Board of Zoning Adjustment - Special Meeting

You ready, Rebecca? Okay, good afternoon. We're going to call to order the March 24, 2026 meeting of the board of zoning adjustment. Um, if you have not been here before, I'll go over a little bit of the rules of the road. We hear two types of cases. We hear appeals and we hear requests for special permits or um variances. And uh we have a printed agenda and we go by that. When we call your case, you can come up to the front. There's a sign-in sheet here that we can ask that you write your name legibly. Um the city will go over and give us a summary of the case and then I'll turn it over to you as the applicant and you can add anything that you feel like was left off or clarify and then answer any

questions. You have five minutes to do that and then we will hear from concerned neighbors, citizens who got noticed. and want to speak about the application, we give each person that wants to speak three minutes and so you can um come up when I call for that. Um we ask that you um state your name on the record and that you have been sworn in because we are taking your testimony and your statements at your word. And so to make the process efficient, I will swear you all in as a group. And so that when you come up, you can just say, "Yes, I've been sworn in." And I don't have to do that individually. So if you know you're going to speak tonight, you please stand and raise your right hand. You promise that the testimony you give tonight with the truth and nothing but the truth, please state, "I do."

Thank you. Um you have to have a vote of three approvals for your um request to be granted. We are expecting our fourth member here tonight late. Um, and so if you think that you have a better chance of convincing three out of four instead of three out of three. When it is time for your case, we will allow you to push it um to the end just as a courtesy since we don't have everybody here. But we have a quorum. We are allowed to hear the case, but we don't want we do want to give you that um fairness option. If we have any preliminary matters, let's go through those.

Yep. Uh we have two preliminary matters. Uh first one is BZA25-108 for 1055 Bellows Avenue. It's an amendment, very minor amendment. Uh you guys have the uh previously approved and the updated site plans in front of you. Uh the uh lot width uh variance is the only thing changing. Uh parcel one uh both parcels requested to a lot width of 30 feet. Uh lot one is going to 31 feet and lot uh parcel 2 is going to 29 ft wide. Uh they ran into some issues while finalizing the lot split. So I had to uh revise their plans.

Okay. What action do you want us to take on this? It would be revising the uh board order uh for allowing a lot width for parcel 2 uh for 29 ft and lot width of par for parcel one of 31 ft. And so because they're only affecting but the parcel one is affecting the parcel next to it. So, do the owners of the adjacent parcel need to be here or is it it within a variance that it's acceptable? These parcels are currently combined.

So, I'm asking about the parcel on the paper that we have was described as parcel one. The parcel next to that belongs to somebody. I'm assuming somebody else, but they're not being affected. But they would be if it's going to 31. No, because it's taking from parcel two. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, it's the lot the lot split of parcel one and two. They ran into issues and they had to just move the line slightly. So, I'm basically saying that people on either side of these three parcels are not being changed at all. No. Got it.

But isn't it the variances that are changing because we don't really approve the lot split. So, isn't it the variance that was like sideyard or whatever else? The amendment is to allow a lot lift of 29 feet par for parcel two and uh for 31 feet for parcel one from 30. But I guess what I'm saying is we don't approve lots. We just approve the variances that are resulting of the lot. Yes. We're revising the variance that you guys previously approved. Okay. And the variance is going in a direction where it wouldn't be I guess more than what was previously approved. like it's a less uh active.

It was approved for 30 feet width and one of them is going down to 29. But what was the var like let me say it a different way. The lot was 30 meaning that the sideyard was two. Now that it's going to be 29. Now the sideyard is one. But that was the variance is the sideyard. So what's the change that No, the variance was to reduce lot width. Okay, that was it. There's no variance other variants. There were other variances, but this is the only variance that is changing. Gotcha. Okay. So, is that okay? Wish we had a diagram. This this isn't on the the neighbors.

Here you have this. You're asking the same thing Mr. Jones was asking.

Yeah, I think this is okay to proceed. That's not going to affect the neighboring parcels. Okay. So, do we have a motion to accept the change to the lot split from 30 and 30 to 30 and 31 and 29? Second. Please call the roll. Miss Agelhoff. Yes. Chair Palmer Bailey.

Yes. And then the other preliminary matter is uh BZA25-148 uh number seven on the agenda is requesting the table. uh they thought they had received their certificate of appropriateness from uh the German village commission but it was the certificate of appropriateness for the design of the project not for the variances so they are going back for the uh COA for the variances Reinhardt yes yeah can the applicant for 267 Reinhardt are they here

they were told that they didn't need to attend okay okay is there anybody here that was going to speak about 267 Reinhardt Are you okay? So, it has been requesting that there have been tableabling. Do you want to speak for or against the tableling requests? Uh, probably not. Right. Okay. Come back at the appropriate time. I'll receive notice, I'm guessing. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, do we have a motion? So, move to table. Second, Mr. Jones. Yes. Miss Akhoff? Yes. Chair Pala? Yes. in the future they do that notify me or they have obligation to do that or

I don't think that we know who's planning on coming so there would be no way to notify you that they're going to table it. Thank you.

Is that it? Yeah.

Okay. Case number one, 2013 to 2019 East Fifth Avenue. Would the applicant please come forward? All right. um 2013 through 2019, East Fth Avenue is located at the southeast corner of East Fifth Avenue in Britain Britain Avenue. It is zoned north central or it's in the north central area commission and zoned R4 residential. The site is undeveloped. Surrounding uses are residential to the east, west, and south with an undeveloped parcel to the north. The applicant proposes to construct two three-unit dwellings on separate parcels. Variances are being requested to reduce the lot width on the western parcel from 50 ft to 42 feet to reduce the lot area on the western parcel from 7500 square ft to 5,40 square ft and to reduce the required parking from 12 to 8. Um with the inclusion of elevations and the recent addition of landscape buffer planning is supportive the quest the requested variances. The division of traffic management would be supportive of the proposal and the condition that the alley and alley approach be constructed to the west property line of the development in accordance with standard drawing 2150 and 2151. The North SE Central central area commission recommended disapproval with a vote of six to zero and this case was also tabled at um the February BZA meeting. Um staff is still recommended approval. Um we can staff recommend approval of the requested variances. The proposed three unit dwellings are consistent with the surrounding residential development pattern. Additionally, the applicant revised the proposal to increase the on-site, excuse me, on-site parking from six spaces to

eight spaces in response to the board's direction. And the resulting parking reduction is consistent with the surrounding parking conditions commonly found in the area and not anticipated to create adverse impacts to traffic circulation or neighborhood character. Um, we're asking the condition that was suggested from the division of traffic management that the alley and alley approach be constructed to the west property to the west property line of the development in accord ordinance with standard drawing 2150 and 2151. Chair. Okay. Can you state your name whether or not you're sworn in?

Okay. Do you have anything to add to the application? I mean, I'm sure it's not on. Okay. Green light. Okay. Um, someone's phone. Go ahead.

Okay. Um, I'm Gary Dunn and I did I was sworn in. Okay. Um at our February meeting um it it was discussed and we felt very comfortable about adding the extra parking. Uh if you recall we had met with the Shephard community and had a very extended conversation with them about adding extra parking and pursued that and felt in fact were told verbally that we had their approval uh at the uh North Central Air Commission meeting. uh they rescended that and the commission obviously or voted against us but I don't think there's any foundation for that uh they indicated they felt like we needed to do a traffic study which seems totally unourred for such a small site and such a small project and again they're they they indicated that they felt like uh the buildings wouldn't fit on the on the lots. Um, this was a conversation that we had with them at the original shepherd meeting where they had misunderstood how the building sat on the build on the lot and had walked it and made their own determination and and and they were incorrect and and I thought that I had convinced them of that. But nevertheless, we're here. We we would have appreciated their approval. We we think that there's nothing about this request that's untored and and is in keeping with the community and we just respectfully request that you approve it.

You weren't there when they walked the lot. Pardon me. You were not present when you they walked the lot. They didn't tell us that they were walking the lot and didn't ask us to be there and um they just started at the wrong point and so their their measurements were incorrect. And again, I I thought that they understood that once we were we had explained, but he met with shepherd people, not the area commission people.

Well, we've met with both. The the the area commission just simply would not approve the I mean, they were aware of the conversation. Part of the commission was there at the Shepard community meeting, too. But yes, we went before the commission again. We've actually been before the commission three times now on this issue and felt like we worked through all of their concerns. So I don't remember did you table this previously and what was the opinion of the board at the time?

Um you guys wanted you guys thought there was room to add another parking space because he was originally asking for six. Um and so he bumped it up to eight to one per four per lot. Basically he had three per lot and you guys suggested you bump it up to six. Whatever our concern was has been alleviated in your opinion. Okay. What was the conversation at the area commission meeting when they voted 6? Again, they the two issues that they brought up were they felt we needed to do a traffic study. Okay. And that they felt that the build the the the project the buildings didn't fit on the site properly. Okay.

Do you guys have the recommendation form in your packets? I can read it to you if you would like. Read it. Um, BZA variance was a majority no vote no based on unusual and practical difficulties due to an irregular shape of the lot, topog topography, sorry, and traffic conditions. The essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially be altered and the adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance is what they wrote on their disapproval recommendation. I mean, do we have like I don't see anything in here that has renderings that I can really understand.

Yeah, I see that. I mean, there is the the odd shaping of the because there's a there's a curb on one of the parcels. Well, the I'm just May I address that the the the corner lot has a small diagonal cut on it. Mhm. The I think the drawing showing the clear vision triangle is is may be impacting your thinking, but that's No, I'm I'm thinking specifically when they say it won't fit the character of the neighborhood, that suggests that the build itself like they've seen some rendering that says this is just too big and it's too much mass and we don't we don't want this. And I can't see that. I don't know that that was part of our package.

