Zoning Hearing Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. Before we start, I'd like to make sure everyone's signed in at the back entrance to the room. If you've not, please do so because it must be on the record. I'm Bob Tanner. The other board member tonight is Scott Calhoun and oh, and Charles vote. Uh, and like to introduce the following members, too. We have Matthew Puzz, zoning and development officer. Julie Majio, assistant zoning and development officer. Jeremy Toman, board solicitor. Tomorrow Doxy, court reporter. And after the presentation by the appellent, the board will hear from those in question the appeal, those in favor, and those opposed. Any documents or evidence that's presented must be kept for a period of 60 days for our records. And after all the presentations are made, the board will recess. We'll then reconvene and make our decisions. The board has up to 45 days to render decision, but they're usually made this evening. If you do not care to wait for the decision, you may call the zoning office in the morning after 8:30. I'd now ask that everyone please stand to be sworn in. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please answer, I do.

Thank you. So, uh, Mr. Chair, you have to do the annual reorganization meeting. Okay, real quick. So, before this meeting, we had an annual reorganization meeting and um the board uh decided I was going to maintain chair second position that is there a second position I have to worry about uh chair vice chair and secretary chair Scott's vice chair Charles secretary

and we designate Charles as a voting member tonight because he is an alternate okay so we have two appeals this evening Appeal number 26-01 KDP Lot 2 LLC for property located at 5008 West Ridge Road seeking a parking variance to exceed the maximum amount of parking for professional service in the MU2 corridor mixed use district. And before we get started, one just housekeeping matter. I do have a conflict of interest both appeals this evening. So I'll um be listening and drafting the adjudications as long as the have no objection to that and not participating in any of the deliberations.

I do not have objection to that. Great. Thanks. Thanks.

Good evening everyone. I'm Greg Baldwin representing KDP Luck 2 LLC. Uh a little snowy out tonight, so we're going to make sure we get you guys home and you can shovel your uh driveways. So, uh as Mr. Tanner said um our particular variance request is a dimensional variance request um to exceed the maximum uh number of parking spaces that are permitted under the zoning ordinance. So, our particular use would be considered um a a professional services use and pursuant to the zoning ordinance, the minimum parking ratio is I believe one for every 250 square feet of building area. The maximum parking ratio then is 120% of that. So, that would be approximately 16 parking spaces. That would be the maximum number of parking spaces we could have for the building. The bu the building's 2500 square f feet and it's intended to be a medical type use. All of us have been in medical offices before. We've seen how many people they put through the doors, how many people they have in their waiting rooms, how many people they have actually in the um in the rooms servicing the patients, plus the number of employees, whether it's nursing staff, PAs, um andor administrative staff just to get people in in the door. So our particular user um who unfortunately I can't divulge the specific use but it is professional services it is a medical type use they've told us that based on their experience and they have over a hundred of these facilities across the across the country so they have very significant u understanding of their needs for parking. They need the 33

parking spaces generally to be able to even operate on a daily basis. In particular, their high season is of course the season from fall through spring where people are more sick generally and so they have even higher patient counts during those periods of time. So, this is really just a dimensional variance rather than a use type variance. And we're asking for a dimensional variance that's related to the permitted use under the zoning ordinance that would that would allow us to actually use the property for the permitted use. So, generally speaking, you know, we're really just asking for what would be considered a reasonable adjustment of the zoning regulations to accommodate our permitted use. And of course you you guys all hear many many variance requests. So you know the ordinance itself has criteria to approve a variance or at least the elements that should be considered by the board in a variance request as does the MPC. But generally you know you're look you have to look at undue hardship right and in this case you know professional services as it's defined in the zoning ordinance has a multitude of uses associated with that medical offices would be in within that use as would potentially a nail salon and Matt correct me if I'm wrong something of that nature right would be in professional services

a nail salon would be classified That is a personal service. Okay. Sorry. Real estate office. That's a professional service. Got it. Thanks.

