Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The Special Session of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on August 17, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. President Aron Majic called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Absent President Joe Manchin, IV Board Member Shultz Board Member Deasy Board Member Majic Board Member Ragen City Staff Present City Planner, Sandra Scaffidi Planning Dept. Secretary, Maria Cipolla PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR August 17, 2017 1. McIlvried, DiDiano, and Mox, LLC (MDM), agent for the owner, is requesting several variances for the McDonalds located at 1000 Speedway Avenue (5-3-152), situated in the Main Corridor Commercial Zoning District. City Code Section 3.1.5.F Development Standards which requires a maximum front yard setback of 45 feet and a minimum front yard setback of 0 feet. The applicant proposes a setback of 56 feet from Speedway Avenue and 106 feet from East Park Avenue. Mark Mox, from MDM, spoke in favor of the request to rebuild the McDonalds. Nobody spoke in opposition of this request. Sharon Seels from the McDonalds Corporation along with John Ebert the owner of this McDonalds also spoke in favor of these requests. Sandra Scaffidi’s Staff Report: 1. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood: The placement of the building on the lot will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the adjacent property owners. 2. Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance: The special conditions that are related to this property include a standardized architectural plan. The property is also located on a busy intersection immediately off of the interstate. The restaurant captures much of its business from vehicular traffic. 3. Would eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land. Yes. The placement of the building will allow the building to continue to serve its drive through customers. 4. Will allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done. Yes, these variances will allow the zoning ordinance to be observed and encourage business growth in a main corridor commercial zoning area. 5. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? It appears so. Board Member Deasy motioned to approve this request. Board Member Ragen seconded the request. Motion carried 4-0 Page 1 of 4 City Code Section 5.6.3 Lot Standards which requires non-residential buildings on corner lots shall be considered to have two front yards and shall utilize the minimum front yard setback for each façade. The applicant proposes a setback of 56 feet from Speedway Avenue and 106 feet from East Park Avenue. Mark Mox: Because this property is long and narrow, the design of the site, and traffic flow, we would not be able to meet the setbacks according to your standards. Having two front yards is really restrictive. Sandra Scaffidi’s Staff Report: 1. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood: The placement of the building on the lot will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the adjacent property owners. 2. Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance: The lot is located at the corner of a busy intersection. The business model of a restaurant catering to vehicular traffic is a special condition requiring the variance of the requirement of two minimum front yard setbacks. 3. Would eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land: The building’s location on a busy intersection that requires two minimum front yard setbacks is a hardship on a business whose primary business caters through drive-through traffic. 4. Will allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done: Yes, these variances will allow the zoning ordinance to be observed and encourage business growth in a main corridor commercial zoning area. 5. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? It appears so. Board Member Deasy motioned to approve this request. Board Member Ragen seconded the request. Motion carried 4-0 City Code Section 5.9.2 Refuse Containment which requires trash containers shall be located in the side or rear yard and shall be screened from view. The applicant wishes to retain the current location of the dumpster in the front yard of the restaurant. Mark Mox stated that the Bill Foley from our Utilities Department told him he cannot put the dumpster in the back because the sewer and storm water runs through the back of the lot. They are proposing to have the current dumpster moved five feet off of all property lines in the front yard and build a wall and landscaping around it. The current dumpster is right on the property line. If something goes wrong with one of the City’s line, the owner would have to pay for them digging up the area. Also, if the dumpster is a front loader, the garbage trucks will have to go against the flow of traffic to reach the dumpster in the back. This could be a safety hazard. Sharon Seels said she spoke to Mike Bragg and he was pretty adamant about what can and cannot go over their lines. The applicants would like the dumpster placed in the back, too, but they have to make sure it is not a safety issue for customers. It is the applicants decision; it is the City saying they can’t build it back there. They would need to sign off on this. Sandra Scaffidi’s Staff Report: 1. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood: As a dumpster already exists in this location, it does not appear to affect the health, safety, or welfare of the adjacent property owners. 2. Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance: The location of the refuse containment at its current location would allow the reuse of the existing facilities in place for the refuse containers. Page 2 of 4 3. Would eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land: Allowing the dumpster to remain in its original location will allow the business to have two drive through units to provide increased customer service. 4. Will allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done: Yes, these variances will allow the zoning ordinance to be observed and encourage business growth in a main corridor commercial zoning area. 5. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? It appears so. Board Member Ragen motioned to approve this request as submitted unless they can get permission to move the dumpster in the back. Board Member Deasy seconded the request. Motion carried 3 to approve 1 to abstain. City Code Section 5.3.7.B.ii.b which states that the overall height limit of the entire sign structure shall be 10 feet from normal grade. The applicant would like to repurpose their existing sign pole and sign. Mark Mox: We want to repurpose the existing sign. We would maintain its height, location, and size. We just want to make it look new. Sandra Scaffidi’s Staff Report: 1. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood: As the sign already exists, it does not appear to affect the health, safety, or welfare of the adjacent property owners. 2. Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance: The sign already exists. 3. Would eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land: The sign is existing and would support an effort to reuse instead of replacing. 4. Will allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done? Yes, these variances will allow the zoning ordinance to be observed and encourage business growth in a main corridor commercial zoning area. 5. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? It appears so. Board Member Ragen motioned to approve this request. Board Member Manchin seconded the request. Motion carried 4-0 City Code Section 5.2.2.D.ii.c which requires at least 70% of the street level frontages shall be in windows or doorways. Mark Mox: We can’t put windows in the back because that is where the restrooms, kitchen, and storage room are. Sandra Scaffidi’s Staff Report: 1. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood: The lack of windows/doors on the Speedway elevation does not appear to affect the health, safety, or welfare of the adjacent property owners due to the fact that the windows would not provide lighting or ventilation to the building. 2. Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance: Standardized architectural plan and layout. 3. Would eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land. The standardized plan and layout requires utility rooms facing the front of the lot. Page 3 of 4 4. Will allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done; Yes, these variances will allow the zoning ordinance to be observed and encourage business growth in a main corridor commercial zoning area. 5. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? It appears so. Board Member Ragen motioned to approve this request. Board Member Manchin seconded the request. Motion carried 4-0 City Code Section 5.2.2.D.ii.d which requires no frontage wall shall remain unpierced by a window or functional general access doorway for more than 16 feet. Mark Mox: That falls into play where the restrooms are located. Sandra Scaffidi’s Staff Report: 1. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of the rights of adjacent property owners, residents or the neighborhood; The unpierced architectural frontage on Speedway does not appear to affect the health, safety or welfare of the adjacent property owners. 2. Arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property seeking the variance: Standardized architectural plan and layout. 3. Would eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land: The standardized plan and layout requires utility rooms facing the front of the lot. 4. Will allow the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done: Yes, these variances will allow the zoning ordinance to be observed and encourage business growth in a main corridor commercial zoning area. 5. Is the minimum variance that will accomplish this purpose? It appears so. Sandra Scaffidi: In summary, I am in favor of all the variance requests. I would love to see the dumpster in the back, but it is not possible according to our utility departments. There were no negative agency comments. In short, I recommend approving all variance requests. Board Member Manchin motioned to approve this request. Board Member Ragen seconded the request. Motion carried 4-0 OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT President Majic asks for a motion to adjourn. Board Member Manchin motioned to adjourn. Board Member Ragen seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0 Page 4 of 4