Yeah, it's I could send that. because this is I mean this makes a lot of sense and this helps us to be very granular with how we view this but based on those comments I'd like to understand maybe what they were thinking because this doesn't translate to that at all.

Is there somebody here from the area commission here? Okay. Well, can you tell us the character of the neighborhood where this is going? Well, I mean, the houses to the weather, a couple of houses to the west, they're, you know, just old older homes. Twostory, three stories. What are they?

My recollection is they're both two stories. We the lot adjacent to us is actually vacant. Uh but then there's uh additional properties to the to the east is a is a um a brick multifamily uh um project. I think it's a townhouse project probably uh four units or six units and then there's another building beyond it. Uh to the to the north of us across the street is a vacant vacant property and to the north and east of us is our other homes. Our our home is basically our project is basically a residential looking building u that has a large front porch and um if you looked at it from the street you you would think it's just a single family resident. It it does have two doors, but the doors are are actually perpendicular to the street so that you don't see them when you're in the street. And those two those doors enter two townhouse units. And then on the third floor uh under a gabled roof is a third unit uh and that's entered through from the back uh of our covered porch on the back. Is this where where Fifth and Leonard kind of converge at that?

It's beyond it's beyond that. It's it's further east of that. Um, but you it's your testimony tonight that this the appearance fits the character of the neighborhood. Yeah. I mean, that's that's not a color rendering. There's a color rendering somewhere in our in our package, but that and that's the older one. That's not the That's not the most recent drawing. Amen. Um because the this was changed to to move that door to the rear.

So I know Shephard would tend to have Cape Cods, two stories, and single stories that that whole roof line looks like that's the addition that is not typical in that area. And again, depending on where it is in relationship, if it was closer where I was describing on the map, probably not a big deal because that's heading toward commercial and a lot of other things. I just don't I can't visualize. But that is different than Shephard. There aren't many houses that have that three-story appearance in Shephard that I can that might be where they're coming from.

I I it wasn't it wasn't an initial concern. They saw our renderings. They liked our rendering. At the Shepard community meeting, we talked at length about the parking issue and really no conversation about uh what our what our building appearance was at that became the hot button at the uh north. Mr. Jones, this location is about a block and a half, two blocks from Leonard, if that helps provide context. picture.

Where's Nelson? Nelson's way way to your to the right.

This looks very residential, not kind of the area that I was talking about. Uh well, again, as you can see, to just to the east of us are those multifamily buildings. So, they're Obviously not the same character as as a one-story or or a Cape Cod type of building either. Are you on the hill or down? Do you know what I'm talking about? Well, the the site is approximately 3 and 1/2 ft above street level if that's what you mean.

No, that I mean from Fifth Avenue to Sunbury. It goes up towards Printell, I think. Oh, well, we're I mean we're we're within two blocks of Leonard, so we're we're not we're not I mean the topography slopes way way to the east of us. Okay. I don't know what you want. I want to look this just to see where it is. Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application?

Um Mr. Jones is looking something up on his phone. We're going to try to pull up the zoning map if that helps. What? We're going to pull up the zoning map. Try to provide some neighborhood context. Thank you.

See, I guess the parcels are much smaller. Big Cod. Big Cod Ranch. This is kind of commercial. So that's Leonard over there that I was talking about. It wouldn't bother me that much. Bothers that much. It's a corner. Yeah. I mean, he's not asking for a height variance.

But the the comments were it's out of character. And I'm referring to a threetory right there versus the one and a half story or two story. based on where it is. I'm okay with it. It shouldn't. We can hit the Duncan factors. Sorry, Tony. I'm talking without this. Okay, good.

Okay, so let's go through the Duncan factors and my colleagues can tell me if they agree with me or not. Um the property in question could yield a reasonable return um without these variances. Um we are attempting to put more usage on the lot that then requires um additional parking that they cannot meet. Um however I don't think the variances are substantial. Um the area lot width and um R4 area district requirements the the adjustments are not substantial. The applicant did go back and create two more spaces um from when the original application came in. And so I think the 12 to 8 is is reasonable. the central character of the neighborhood being substantially altered. Um, I don't see the renderings as being um a a gross exaggeration of what's there currently. Um, yeah, maybe the roof line is a little different than what's there, but I don't see this as being um a huge building going into the space. Um, I don't think that the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. Um, the property owner's knowledge of the restrictions has not been addressed. They have no other predicament but to ask for these variances based on the size of the lot. But I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variances. I do have to ask the applicant, are you

in agreement with the condition around the alley and the alley approach? Yes. Okay. Are we ready to call the question with the condition?

I'll call the question. Question has been called. Please call the role. Miss Agelhoff. Um, I agree with the chair's analysis of the Duncan factors and I appreciate uh the applicant's willingness to add the parking spaces and I vote in favor of the variance. Mr. Jones,

I agree with the majority um of the assessment from the chair with the exception of number three. Um I don't believe that the essential character will be substantially altered but it will be altered um based on the location being on the corner of Fifth Avenue major thoroughare and the adjacent or perpendicular street. Uh I think that it's a good mix of both and I don't think it would overcome my decision to uh overall grant the variance. So I vote yes. Jer Bailey. Yes. Variance is granted.

Thank you. Thank you. 2482 and 2488 Deming Avenue. One second. Oh, sorry. Uh, 2482 2488 Deming Avenue, located on the east side of Deming Avenue, approximately 85 ft south of East Tomkins Street. It is on R2F Residential and part of the University Area Commission. The 2 acre site is developed with two single unit dwellings on the southern portion of the property and a detached garage on the northern portion of the property. Surrounding uses are a mix of single unit and multi-unit dwellings. The applicant proposes to split the property into three parcels with an existing single unit dwelling on the southwest parcel, an existing single unit dwelling on the southeast parcel, and a new twounit dwelling on the northern parcel, which also contains the existing detached garage. Variances are being requested to reduce the required width of all three parcels from 50 feet to 36.5 ft for the southwest parcel and southeast parcel and from 50 ft to 32.6 6 ft for the northern parcel to reduce required lot area for all three parcels from 6,000 square ft to 2156 square ft for the southwest parcel to 2406 square ft for the southeast parcel and um from 3,000 square ft per dwelling unit to 241

square ft per dwelling unit for the northern parcel and the southeast parcel to not front on a public street to reduce the required uh rear yard from 25% to 12% for the southeast parcel. Um to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 2 to 0 for the southwest parcel and from 4 to two for the northern parcel and to increase the maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio for the northern parcel. Um the division of planning had no comment. The Division of Traffic Management requests a condition be added to the board order to better clarify the permitted access configuration of the site. It is requested that the additional condition to the board order be as follows. No driveway shall be permitted to access Deming Avenue. The University Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of 11 to one. And this cable this t excuse me this case was also tabled at the February BCA meeting. Um staff can recommend approval as the requested variances are limited in scope consistent with the intent of the zoning code and represent a reasonable use of the property. The proposal will not result in sub substantial detriment to adjacent properties or the public good. Additionally, the university area commission has issued a cert certificate of appropriateness for the project. Um and we're asking the condition that no driveway shall be permitted to access Deming Avenue. Chair,

why was it tabled? I remember um I feel like it was too we felt it was too much like these three houses on these two parcels. Yeah, it's But was the uh did you have your condition on there before about the driveway? Yes, we did before. Yes. Okay, then I'm okay with that. But what have you changed? What did you do? Yeah. Can you state your name for the record and whether you were sworn in? Brenda Parker. I have been sworn. Okay. Um, we just wanted to walk through this in a little bit of a simpler fashion because it is haven't changed anything. No.

Okay.

So, first first and foremost, we want to split the lot side to side back to its original property line. However, where that rear house is situated, it's only a foot off of that original property line. So, in order to have windows on that side, we're asking to scooch the the lot split over a little bit. So, if we were to take it back to its original lot lines, we could do that without the the width and area variances. But now that we're asking to scooch it a couple feet so that we can have windows in that existing house, we need to come to request variances for the lot width and the lot area. So that's kind of that's the primary goal. And then this is the this is the owner. Um the next goal was just to make sense of these other two existing houses. And so I think that is a could could you know be up for discussion of you know how that's handled.

And the other two houses are the new house and the old house on the alley. The other two houses are the the two houses front to back on the alley. The one that one on the alley and one facing the street. Yeah, those are the existing houses. They're on the right side of the page. But the house on the dim on the alley side is existing is existing as is the house on dimming. Correct. And so in your mind, in your professional opinion, where is this not like an ADU? You know what I mean? It's effectively an ADU right now, right?

Yes. With a house at the front and a house at the back. And so ADUs are permissible. So how do you not fit into the parameters to make that okay? Is it because it's existing and not uh new construction or I think that I think the intent the hope was that he could sell these like each of the parcels individually. Me off before. Yeah. Yeah. That that's where just Yeah. the the ability to treat them. Can you say your name whether you're sworn? Uh Sam Darlin. Yes. Sworn in. Thank you.