So, real estate office, physicians office, you know, obviously there are very significant differences just in the amount of people coming into the office at any given point in time. So the ordinance itself blends many different types of uses within this one category of professional services and doesn't necessarily adequately address a higher more intense type use real estate office versus a medical office as to what the maximum parking could and should be. Okay. So really the the undue hardship has to do with kind of an unreasonably restrictive type of requirement with respect to the maximum number of parking spaces that you can have at any given facility. And both Mike Sanford and I totally understand the history and why we have this maximum parking ratio. And it actually makes a lot of sense. The idea is the less area of land you can take up with parking, great. It's better for storm water. It's better for all the creeks. It's better for all of that. But in some cases, you have to look at the very specific use to really see and understand whether or not the ordinance and the maximum parking provision really is way too restrictive to be able to accommodate that specific use. So, there's a pretty significant hardship. And I find it ironic that I'm here at this meeting and the next party who's coming to speak to you also has the same exact variance request under professional services with the max considering the uh maximum parking ratio. So I think that's kind of interesting. Maybe this should have been considered a little bit differently in the zoning ordinance, but our ordinance is what it is today. Next element you really want to consider is whether there's a change in the

neighborhood character of the neighborhood and whether or not the um the authorizing of the of the variance would actually create a detriment to the welfare of the public. In this case, obviously this is by Wegman's. We all know the area. It's commercial. So there's very little if any detriment at all to or change in the neighborhood itself, character of the neighborhood. From the perspective of being a detriment to the p to public welfare, the zoning variance, if it's approved, is actually the opposite. What we're talking about is making sure that all of the potential patients or patients and the employees working at this facility have a safe place to park that's close by the building. The last thing I think we want or the board would want is people making appointments, patients coming and parking on Wegman's Drive, parking over in Wegman's parking lot, parking in PNC's parking lot, parking in all these other parking lots and walking across streets, creating potential traffic problems on Wegman's Drive, all of these issues. So we really think that this is a benefit in this case to public welfare to to approve the variance and permit the the appropriate number of parking spaces at a medical facility generally. Lastly is you know we have to consider whether or not the request by uh any applicant is the minimum required variance request and I can tell you that in this case this operator like I said operates over 100 facilities they understand the number of patients that they have coming in the building they understand the eb and flow of their patients so they've said if we can't get the 33 parking spaces we simply can't operate appropriately.

And so does is is that a another type of hardship? Yeah, it's absolutely an economic hardship that would be put on these operators of these medical type facilities or any type professional services use that would need more parking for their employees, more parking for their customers, etc. So, as I said, we're requesting the approval of the variance for the 33 parking spaces, which is over the maximum permitted within the zoning ordinance of 16. We think it's a very reasonable request uh to make this modification in the uh in the maximum required parking. Thank you. Any questions?

Uh I don't think so. I think you covered it all pretty well. Great. Thanks. Truly appreciate it. Okay.

Thank you. M township have any comments? Okay. Anyone in the audience like to comment? Okay. Moving on. Appeal number 26-2, Westminster Place Partnership for property located at Village Common Drive, seeking a parking variance to exceed the maximum amount of parking for professional service in the MU2 corridor mixed use district. Uh, good evening. Mike Sanford, 4721 Atlantic Avenue. I'm the surveyor who prepared the application and uh the myself and the applicant are okay with the solicitor's um conflict and limited participation. So, I'm here tonight with the applicant to present information in support of our requested dimensional parking variance for the property on the east side of Zilk Road north of Village Common Drive. The applicant is seeking a dimensional variance related to maximum parking per section 14593 to allow proper development of this parcel. Our variance application included a sketch of the proposed building driveways and parking. On that exhibit, we show the driveway access will come to the site from Zilk Road and there also will be driveway access from Village Common Drive through an access easement. We understand that ultimately a land development plan is required for the project, but this zoning hearing board variance is required before we can present our land development plan to the planning commission. So, as you know, your zoning hearing board's authorized to vary from strict application if uh that would deprive the owner of reasonable use of his land. So, if you don't mind, there's five criteria. Just like to go through those as I typically do and show that we meet all five. The first criteria is that the property has unique physical conditions. So this property is not uniformly shaped. Rather, it's like a flag lot. It has um

