine. Changing the zoning to M-l would also require less investment costs for them. Due to the lot location to the tracks, the site is likely to be used for industrial purposes. Residential housing on the side is also nonconforming to the ordinance. Mr. McGee asked if the Board adjusts the zoning boundary line for this lot; would it be setting the lines for the other lots? Mr. Ehrfurth replied no, however, it may set a pattern. If other property owners in this area want similar action, the Board would want to be consistent. .... BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1985 PAGE 2 Mr. Huntiligton indicated that they do not want to change the zoning to M-l; they just wish to clarify the boundary line. Motion by Kevin McGee to adjust the zoning boundary line to encompass the entire parcel in the M-l zoning district. Motion seconded by Mr. Goldthwaite. Motion approved 5-0. Regarding the findings of fact, it was determined that this was not necessary because what was needed was only an interpretation of the zoning line. II. Appeal of James Larson, agent for the Holiday Inn Corporation, owner of property located at ~J4~~..~9~ll~~~~~&&t, proposes substandard setbacks of 5 ft. and 2ft: SlOe yards and 23 ft. rear yard setback for expansion of the existing parking lot. The ordinance requires a 10 ft. side yard and a 25 ft. rear yard setback for a parking lot at this location. Mr. Ehrfurth stated that this proposal is the result of a new expansion to the existing facility. The appellant is requesting substandard setbacks of 5 ft. and 2 ft. side yards and 23 ft. rear yard setback for expansion of the existing parking lot. . Mr. James Larson, 919 Washington Avenue, stated that the appeal pertains to the parking at the Holiday Inn. It involves variances to the side and rear yards because of the number of parking spaces provided. The site plan projects parking to the lot line, some of which is existing and some new. He indicated that these variances would be minor in nature. t4e,notedthat Sycamore Street, wh i ch abutts the rear yard, mi ght be a problem; the north s ide yard will be abutting the additional parking spaces. He also noted that p.arking in the front yard is presently in violation of the existing ordinance. Mr. Larson then gave an overview of the proposed expansion, pointing out the existing portions of the structure and the addition which included expansion of the parking spaces--this was done with the ai(.i Of a rendering. He indicated this exists because Koeller Road did not exist at the time theHoliday Inn was built. ,,' .., It was noted by,'.the Board that Hardee's was granted a vari ance with regard to this same problem. Mr. Larson then pointed out the proposed parking areas would allow for 5' on the north side yard and 2' on the south side yard. He stated that if Sycamore were vacated there would be .no problem with setbacks. He informed the Board that Holiday Inn nationally requires landscaping within 50 feet to the entrance of a door to a room. This requirement will delete 14 existing parking spaces. He requested that the Board take into consideration the Holiday Inn guidelines. He explained to the Board that the north 60' wa~, originally left available for an entrance into the Holiday Inn, this was prior to the Koeller Road being built. Wishing to expand, this will give them a 5' setback. Ii BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1985 PAGE 3 Mr. Larson added with the proposed additional 32 rooms, they are considering turning the existing islands in the parking area into parking spaces. Mr. Larson noted that there was a possibility that the church behind their site may wish to sell their land on Sycamore, if Sycamore is vacated. Mr. Ehrfurth stated that it would be necessary to file a petition to vacate Sycamore Street. If the Council wishes to vacate the street the right-of-way would revert to the abutting property owners. Ms. Hintz pointed out that they are proposing landscaping which will be more aesthetically satisfying and more accommodating to the community. Mr. Larson stated that the parking on the .north is already striped for parking spaces and they hope that Holiday Inn will see fit to put in islands for green spaces. Regarding parking in the event of future expansion, Mr. Ehrfurth stated the general requirement is one space for every 100 square feet of building area. In this case, it would be necessary to look at a floor plan to try to determine the number of parking spaces needed. He pointed out that store room area, restaurants, etc. are not taken into consideration. Mr. Ehrfurth inquired if the variances are not granted, would the islands be removed to meet the parking requirement? Mr. Larson believed so. He continued that they could also try to convince Holiday Inn national to eliminate the landscaping because parking is needed. Mr. Goldthwaite asked, what is a Holidome? Mr. Larson,replied that it is a dome type structure which houses the pool, games, etc., and is directly accessible to the pool side rooms. Mr. Larson indicated he is not sure what hardship exists, except the building is existing and they are trying to update and improve the property. Ms. Hintz stated that compliance with the Ordinance would deprive the area of improvements and leave the community less off. She continued that the existing parking does not seem to be hurting anyone and without some green space in the parking lot, parking would be dangerous. Mr. McGee felt that if the variance is denied on the south side yard, parking spaces would be forced to be removed. Mr. Ehrfurth stated the lot division was done incorrectly in not providing for an adequate side yard when the Hardee's was constructed. He continued that this type of lot division would not need approval from the Plan Commission because each parcel is larger than l~ acres. Mr. McGee inquired if the goal of the side yard is to provide green space? Mr. Ehrfurth replied yes and to assure that you do not have all blacktopping or concrete. He pointed out that most people do not provide for landscaping~ as is proposed, because the Zoning Ordinance does not have landscaping requirements at this time. 4 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES JANUARY 2, 1985 PAGE 4 Mr. Larson pointed out that a 51 strip is going to be provided for landscaping. An additional 51 is going to be landscaped which .will compensate for the variance difference. Ms. Hintz felt that granting the variance would not be detrimental with regard to congestion and public safety. Mr. Ehrfurth wished to point out that if Koeller Road is ever widened, property owners will lose green space by the road and cut down on amenities that could be provided. He pointed out that Koeller Road could b~ widened to the right-of-way. He felt that other amenities and lan,dscaping on a lot would bean improvement for the lot, especially if any right-of-way is lost in the future. Motion by Dan Goldthwaite to grant the appeal on the.condition that all of the green space indicated (per the plan submitted at the meeting), including the islands, be provided. Motion seconded by Kevin McGee. Motion approved 5-0. (NOTE: Referenced site plan not made part of these minutes.) Regarding the findings of fact, Mr. Goldthwaite felt that if the variances were denied, it would be going backwards because ther~ would be a loss ofCl.esth~tic green space. Regarding the south property line, Mr. McGee felt the green space is being provided for in a better way. Board members were reminded of the workshop scheduled for January 16th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m. [:t; ~d' Paul W. Ehrfurth Planning Director