Yeah. I guess just the ability to have flexibility at some point and to treat them as two individual houses, which is I believe how they were constructed. The the back's house was built in 1900 and then they built the front house in 1920. So it's not like the back house is is an ADU of the front house is I guess it would be kind of the reverse of that and the way that they constructed it but just to have the ability to treat them as separate properties which is kind of how when I bought it from what the tenants had told me the landlord was treating it anyway and he kind of drew an imaginary line in the dirt said you know this is your half of the property this is your you know just to avoid any kind of bickerance between the two tenants

and you can do that when you own the entire thing right But when you take that out, when you take that ownership out and you separate it, now you've basically said the two spaces that were deficient in theory belong to this alley house and now you have this separate house that you're selling. It's it's a little problematic and I wouldn't I personally don't feel comfortable setting that kind of precedent. We do a lot of lot splits. We do a lot of density on lots in urban neighborhoods, but to put this into effectively three different taking two parcels, what could be two parcels into three, that is just a bit extreme, especially since you're not providing parking in my opinion. I don't know how my colleagues feel about it.

Would it So yeah, we're not providing parking. We're also not changing the parking setup at all. Okay. So, even though that's not available to the front house that's a use I don't mean it could be available, right? They could share that Yeah.

that parkings parking area. So I I don't know if you want to take the third lot split off the table and just focus on, you know, getting the side by side lot split back to close to its original configuration. That I could live with.

Are you good with that? I think so. Sounds good. Unless somebody a fourth person comes in here every hour has to be I guess my question is on this condition no driveway shall be permitted to access dimming avenue. What is this being shown? This might be old but this kind of shows they originally wanted to provide parking for this. So this is the one that doesn't have parking. They wanted to provide parking but access. So that's So try to say no to that. Okay. So, do we have an update of what it looks like? Yeah. Okay. Because this footprint's the same. You're not moving. Okay. Correct. Gotcha. Okay.

We were just showing that two spots fit there. Not that's what the note says. That two spots would fit here if they would allow the curb cut. Gotcha. Okay. So, they're saying no curb cut. Okay. So, if we're going to take the split off of the long lot, then how does that change our variance request so that we can vote on this? Does that take 3312.49 off? I think it takes the fronting off. Oh, it definitely takes the fronting off. or on the side.

So, we're still going to have some of the the lot widths and lot areas are going to change on that exist the existing house parcel. I'm I'm asking about the calculation for parking. If we don't do three parcels, do they still need a variance for parking? Yeah. Yeah. They still have to provide two spaces per unit, which without a curb cut to Deming, they would not be able to provide. So, two for the new one are there from the garage and and two for the other one. Two for the one that faces the alley. Unless we called that back house an ADU. We don't. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. Then we don't need a parking variance for that. We just need a parking variance for the duplex. Yeah.

But you need a parking variance for the other one because you don't have parking because you're not allowed the curb cuts. Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah. Because if you don't I mean you don't have park. You don't have two spaces for 2482. Demi, it it'd be the back spaces. Oh, the back spaces. Gotcha. Yeah. And that would just be conforming non-conforming existing because it's there. Well, they only need two. I'm just saying for that front house, it wouldn't matter anyway because it's non it's a it's an existing.

Okay. So, 331249 goes to just reduce the required number of parking spaces from two to zero. Southwest parcel 332205 goes to just the southwest because we're only dealing with the southwest parcel variances, right? Am I correct on that everyone? 3312 332.14. Can we do a general vote that says we approve the variances related to the southwest?

He's saying he'll figure out the numbers and bring them back up. Well, but we got to vote on it. We could we could put it aside for a minute and they have to but they have to leave. I mean, we have to Oh, no. I mean, I'm of the opinion I want some real numbers. I don't want to say general anything. So, if we could table not table, but you know, put you let them work up these numbers. We can go on hold. What if what if we were to stamp this site plan without the with the understanding that there would just be a split down the middle and not front to back? I have with that is it the driveway still there and they don't want it they don't want it down the middle. They want the That's fair. Yeah. Want the extra space over the scooch over. We want We want to keep windows on that house.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, do you have to say it's uh suspended or does it now? Do we have a motion to do that or we just can do it? Chair, I think chair, you can just declare it. Okay. On declare on hold this case until we come back with the revised numbers. Thank you.

Um moving on to 4255 North High Street. PZA25-132 for 4255 North High Street. It's located on the west side of North High Street, approximately 148 ft south of West Cook Road. It's located in the Clintville Area Commission and zoned UGN1 Urban General District. The 0.26 acre site is developed with a vacant building and a drive with a drive-through and associate parking lot as well as a billboard which sits on top of the existing building. Surrounding uses include mixeduse commercial to north, east, and south and single unit residential to the west. The applicant proposes uh to construct a 1531 square foot addition to the front of the existing building for the relocation of a pediatric dentist and is requesting variances to reduce the first floor ceiling height from 12 ft to 8 ft 10 in and to reduce the ground floor facade transparency from 60% to 41%. Staff note the proposal is located within the title 34 district. Accordingly, to maintain alignment with the policy direction established by city council to promote walkable and mixeduse development, staff applies a higher level of scrutiny to variances and reszoning requests in these areas in addition to adopted land use plan and design guidelines. Planning notes the applicant's commitment to remove a variance regarding building entries and provide a front door on the east facade facing High Street is consistent with Clintville neighborhood plan design guidelines. The Division of Traffic Management has informed the applicant that a uh that the door on the north high street elevation is not allowed to swing into the public rightway. The Clintville Area Commission recommends approval of this request by a vote of 5 to one and staff recommends approval of the requested variances since the applicant has worked with staff to reduce the number of requested variances and has removed the existing curb cut on North High Street.

These changes bring the site in alignment with the goals of the Title 34 district in the Clintonville neighborhood plan design guidelines. Okay. Can you state your names and whether or not you were sworn in? David Hodgej, attorney for the applicant that I have been sworn. Okay. Troy Reynolds, engineering contractor, and I have been sworn in. Okay. Do you have anything to add to the application?

Just just briefly, um it's interesting. This meeting so far tonight is a rerun of last month's meeting. I was here requesting a reconsideration uh for this one. This was previously disapproved by the board. Um the property owner and the design professionals have gone back to the drawing board to address the issues that resulted in the board's disapproval. There was a pretty significant objection from traffic management related to an access point out to High Street that has now been removed. Um the architectural team, design team is and the property owner have also committed to do a door on the front facade of the building. This is a pediatric dentist office. It's an addition uh to the to the front of that building. So, a little bit of a complicated site, but um here with Clintonville Area Commission recommendation as you heard from staff and also feel that this applicant has been responsive and address the issues resulting in a a previous disapproval. So, with that, we would uh we'll do our best to answer any questions, but respectfully request approval of the remaining modified variances.

Do I have any questions for the applicant? Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Okay. Um, the property in question could and has yielded a reasonable return without the variances. However, the variances do not appear to be substantial um, relating to the facade and the height um, primarily because of the district that it's in urban general district. Um I don't think this the central character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered. Um quite the opposite. This would be the existing character. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services. Um the owner's prior knowledge of the zoning restrictions was not addressed. Um, but I think that the owner has no other way to obviate their issues other than requesting this variance and thus the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Are we ready to call the question? There are no conditions.

Chair Palmer Bailey, the traffic management did have one condition about the way the door swings and we agree to that condition. It wasn't a condition. is just a general comment for your guys' information. All right, we're we're meeting it. Sorry about that. It's a code of requirement. Okay. Are we ready to call the question with no conditions? The question with the Are there conditions? No conditions. I'll call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Jones, I concur with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff. Yeah, I appreciate the applicant's um revisions made based on our previous ruling and agree with the chair's analysis of the Duncan factors and vote in favor. Chair Pal Bailey.

Yes, variance is granted. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. 3998 Grand Bend Drive. Is the applicant here for 3998 Grand Ben Drive? I see no movement. Let's hold that. 1044 to 1052 Campbell Avenue. Is the applicant here? Chair, do you want to table the previous one or just wait till the end? Maybe.

Yeah. At the end, we'll call them all. All right, this is me, too. So, that works. 1044 to 1052 Campbell Avenue is located on the north side of Campbell Avenue, approximately 70 ft west of Dakota Avenue. It's part of the Franklin Area Commission and existing zoning is R4 residential district. The 222 acre site consists of three parcels. The western most parcel is developed with a single unit dwelling and an ADU at the rear of the parcel. Middle parcel is developed with a shed and the eastern most parcel is developed with a garage. Surrounding uses include single unit dwellings to the north, east, and west and a religious facility to the south. The applicant proposes to combine the middle and eastern parcels and construct a three-unit dwelling on the resulting combined parcel, parcel number two, and adjust the eastern property line of the westernmost property, parcel one, eastward. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce the required number of parking spaces from two to zero for uh parcel one and from six to four for parcel two. Reduce the lot width from 50 ft to 38 feet for parcel one and uh sorry parcel one and 42 feet for parcel two. Reduce the required lot area from 5,000 square ft to 4,548 ft for parcel one and from 7500 uh square ft to 511 ft for parcel 2. Reduce the building setback from 25 ft to 12.9 ft for parcel one and parcel 2. uh reduce the required sideyard setback from five feet to two feet for an ADU and to 3.3 feet for a three-unit dwelling. Reduce the required sideyard setback from 3 ft to.9 ft for parcel 1

and uh reduce the combined sideyards from 8.4 ft to 6.6 ft for a 3-unit dwelling. Planning has no comment on the proposed variances and with the proposed building construction, a sidewalk will be required to be constructed along Campbell Avenue frontage of the proposed parcel number two per the Department of Public Service sidewalk and shared use path requirements, rules, and regulations. So says the Division of Traffic Management, Franklin Area Commission has recommended approval of the requested variances, voting 7 to2 for the parking reduction for parcel 2 and 8:1 for the parking reduction for parcel one and then 9 to zero for all other variances. Uh city department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the variances would allow a project that does not introduce an incompatible use to the neighborhood. Chair,

say that last part again. Staff recommends approval as the variances would allow a project that does not introduce an incompatible use to the neighborhood in terms of the number of units being presented as well as the ADU. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for staff really quick. Yes.