in a sense it has almost twice the width in the rear or the east side as the front edge on Silk Road. In addition, this property has a 2 to1 earthn slope on the northern side where it's sloping down from the northern property. And then elsewhere on this property, the existing topography falls about 8 feet in elevation from north to south. So these factors create a unique physical condition. Number two, that because of this condition, there's no possibility the property can be developed in strict conformity and or reasonable use. So in addition to the property's physical conditions mentioned, the zoning ordinance stipulates maximum parking maximum amount of permitted parking shall be 120% of the required minimum. Interestingly, the 120% maximum is stipulated irrespective of the building's intended use. It's just 120%. And it doesn't even contemplate the number of employees. Uh that's unfortunate that the ordinance doesn't contemplate those items. And I'll just explain that. Um I I I agree. I think we all would agree that the goal of the ordinance is to provide adequate off- streetet parking. That's what that's what we're trying to do. Makes sense. And having a minimum parking requirement makes sense because you don't want a scenario where people park on adjoining properties without authorization or or on the street. But on the flip side, section 14593 has the maximum standard. Um, I can only assume that the maximum requirements due to sensitivity of too much parking. You know, unnecessary land clearing, loss of wooded areas, more disturbance, more paving, more runoff, more storm water. Um, so I guess the goal is to find the sweet spot, if you will, the right amount of parking, off- streetet parking to serve the project's use. But in this case, the one-sizefits-all

120% maximum uh just just doesn't work irrespective of the number of employees and the building's use. So, additional parking is required to serve this project's needs. Um due to these factors, the property cannot be developed in strict conformity and that's why we're here tonight requesting a dimensional variance. Uh the next criteria is that the hardship has not been created by the applicant and uh the parcel's existing topographic conditions I mentioned are not created by the applicant. Um and the inclusion of the maximum parking requirement in the ordinance they did not include that it's a township ordinance. So I don't feel the hardship was created by the applicant. Uh the fourth criteria is that if it's if the variance is authorized it would not alter the character of the district. And uh in this case, the property is zone MU2, mixeduse corridor. Uh and the use is consistent with the ordinance. It's a professional service. It's an office building. Uh it's on Zilk Road. It's highly commercial uh collector state highway. Certainly a proper place for this type of business. And therefore, the project would not alter the character of the of the neighborhood. The final criteria is that this is the minimum variance that would afford relief. And so the requested variance we're here tonight for is for seven parking spaces. That's what it is. Um 66 spaces requested. 59 is the maximum per the per the ordinance. So we're talking about seven spaces. Uh that equates to instead of 120% it's about 134% you know. So it's a 10 or 11% you know uh in case but again it's seven parking spaces. Uh the proposed tenant has approximately 60 employees. So just we're asking for 66 spaces. They have 60 employees and they need a few for visitor. That's what justifies this number. We didn't make it up. It's what it's what they need to operate their

business. Um so therefore I I feel this dimensional parking variance is the minimum to afford relief. It provides the parking that this customer needs. So any you have any questions? I don't. I think you summed it up pretty well if anybody else. No, no questions. Is there enough parking spots in this particular situation? Yes. I mean, as far as 60 employees, you only have six future

correct. This this is not um like a shift facility is my understanding. You know, people would report to work, they'd work. Um, so there's not like um, and I actually looked at the floor plan, how many offices, how many cubicles, and there was like 59. So their their estimate of 60 employees I think is right on. They they don't have more room to have more employees. This is the proper number for them. Okay. Thanks, Matt. Anything? Anyone in the audience have anything to say? Okay, we're going to recess. We'll be back shortly.

Okay. The record show we reconvened at approximately 625 uh on appeal number 26-01 KDP lot number two LLC. I make a motion to approve. Second that. All in favor? I. All opposed. So moved. Appeal number 26-02 Westminster Place Partnership. Do I have a motion? I I make a motion to approve. I will second. All in favor? I. All opposed. So moved. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion. I'll second. All in favor? I. All opposed. So moved. Thank you.