Is it has it become custom that we don't see renderings for houses because this is literally just a massing? They're not required in residential districts. Um sometimes planning will request them. In this case, planning hasn't made comments. Um for all title 34 districts, renderings are required to show compliance with code. Um but for our ordinary title 33, this is zoned R4. Renderings wouldn't be required for zoning clearance. Well, while they while they may not be required, we've always had renderings. Yeah, planning generally requests them. Um but they made no comments on this application. And planning is a combination of you and them. And planning is its own it's a separate division within the department of development.

Okay? Because compatibility for example it's difficult for us to say what's compatible if we can't see it and we have to say that according to these Duncan factors the compatibility statement was based on the number of units in the area not so much the the design for you. And I understand, thank you for repeating that. But compatibility goes beyond just that. Oh, understandable.

And so for me to say that it does not I can't say that if I don't see what it looks like. And while I recognize that these boxes represent the dimensions, etc. They don't show me what it is. And historically, we've always had renderings that we could see it. And our architect who sits on this board could say, "Oh, you know, can't you do this or can't you do that?" and it's a little problematic for me. Um, I don't know about my colleagues, but I'd like to see that restored because I don't know what this is going to look like at all. So, another question for staff. So, what's happening here? I see this drawing here where I see existing under four boxes and then I see a proposed in the middle. But if I'm reading correctly, this is a lot split or lot join to only have two parcels at the end, not three.

Correct. And and perhaps the applicant might be able to explain a little better. Okay. But the idea is that we have three parcels that are going to be both split and then recombined to re uh result in two. Okay. But there's a the other way around or other way around potentially combined and then split. Yeah. Okay. So, can you state your names and whether or not you're sworn in? Uh Dan Mayvel Collaborative. I am sworn in. And you put your you signed your name right there. Y. Okay. And your name? Abdullah El Jax. Yes. I was sworn in. Okay. So tell me that we have one house on one parcel and then two houses on another parcel. Is that the issue? Yeah, currently you have two on the parcel on the left. Uh parcel is that parcel one? I can't. Sorry. Yeah.

Yeah. Parcel one. Um two existing part uh buildings. Right now the property line as you can see runs actually through the buildings. Yeah. Um, and then on the other side you have an existing rear dwelling unit and then what we're proposing is the one to the front that would actually be on uh Campbell Avenue. So what they're what what's going on is is you're taking the three that are currently there, which are pretty small lots. Uh again, correcting the current line that goes through the existing property on parcel one and then setting a new parcel line to the right of that and then the resultant combination of the other two smaller lots uh into that single parcel two. Oh, so the third one that's not yours. No, that's

Oh, that's what's throwing me off. Correct. I thought that was two. Okay. It did. When we first reviewed this with uh Franklin Terry Commission, they kind of got confused with it, too. Oh, okay. So we don't even So the two on the right are becoming one. The Oh, they're building a new one. Yeah. So parcel one and parcel two are the only ones we're talking about. I think three should just be xed out of this because that's Yeah. Parcel three is not part of this at all. That's existing. Okay. Yeah. So that that property line staying as it is and the one to the the west of parcel line one is staying where it is. We're just basically it's weird because we're combining what is really almost like I think it was like a 20 foot wide lot uh to the to the east. Okay. With those other two remaining lots. So you're so that those back buildings will be garages or what?

No, those are uh ADUs. ADUs. Yeah. Yeah. Similar what you guys were talking about earlier. The city staff had recommended that we approach those as ADUs given the size and the smaller nature. Okay. So question about the parking. You'll have two units, two parcels. So what are we asking? So the parcel two will have a three family building, three-unit building. Correct. So you'll have Yep. You'll have a total of four uh you'll have three in the front building and then one in the ex the existing one in the back. So you have total of four units. I guess the way that this reads it it's not specifying on which parcel this parking variance is being requested.

It's being requested on both. It's going from two to zero on parcel one and from six to Oh, I'm sorry. I see that. Yeah. So all the parcels on parcel parcel one those are either existing or better than what it was. So right now they have no parking on parcel one. We're not changing that dynamic but because of the lot line we have to meet all we have to still request those variances to make sure everything's in in alignment. Um so no so everything that's part of parcel one request is either an existing condition or we've actually made it better by moving the lot line. And it's really parcel number two is where you have uh the new basically where you're you're adding that multifamily unit and you start to have sideyard setbacks and things like that that kick in.

But you're asking for forgiveness on two parcels and one of which doesn't have the intensity that you're proposing. So that's pretty significant and that's going to be challenging for me to overcome. Do you understand what I'm saying? I I think I do. I mean if you want to elaborate more. So, you're basically saying on parcel one, we don't have parking now. It's a non-conforming condition that exists already. We're moving the lot line, so we're really not changing any any occupancy or any kind of uh anything like that. I can maybe get with that, but then you're saying on top of that, we want to go next door and build a three-unit, effectively a three unit, right?

And go take parking from what's required at six and take it to four. Correct. You're asking twice. You're asking for parking variances in two different occasions. And the reality of it is parcel one should have parking, but it doesn't. And I can kind of get over that. Yeah. But you're saying forgive that, but we're going to ask for more on this other part. And that's challenging for me. Yeah, I I get what you're Yeah. I guess it's just the hard part for us is it's just whether we do it or not, the condition still exists.

But I don't understand the combined. So right now you have you have two smaller lines that you're indicated as the existing. So you have Yeah. that lot and then you have a middle lot and then you have a small end lot. Nope, not that one. Yep. Right there. Oh, that right there. Yeah. So there's a little So basically you have two buildings that sit on lot lines right now. I think the the one on the left shows it pretty clearly. So the the the existing in the back sits on the line and then the existing in the back on the middle one sits on the line. Those are the two that sit on the line. That's correct. And so you're trying to legitimize the both sites basically getting to where they're not sitting on property lines. Okay, I see what you're doing.

Y So just to put it on the table, my two concerns are that and the other one is and maybe you can help me understand to reduce 332.25A to reduce the required sideyard setback. Is that on the on the in between parcels or does that get that specific? So when we say a reduction in the sideyard, that can be on either side. And my concern is if they do it on the side that they own, not a big deal. But if that also applies to the side for an adjacent land owner that they are not related to, I'm a little concerned about that because it's it's I think that part is a little bit more significant because it's 9/10 of a foot. I think the sideyard is specifically the the extreme is to the left of the existing Yeah, it's to the existing building and the current property line.

So, do you guys understand on staff what I'm saying? Should that be should we specify on the east side of the lot or Yeah, we we can certainly add that specificity to the board order. I would like that if my colleagues understand and are okay with that. That's fine. Can you guys talk a little bit about parking? Are you guys by a coat of line or anything to offset this parking restrictions? Um, camp has uh that gravel on on in the front of the houses where everyone's usually parking at. It's just not uh shown on the site plan. That's not code compliant parking. Sure. I I just wanted you wanted to paint a picture of what we're of what the the situation looks like

that was being shown on the pictures on this. Yeah. If you go back to that one picture that's going to become your sidewalk. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Because that's required to be a sidewalk. So then where are those cars going to park? Is it going to be on Well, currently that's on the other property. So the property that we're talking about is actually to the left where there's no parking currently. Right. Um so there will be a side. Yeah. So, I mean, either way, we can't count that as parking. No, no, but where are they going to park? Well, you could also do just general on street parking. It's a wide enough street to have on street parking if you wanted to do that because that setback of that sidewalk is off the property line, which we show in our plans, which is just the one strip in front of the um proposed new construction.

So, four spo four spaces would have to be parked in in front of the two houses. Then well no the four spaces are on the right but you're missing but you're missing four. I'm missing two two to zero and six to four. Sorry. Yes. On both properties. So you got four spaces that need to be parked in front of two houses. Correct. Dan, could you uh that Dan, could you confirm whether or not uh street parking is allowed on Campbell? Two houses.

Uh I can looking at street view pictures here. It appears there is parking permissible on on Campbell. There are at least um there's no apparent um no parking signs on the north side. There is um the south side. There may be some looks like there is an 88 parking space adjacent to the church across the street. But then uh um I don't see any other parking restrictions.

Is that the the street we're looking at right here? That looks like a single lane. No, no, it's two-way traffic. Huh? It's two-way traffic. No, no. I mean each side looks like one car can pass through. Like there would be no places to park if cars are passing through. Is that what you're asking? Traffic. Oh, okay.

Uh, yeah. So, it I mean I'm I'm just looking at the parking. I don't It does not appear that there's any parking restrictions and and it does appear that um the general usage of that area there has there is up and down that section of Campbell. People are using um areas off the road for parking off of the pavement. It appears that is that is happening in the area whether um and there does not appear to be specific parking restrictions that are present out there,

right? Because it's overlooked and the reality of it is you guys are somebody's requesting that a sidewalk go in here. There's going to be a sidewalk in front of these two properties, nowhere else. And people are going to be parking on either side of it in gravel to your point. And if you're going to require that we put in a sidewalk and begin to make this right, we need to presume that the whole street's going to be made right at some point. Right? And so that means that there won't be any parking in front of your house at all because there won't be room on the street for both cars to, you know, be two cars to navigate going two different directions and it's going to we're we have an opportunity here to do this the right way rather than like rushing over this and letting it go and then, you know, several years from now trying to figure it out. So I think we need to figure this out.

And the part and the sidewalks only required in front of the one site, not both. But why? Yeah, I don't understand the sidewalk requirement. Is this a condition? Is this What is this? It's so I can speak to the as it is standard requirement for any parcel that's developed. If when there's new construction, sidewalk is required along the street frontage. And there is a sidewalk across the street it looks like. Yes, it does appear on the south side of Campbell. There is. Yes. At least along the the church property. Yes. So, we're putting a side. So, there's going to be two houses and we're saying a sidewalk is going to go in front of one because that would be the one part resulting parcel that actually has new construction.

We don't think that that looks crazy. It does look cra That's my point.

That I mean, we're quoting the requirement now. The applicant may request an exemption. We do have a sidewalk construction exemption process in cases where it may not make sense, but that that would have to go through a separate process. Okay. Okay. Is there anybody here to speak about this application? Do we have any other questions for the board? It seems like Mr. Jones, you weren't resolved.

I mean, I don't know how I can all of these unknown variables about sidewalks and exemptions and I can't fairly adjudicate this. It does seem like we would be basing our vote on the parking on your testimony and the pictures that show parking is happening in front of the house, but we also have to reconcile with this rule that says a sidewalk has to go in front of that house, which means you can't park there. And so we're really legitimately questioning where are the people going to park? And what we've gotten satisfied with applicants who say there's street parking, right? That's a sufficient place that we can say, okay, right, this can accept this this road can accept the more dense use because there is going to be places for people to park. But I don't seem to be hearing that in light of the sidewalk requirement, which

we can differ on. Yeah. What do we whether we agree with that or not and we hear from parking that there's an exception process. But as we sit today, we don't have that exception and we we're putting a very dense structure into a place and we're giving you leeway on the parking that doesn't seem to be available anywhere else. Right. Do you see our quandry? No, I understand. Again, we agree. We don't quite understand. the the sidewalk was at the end was an ad to throw that onto the plan which kind of threw us into a little bit what what does it connect to, right? Like you're just going to walk on the sidewalk and then just fall off a cliff.

Well, and actually I think we have to destroy a tree to put in the sidewalk which is kind of like one of those things that like So I guess I mean there's two things we can do. We could either go and go through the ride ofway exempt, you know, the rightway or the sidewalk exemption process, come back uh and see if we can get that removed. Um, I mean, I don't know where else we would be able to kind of, you know, that sounds like that would be the holdup for you guys. Well, it's the parking. That's what I mean. But if if the sidewalk's not there, it's like argumentatively to your point, park two cars in front of there and all of a sudden it's not a big deal, right? Which you could do in front of the existing house. We have I mean, but technically we can't really call that parking. Can't do it there legally. Right. Right. Yeah. So, that's why I'm saying you got two areas. If you just came for one, it'd be one thing, but now you got two, right,

that you're trying to reconcile and it's just challenging. I don't have enough information to even vote. I just don't I don't think I can.

So, I I want to do the right thing at the end of the day. I I am the owner, so I will take your advice. Um but the way I was envisioning this was the rear yard uh the rear ADU is a um it's a it's um it's a one-bedroom and then the three dwelling that I'm proposing is going to be three onebedrooms each about 420 square foot. So, I assumed that each dwelling unit would have one car. And so, on that partial two showing four parking spots, I thought that was the right thing to do. Um, even though I am requesting a variance going down from six to four. And then I again, it's not um acceptable with code, but the street parking on Cample is commonly used. I don't know what the the future of that is going to be as far as sidewalks, but with the new sidewalk proposed, it's only proposed on parcel 2. So, we would still have that existing parking usage on parcel one as well. I know that's probably not the right thing to say, but it it is what we're what we're seeing. It's how it works.

Yeah. It's how how it works to Yeah. I don't I don't think you've done anything wrong, but now we have to look at the future. I do anyway. And my that's how I view things. So, I see several other vacant lots here who will be coming in here to do the same thing that you're doing.

And so, now what do we have? Now we have an over congested street that can't even handle parking once we put in sidewalks. So I just can't make a short-sighted decision. I have to look at that. So if you're saying you want a table and look for the exemption, I might feel different. I can't even say because if you didn't have parking, if you didn't have um let's say you got the exemption, you're still parking there illegally, right? And so that's like us justifying the illegal parking. Sure. Those two lots to the left that are shown vacant currently have single families that are being built as we speak. I believe I have looked at the site plans um online and they don't show any new sidewalks up front.

Well, based on and not to I'm not throwing you under the bus, but based on new construction in Columbus, you have to unless you have the exemption. So, I hear you. Maybe they're providing parking and it doesn't that's a moot issue. You know what I mean? I don't want to get too far down that rabbit hole. They are. And they are they do have uh I believe a onecar garage in the rear for each. Yeah. So

So I have a question D. So the applicant is stating that it's the the the dwelling the house is three onebedrooms and that wouldn't be sufficient for us to say that would really be a onecar necessity. And you're saying the square footage is requiring something different. It's two per dwelling unit. So regardless of how many bedrooms, it's a dwelling unit. So you have two. Code currently requires two spaces per unit. Um, however, staff historically have supported variances to something like this to allow for one space per unit. So

I mean I that little nugget that you just added kind of Yeah. They're they're not big. They're not a threebedroom or townhouse. And the proof of concept that I have only a it's three onebedroom units and then the ADU is one then you're really not you're only needing technically only needing four spaces in reality. Although the code says you need six. How big is the ADU? The ADU is 400 foot and it's currently rented out to um a couple with a kid and they and they have one car but it's a onebedroom. It's a onebedroom. Correct. And so four four bedrooms total. Correct. Four bedrooms. Correct. Yeah, I could do I could be okay with that. Yeah, but somebody needs to figure this out. Like this is another stuff we need to figure out.

Sidewalk. That's a planning thing I would think. Why would Yeah. Originally, we only had three and that was one of the reasons when we talked to staff was to move it to four because at least we were covering the covering the bedrooms at a bare minimum. Okay. Because even at 420, it's not like you're having a house party at 425 feet when you haveundred and you 100 foot bedroom and then you're adding kitchens and bathrooms. All of a sudden you have very little living area. Okay. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Are we I don't want to take us through if we're not Yeah, I'm good with the Okay. the four and the other ones that pre-existed. Okay. And and then that condition about the east side of lot of parcel one. Correct. Yeah. I have written into that to specify which side for each building. Okay.

Are we ready to call the questions? No conditions. But the area conditions.

Oh, the east side. Okay. Okay. The property in question. Could it yield a reasonable return? Um, yes. The parcel was acting as a house. Um and this lot split joiner thing I think is extra but doesn't affect the return. Um the variances um are not substantial considering the lot lines were drawn through existing buildings. And so we had to there had to be moved. And so with those movements of the lot lines um created the um various variance requests, but I don't think that they're substantial. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. Um the variances would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. The property owner's purchase of the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions um was not mentioned. The predicament I think could be could not be obiated through some other method. I think that the applicant has done um a good job to address the parking relative to the number of units that are on the second parcel and um has provided uh what we agree to be reasonable accommodation for what's what's there. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements I think would be observed and substantial justice done by granting these variances.

Are we ready to I'll call the question. I know he was call the role. Um I agree with the chair's analysis of Duncan factors and vote yes. Mr. Jones, I too agree with the chair's analysis and would also add that my uh variation from parking is based on the number of uh occupiable units being four, not just being a three family building and an ADU and I vote yes. Chair Palmer Bailey, yes. Variance is granted. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are we ready to go back to Okay.

Oh, thank you. Which one down here or this first top one are staying? This this all need to stay. This is the revised list basically. So all of these all of these. Okay. Um 2482 and 2488 deming. We're recalling that case up to go through the

new um variance list. Do you want me to read them off? Well, first question is, Mr. Welderly, do you want to participate in this case? This was case number two, and the applicant worked with the planner to work out some variances. If so, we might need to repeat some things that we discussed earlier, but I don't think that would take too long. So, it's I'm fine repeating myself if unless the board needs me. I don't think we need you. I don't think we can. We'll we'll plan on Welder delay not voting for this case, but if circumstances change, we can add more to the record. Okay.

So, it looks like the we have a whole page. So, I don't know how we put these in the record.

I think you'd read them. The top ones relate to the Yeah, I think maybe what would be easiest is we go to number two on the agenda and Adam if you can just recite what has changed. First of all, let me ask is nothing's getting bigger, right? Great. So

everything um from the proposed uh duplex those that's everything that's remaining um and that would be for 2486 2488 variance to um reduce the required lot width from 50 ft to 32.6 6 ft. Um to reduce the lot size from um 6,000 to 4,083 square ft. To reduce the quantity of parking spaces from 4 to 2. Uh to reduce the minimum sideyard from five feet to 3 3.5 ft. um to increase the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 28% and to increase the maximum floor area ratio from um 04 to 0.95. And this is for the other lot with the two um units on it. The two existing uh they this is all to now just to conform existing conditions. um to reduce the required lot width for um from 50 ft to 36.5 ft. To reduce the lot size from 6,000 to 4,562 to reduce the minimum minimum sideyard from 3 feet to two 2 feet 6 in and to reduce the maximum lot coverage from um 11,040 to 15 or to 34. Am I saying this right? Did I say I get that wrong?

Maximum lot coverage. Yeah. From um Yeah, we're increasing I'm sorry from 11,040 to 1567 which is 34%. And that's the updated list. I have a question on the sideyard setback. Maybe I'm overlooking this, but I don't see that on the original agenda. Is that an additional variance or am I just missing something? So this is request for variance 33 32.26 minimum sideyard to reduce from 3 ft to 2t 6 in.

Yeah, I don't have that on here on the original. So to the applicant, is that an additional variance? That's it would be additional. It's an existing condition. We're not changing it. The lot split doesn't change it. that's on the side against the neighbor that's not affected. Uh but it was on our list. It's just it's just bringing it into compliance. Understood. But I think it was not among the original list of variances that went out to the noticed adjacent owners is where I'm getting at. Oh, so even though it's an existing condition for me,

since it's existing, we could take it off the list and just let it let it ride. Yeah. And take the risk from a code compliance. Yeah. But I thought we had to do I thought we had to if it's new construction, which it is. It changes it. No, this is for the existing house. Not changing. Gotcha. So, we just let it be. Top is the proposed, the bottom is the existing house. Okay. Okay. So, we So, why do we need to vote on any of the Well, we are changing the lot area, right? Because we're splitting it from its oh, original configuration.

So then it's not existing. We can skip the sideyard because that that doesn't affect it's on the side. We're not splitting. If you look at the Let me get to the map. It's It's this one. Like it's not this one. It Yes. It doesn't affect it's not affected by our by where we're splitting the lot, right? But what's the code say? If the code calls for if if the current code calls for it, then we'd have to add it. Even if it was non-conforming before, okay, do the lot split, then now it's we have to bring it into compliance.

Yeah, I think that's right. That's what the board has done in past practices. even if it's an existing condition that is an existing new construction would need the variance. So I'm I'm hearing what we need is maybe another tableabling and notices even though that's probably not what it's preferred. Don't be mad at us. But but let me let me ask the question differently. So you didn't come with the condition before or the variance before because it was existing and you didn't see any change. But it was always a change when we did the lot split. No, she said it was on their list. It was on your list. It's on my list. Yeah. I didn't review the Oh, so we never sent out the notice. I'm sorry. I'm catching up. I got it.

Can we vote these without that so that they can get started on Yeah, I mean, can we I'm okay with that. We can vote it without that. And they could potentially come and amend it with you ask. We can vote it without that. Yes. without the without the sideyard and worst case scenario you come back. So we make that a condition too that you have to come back and ask for the for the varants. Yeah, I think just so we're not holding up your project. Is that okay? It'd be regardless we'd come back and ask for that, but this would just grant us the ability to start obtaining permits and stuff, right? Yeah.

Yeah, that would be great to have some conditional approval. Okay. Full approval without that. Okay. But code compliant or you know to get uh what do they call it to start constru to get permits they may catch it and say oh you need to get this and then you could still come back but you've gotten overall the project approved from our part. You just have to come back and technically get that approved which we would do because we're willing to do it here but we can't because the community wasn't notified about it. Right. Is there a is there an avenue where we get full approval for I guess probably not just the new build side? I'll I'll talk to you about this after.

Yeah, we only got Okay. Okay. Is anybody was nobody here to talk about this application, right? What? So, let me go through the factors here. Um the property in question

could yield a reasonable return without the variances. Um however the variances are not substantial when you look at the uh split of the lots um to accommodate the existing um houses that are there. The central character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and no substantial detriment to the adjoining properties. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services. The property owner's knowledge of the zoning restrictions was not addressed. The properties predicament could not be obiated through another method other than these variances. And I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Are we ready to call the question?

I'll call the question. Question has been called. Please call the role. Mr. Jones, yes, I agree with the chair's assessment. Sorry, I cut you off. Missoff, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote. Yes, chair Paul Bailey. Yes. The answer is granted. Thank you. Thank you. 4923 Sawmill Road

BZA25-147 for 4923 Sawmill Road. It's located on the west side of Sawmill Road, approximately 110 ft north of Crown Ridge Boulevard. It's located in the Northwest Civic Association. It's zoned Rural. The 0.46 acre site is developed with a single unit residential uh residence. Uh surrounding uses are single unit residential with multi-unit residential further to the southwest and mixed use further to the south. The applicant proposes to construct a 600 square f foot addition to the existing detached garage and is requesting a variance to increase the maximum allowable size of a garage from 450 ft to 970 ft. Planning has no comments on the requested variance. Division of traffic management informed the applicant that a rightaway dedication of 80 ft from the center lab sawmill road will be required but after further review the requested dedication was waved. The Northwest Civic Association recommends approval of the request by a vote of 5 to zero. The staff uh recommends approval of the requested variance because it'll allow the property owner to store equipment out of the view of the public and neighboring uh properties. Furthermore, the additional will be to the back of the garage and will not be visible from the rightway.

Can you state your names whether or not you were sworn in? Rick Watts. Yes, I have been. Eric Howard? No, I haven't been. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? You promise that the testimony give tonight will be the truth and nothing but the truth. Please state I do. I do. Okay. Who's going to speak on this? Go ahead.

So, um, we applied for a variance for this garage edition. Um, as you could on the previous pictures, it showed where um, he has a small twocar garage set back behind his house, and there were uh, his personal vehicles and a trailer and a few other things that were in the driveway, which uh, limits him limits the amount of people being able to visit him. But in the garage he has now he has UTVs um razors and his side by sides are stored in there which he can't park his personal vehicles in there. And so the reason for the addition is to allow him to park them in the back part of the garage so that he can put his personal vehicles in there. Um

how big is the house? It's a It's a pretty small ranch. I think it was 975 square feet maybe or something like that. So, you're proposing to build a garage that's going to be 970 square ft. House that's 900 something ft. Don't we need a variance for that too? The existing house is 975. Don't we need a I thought it had to be you couldn't have a building that was more than 75% of that's what this variance is for is because um the garage is more

No, I I know that but that's that's just a bigger garage. I'm talking about in relation to your house. It used to be not just that's the size of a standard garage for right there and that would be for everybody that would be building a larger more a larger capacity garage. Right. So I think what you're citing is uh the garage area is determined by uh either is either a straight square footage or one-third of the minimum net area of the living quarters. So that's how we got the 450 or 450 which is allowed for their garage space. Got it.

And typically if a garage is larger than the residence, we would uh disprove it because we don't want to see garages that dwarf the house. This falls just under that. So it's like two variances built into one almost for our purposes. And it's okay with me. I'm just trying to the code section for garages to determine size. It's two values. It's one or the other. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And can we show a map of where this is? It says rural district. Are we rural district? That's what it says. Then hey, look at it.

When a property is brought into the city and is not reszoned, it comes in as rural. That's what I wanted to see if it's really This doesn't really look like rural. No, it just hasn't been reszoned. It's a offsaw mill by Bethl just on past the bowling alley there by case maybe it was in township or something. I just And so the garage that is already there, we're just going to be building on the back side of it. You you can't even see it from Sawmill Road. Yeah. It's been zoned this way since 1973. Some people like bigger houses. I just want a bigger toy barn. Toy garage, I guess I should say. This I mean we don't usually both of these

because of size. You're right. Um but I only only in cases where there's a barn and there's out and there's plenty of acres and but this is not that. It's not a barn. I apologize. No, I'm talking about just the the the what it's sitting on. The the land that it's sitting on. This is not a large acreage site. This is not in the middle of nowhere with no neighbors. This is right in a residence. We've made except I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Go. I just got I'm here really the this variance, but I'm also trying to figure out you all are going to change zoning on on I got a neighbor now on there's seven houses down through there and I was just curious if anybody here knew Damn it, I thought I turned that off. If anybody here knew um what the heck they were planning on doing with those with those houses. This board is not a part of the decision process of the zone in uh reszoning. Yeah. Just I'm just the first time I've been able to really talk to anybody in live to know. I don't even know what was going to happen with my property and I'm asking you to do something with We can get you in contact with

what you want to do with it. We can get you in contact with the zone in team. I guess as I looked at it, so thank you for pointing out my inconsistent approach. I guess I looked at it in a very um borderline inappropriate way. I see the gentleman with the with the cane. I know we've made exceptions for people that might have mobility issues to be able to do certain things and that's a mitigating factor for me. Also bringing things out of the view which was part of this. I don't know if it was a code enforcement order but being able to accommodate getting things. That's not it is it? That's it. That is it. That's the garage. That's not a house in a garage. That's the garage.

I thought you were adding to the back of the garage. That is the back of the garage. The light gray is the existing garage. The darker gray is the proposed addition. So, there's a garage door going to be put on the the side of it going down so that it can come in through the side with those razors. That looks like a different roof pitch and everything. Now it's so his his garage that's there now runs this way and the easiest way to add on to it would be to come this way off of it which is that's a little deceiving looking but yeah that's not what I saw in what you just did that I see different roof lines here

there does anybody else in the neighborhood have large garages like this? Well, there's down the street a little ways. There's a whole storage facility. Uh, a you store it place a house. I know. I understand. I'm just Some of the houses are bigger than his and they have larger garages. Yes. Yes. But the width of the I don't think it's too substantial. I mean, it's it's more than double. So, the width of the garage stays the same. It just goes further back. Let somebody else go through the factors if they want to

propose something different. So again, what I'm looking at here in this top picture is a twocar garage door. That's a new one. The part to the right is what we're proposing to build. Can you please use your microphone? The top drawing, if you look to the left of the top drawing, saw no roads out that way. So to go into my existing garage, you come from left to right on the very top. Okay. And then to get in the other garage, you go around and come in from the side on the new garage. Is the width the same as the garage?

Yes. It's all Yes. The width is going to continue straight back. I'm going to blend in the the the the block. So that means there's he's going to blend in the block. This new addition is literally the same width and and two foot longer than what the original is now. But you're going to need more pavement. You're going to need six feet of pavement to drive and maneuver back there. Yes, there's a lot coverage area. But if you look at how big his lot is, it more than I've got plenty of green space on my lot. He's got actually a really large lot. Um, and you guys staff recommends approval.

I think because of the sillute obstructed or changed at all. Yeah, but Eleanor brings up a great point. We set precedent when we make this. No, I I do understand. Yeah, I do. So, I I I will just add for the board's consideration. I don't think we have any evidence that this was presented as a reasonable accommodation request, but that is often a valid reason for granting a variance. It's I don't think it's again presented as a reasonable accommodation request, but you can take that into consideration as well. Thank you. And so his razors, he's storing them in the garage. Razor is a side by side a utility vehicle. Okay.

That you write in. He's storing them in his garage that he has now because they're easy to steal. And so he's parking his vehicles outside. And the reason for the addition is for him to be able to have them secure in the back so that he can park his personal vehicle in there. And then when he gets in and out of his vehicle, he's not in the weather. They're not out in the driveway. Understood. Thank you. Yeah. Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Okay. Can Can you come forward, please? Can you wait till you can you wait till you get up here to get you on the record? Can somebody give up and seat, please? Sure. I'm sorry. I have not.

Can you state your name and whether or not you were sworn in? Mark Creeder. Yes. Okay. Go ahead with your testimony.

Uh Moros, my concern is um similar. I was mentioned briefly about this multimodal thorough flare thoroughare plan which out from under us somehow has a 160 foot uh rightway going down Sawmill Road or will have. So I I don't know. It's I found it in the U. I think it's in link us. I don't I think it's a little different than zone. I think it's part of the linkus plan. So I I just you know along with him you know just just concerned for future we'd like to at at minimum have somebody that we can at least talk to and figure out what's going on here. But everything is doing because hold on sir.

This line would this line would go through the middle of my house. Yes. So I I'm sorry. I I don't have any information to give you on that. Um I think you can call

they are gives you some contact on link us that's more so the confusion is there was the rightway uh request with this as this went through staff review they that got confused when they were at the area commission with who also during that same night had a zonin presentation that got confused between the through plan and zone in and so There's been a lot of confusion about this. When you apply for a variance, then you that is the city's opportunity to get right away. And we look at our throughare plan that our plans for these areas. Sawmill is a large road, so we have these plans set out. So, we look at if we're going to need to widen the rideway and make improvements to the roadway during that time or if the plan has any uh updates for that that then uh rightway dedication is submitted to traffic who then review it against those plans to see if that rightway is needed and if so, the rightway would then be requested to be dedicated. traffic took a look at this and saw no need for that dedication, so it was waved.

Okay. What about that northwest corridor thing that's supposed to be coming up through there? Yeah, I think we still need to talk to I So, we're getting I'm sorry. Let me This isn't the right I'll talk at the same time. Sorry. So, this is the right place to receive those answers. We can put you in contact with the right people. Yeah, that's all I'm asking for. Okay. and what the zoning might be that that they're going to reszone. I mean, that depends whether I do what I want or not. So, this is not the form for that. This is just a form for the request for the varian. And I have no objection to it. I understand what he's trying to do. I um I'm three lots down and actually because of fences, I I won't even be able to see it, I don't think. Okay.

Even if the fences weren't there, it'd still be questionable. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else to speak about this application? I have a couple questions. Um, was there any consideration of doing a smaller addition for your garage if you store your cars in existing garage and then just put a smaller one so you're not put building a garage that's as big as a house?

Yeah. So, uh, initially he wanted actually a bigger garage than what we're submitting. He wanted a two and a half car garage. And then so because of the codes as far as 420 for a standard twocar or oneird of your property size or whatever, we actually dialed it down to where it's smaller than the house. And from the road you see the house sideways. From the in the road you see the garage this way. So his house is 30 40t wide from the road. This is only 20 feet wide and you can't see what we're putting on behind it. So,

yeah. No, I appreciate you guys have done everything possible to angle it correctly. So, you don't to minimize the appearance, but you're still talking about 900 970 compared to 975, which is right pretty comfortable. And and again, that like all the additional square footage is behind the garage. So, whether I built it as a 10ft addition or a 20 foot or a 30 foot, you're never going to see it from precise. Correct. I'm just talking about the area. We're we're kind of discussing it among ourselves or out loud but to help you understand this is not about what you're doing because somebody else may say we want it and we want to go

horizontally or vertically or you know so it is visible and they say well you approved his but you I'm so sorry I don't know you approved this one based on the square footage I understand so it puts us in a precarious position right um and again variances have to be done individually, one off. And I think the big thing about this, what from what I was told was that uh they wanted to make sure if you're building a bigger garage, the reason that you're building it is not for commercial use. Like you're going to have a bunch of people's cars over there that you're working on and that this is going to be solely for residential, which this is in this instance. So,

and and again, you might have gotten great guidance from staff. We look at things similar but not necessarily the same. And when we make a decision, it follows the property. So if he sells it next week, now we got somebody in there and it's a garage, commercial garage. You know what I mean? Because the capacity is there. I'm not saying it it would happen, but it could happen and we have to be mindful of that. Lived there for 41 years. Understood, sir. Understood. I plan on dying there. This You want to go through the Duncan factors? You want me to do it? Yeah, cuz I'm a No. I'm a no, too. Oh, yeah. I've changed. Who's anybody know? Oh, we're all nos. Okay. Yes. But it's not going to

Yeah. Okay. Um, the property in question will yield a reasonable return without these variances, without this variance. Um, I think that the variance is substantial considering the character of the neighborhood, the uh the residential the and the size of the existing house. Um, we're talking about a five square foot difference. Um, which is not big enough to me to warrant doubling the size of the garage. I think that's a a change that is substantial that would change the character of the neighborhood and um substantially altering the adjacent properties with a substantial detriment as a result. I think I don't think the variance would have adversely affect the delivery of government services. Um I don't know that the owner understood this when he bought the house 41 years ago. the property owner's predicament um to build this size garage, they would only be able to do so with a variance. Um but I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would lead to us denying this variance um at this time. We're ready to call the question.

Call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Waldy. Um, I disagree with the chair's assessment of the Duncan factors. I do believe that the garage in its uh facial expression on its face facing sawmill not having any disruption from there and building back would maintain the character of the neighborhood. Um and thus I vote for this um variance uh based off of that Duncan factor. Miss Ageloff. Uh I agree with the chair's analysis that Duncan factors and vote no. Mr. Jones,

I too agree with the chair's analysis and vote no. Sheriff Pon Bailey, I vote no. Verance is not granted. 3542 Lindström Drive.

Thank you.

Sorry move slow. 3542 Lindstöm Drive is located at the southeast corner of Rosberg Drive and Lindstöm Drive as part of the West Sciota Area Commission and existing zoning LR2 Limited Residential District. The 0.2 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses include similar single unit dwellings to the north, south, east, and west. The applicant proposes to legitimize an existing fence and is requesting a variance to reduce the setback for privacy fence uh in a required yard from 25 ft to 9 ft. Planning has no comment on the proposed variances and uh the West Sciota Area Commission has recommended approval of the requested variances uh variance rather voting 7 to2 in favor. State Department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the fence does not appear to pose a safety concern in terms of maintaining adequate vision clearance. Um we also have uh the comment from traffic management. It was uh under a different bullet point. Apologies here. Um, the adjacent intersection of Rosber Drive and Lindstöm Drive operates as a T intersection where northbound vehicles must yield to Rosberg Drive traffic per Columbus City Code 2131.161A. While the necessary sight line for this condition would pass through the existing house at 3542 Lindstöm Drive, the existing fence does not appear to further obstruct the necessary sight line for this condition. Additionally, the existing fence does not appear to obstruct sight lines between an automobile backing out of the driveway for 3469 Rosber Drive and a person operating a personal assistive mobility device or children's non-motorized vehicle within the sidewalk along

Rosberg Drive. Therefore, the Division of Traffic Management does not object to the variance leading to the city department's recommendation of approval based on the fact that the offense does not pose a safety concern. Chair So the issue was So the there's no problem with the height of the fence or the opacity of the fence. Apologies. There's no issue with the height of the fence nor the opacity of the fence. Correct. The fence uh is opaque, but it is uh under six. It's six feet or less. So we wouldn't consider it a structure. Okay. Do you mean in terms of needing another variance? Setback.

No, no. I just was making sure I didn't I was capturing my thought process correctly. Okay. Can you state your name and whether or not you were sworn in? Cody Titus. And yes, I was sworn in. Okay. So, can you tell us more about the application?

Sure. Um, couple things I wrote down here if you don't mind. Um, offense has occupied this same footprint for over 20 years. Um, you can see it on Google Earth footage all the way back to 2005 and maybe even before then. Um, relocating it to meet the required setback would eliminate over,00 square feet of usable yard space. Um, we would have to remove an established garden we have in the corner there on the north side of the house in the corner of the fence. Um, and just significantly diminish our ability to reasonably use and enjoy our property. And when did you buy the house? 2022. Okay.

Uh, more importantly, the fence just provides safety and security for my family. Modifying it to meet code by either reducing the feet to two and a half um would not contain my dog nor my toddler. Um, and it would not keep people out either. So, just with some recent security issues we've had in the neighborhood, um, my vehicle has been broken into parked directly along the fence. Um we have had um there's dangerous dogs that live on Lindstöm Drive. My wife got called to testify against um and that person is on probation, but the dogs are still loose occasionally um and have bitten people, so I want to keep them away from my property. Um and just there is also six registered sex offenders within a square mile of my house and I'd like to keep them away, too.

So you said your car was broken into and it was parked alongside the fence. Yes. On the street? Yes, on the street. Yep. Okay. What does that comment mean? I don't understand. They're 9 ft away from my fence. If they would break into my vehicle right there, I think they could easily get into my yard if the fence was only 2 and 1/2 ft tall. Okay. And additionally, where are we getting the two and 1/2 ft tall? That's in the He had to lower it down. That's in the zoning code for corner lots. Well, so the there are two different things to have a six-foot fence opa opaque. Yes, you'd have to have you'd have to bring it back, right?

If it was I guess you'd have to bring it back regardless for vision clearance traditionally, but it doesn't create a problem here. But because it's six feet, it's 16 and a half inches between pickets to but that's what I was asking them about like

meet the opacity requirement. So, the way the code section reads is that you're not allowed to have since this is a corner lot, they have two required yards, right? Um, and in this code section, which should be cited there, the way it's worded is if you're going to have a fence within a required yard, it has to be below what was it? Um, one and a half ft in height and anything above that can't exceed 25% opacity for a fence. So, if So if you were going to have a privacy fence, something that dis that goes against that 25% opacity above 1 and 1/2 ft, it would have to be behind your required yard, which would be behind the building line, which is at 25 ft. So it is essentially a setback variance, but it is in the vision clearance section. It's a little bit confusing the way it's worded. I mean, we've seen this time and time again with these corner lots, and we even had one recently that Dan had to really dig into because the people had a bush on the corner. So, we we hear this all the time. So, we appreci Let me say speak for myself. I appreciate your comments.

Um, I'm okay with it, not for any of the reasons that you suggested. I'm sympathetic to the things you described, but you bought a corner lot, right? This is the condition of a corner lot. Generally, the reason I can be okay with it is because I see the distance between you and that other driveway and I see no other uh no other kind of obstacles, but the other things that you said people, if you just came in with that and that was a problem, I'd be a no. So, I appreciate your comments, but they don't really

And I I do want to add, if it's okay, the the neighbor behind me to the east, um I do have a signed letter of support from her as well that was included saying she has no objections, as well as from another family, um that kind of lives caddy corner to me that has a pet they walk and young children as well, expressing no safety concerns. We have received two letters of support. Um I'm going to be having those. Okay. Thank you.

circulating now. Is there anyone here that wants to speak about this application? I I think I tend to agree with Mr. Jones. Um I'm persuaded by traffic who indicates that there is not a safety issue. Does the fence does not obstruct sight lines between the automobile backing out of the driveway and a person that is operating a personal assisted mobility device or children's non-motorized vehicle within the sidewalk along Rosberg Drive. So, I think we're clear on that, but I appreciate your due diligence of collecting support from the neighbors. Sure.

Um, so the property in question um will yield a reasonable return without this variance. I think the variance um is not substantial because of traffic's indication that it is not creating a safety hazard. Um I think the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. I don't think that the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The owner indicated that they purchased the property with the fence there and to their knowledge that it was a legal um fence. The property um owner can do nothing but ask for a variance um absent tearing the fence down and doing something different to lose usage of their backyard. I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed because I think the intent is to maintain safety along neighbors and cars and pedestrians and so I think sub substantial justice would be done by granting this variance. Are you ready to call the question?

I'll call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Miss Ageloff, I agree with the chair's analysis of the factors and vote yes. Mr. Jones, I too agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Mr. Waldley, I agree as well and vote yes. Chair Pon Bailey. Yes. Be granted. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody good.

8000 East Broad Street. BZA25-159 for 8000 East Broad Street. It's located on the north side of East Broad Street between North Wagner Road and Meyer Drive. It's on CAC Community Activity Center and it's located in the Far East area commission. The 25.61 acre site is developed with a commercial shopping center including a grocery store and a gas station. Surrounding uses include eating and drinking establishments and a commercial shopping center to the south and east, mixeduse commercial to the west, and multi-unit residential to the north. The applicant proposes to construct an oil and tire service center and is requesting variances to increase the maximum permitted front setback from 25 ft to 43 and 1/2 ft to reduce the number of required parking spaces from nine spaces to six spaces and to reduce the minimum facade transpar transparency for a non-residential use from 60% to 25%. Planning is supportive of the proposal as presented. The C2P2 uh states a consistent level of detailing and finish should be provided for all sides of a building. The plan also states that consideration of larger setbacks should be based on the placement of of adjacent buildings and or unique geometry. Staff notes a sanitary easement along Meyer Drive which calls for the requested variance on the setback. As such, staff is supportive of the proposal as is consistent with these guidelines. The division of traffic management uh informed the applicant that bike racks will need to be provided and that that the number of stacking spaces needed to be shown on site plan. The applicant has updated the request to include a stacking space variance in the bike racks can be provided during final site compliance. The applicant was also informed that a rightaway dedication of 80 ft from the center line of East

Broadway uh Broad Street and 50 feet from the center line of Wagner Road uh were required. But once learning that this development site will be split from the larger site, traffic is comfortable waving uh this comment as long as the application is conditioned on the on the application being restricted to the property described in the provided legal description. The Far East Area Commission recommends approval of this request by a vote of 8 to zero. And staff recommend approval of the front setback variance because the site is constrained by an existing sanitary easement along Meyer Drive. And the stacking space variance is supported because the applicant has provided as many stacking spaces as possible while still providing enough maneuverability for the nearby parking spaces. However, staff does not support the variance requested to reduce the facade transparency for non-residential use since this requirement could be met. Uh going through the Duncan standards uh beneficial use without the variance. Yes, the property could still you yield a reasonable return and be developed without the need of a facade transparency variance. Is it substantial? Yes, the facade transparency variance uh requested is substantial when compared to the code requirement. Central character of the neighborhood altered. No, the central character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered as a result of the uh transparency variance. governmental services. No, the requested uh facade transparency variance will not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. Knowledge of zoning restriction. Yes, the applicant has indicated that they were aware they are aware of the zoning restrictions and that the property has not yet been purchased. Uh predicament feasibly uh feasibility without variance. Yes, the owner's predicament can be feasibly obiated by providing additional transparency along the eastern elevation and spirit intent substantial justice. No, the spirit intent behind the zoning

requirement will not be observed if the transparency variance is granted since it goes against the intent of the uh title 34 district which is to create an inviting environment that promotes walkability. And again, uh, the condition requested, uh, that the application is restricted to the property described in the provided legal description. Okay. Can you state your names and whether or not you were sworn in? Tyler Henden. Yes, I was sworn in. Okay. Evan Salers, professional engineer, and yes, I was sworn in. Okay. Who's going to speak? Uh, we both can. Okay. Um, so you can talk about why do you need the reduced transparency? Sorry. You want me to?

Um, you either one's fine. I mean, the the reduced transparency is really the type of glass to be used. Um, the elevations that were submitted on the I guess the side facing um, Meer Drive and then Broad Street did reach 60% um, you know, storefront or the similar type material or construction. Um, we're just asking to use spandro glass instead of truly transparent see-through glass just number one for lighting purposes in the shop because there are people in there working with hand tools and and other things. Um, and then also just from a um enticement because there will be expensive equipment, tools, tire storage, other things in there. We don't want it to be any kind of enticement for um, you know, adverse whether it's burglary or whatever it may be. I I don't know. But um, you know, we don't want it to create that situation. However, we do want to comply with what we believe the intent is is to create the visual appeal of uh alternate construction types and similar type materials. So then that's way more storefront glass than we would ever put in a store typically. And then to expand on the other variances, um, as was mentioned, there is an existing sanitary sewer on the property side of Meyer Drive, um, which is restricting our ability to meet the front setback. We cannot place the building that far forward without u being in conflict with that existing easement. So, we are asking for alleviation on that. Um and then for the um stacking we have provided historical data showing that this amount of stacking meets the average use for our sites. Um and in addition we we believe we provide mobility around the site such that if there was a need from an

operations standpoint um we can still get cars off of Meer Drive, off of the access drives into the site while they wait. Yeah. And I guess just to elaborate on that a little bit, um the the parking is just the stacking out front that you see in the bay. So it is a drive-thru oil change service. So you see the six vehicles there that would in that situation. There would be also three inside the building. Um and we we've done traffic analysis, I guess, if you will, on existing stores. We have over 400 nationwide. Um, and peak hour on a Saturday is is seven per hour, and that's at peak. Uh, and so, you know, in order to see this this condition you see on the screen, you'd have to have about nine people show up in about 20 minutes, which is we wish that were the case, but that doesn't happen. Um, and so I believe we'll have adequate space uh for the site. Um, as well there's attendants in the shop that greet customers immediately. If for some reason something happened, one of the bays out, whatever, they'll be uh a traffic monitor that will direct traffic, park them or make sure we're not creating an adverse situation, you know, out into the public right away. So,

any more questions? Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Okay. Um, so the property in question, would it yield a reasonable return without this variance? I think the answer is no. Um, based on testimony I heard about needing to position the building to avoid the existing easement and also facilitate the stacking and the car and the maneuverability. the variances um on their face do appear substantial with the reduction for the facade from 60 to 25. Um however, based on the reasoning that the applicant gave regarding um safety concerns for their workers as well as um when the facility is closed. Um, I tend to believe that the spirit has been um has been u met here. I think the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. I don't think this would adversely affect delivery of government services. Um, the property owner has not full knowledge of the zoning restriction before purchasing the property. Um, which is why they're here. Um I think there is no other way to um move forward with this project but by getting these variances granted and again like I said before the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Are you ready to call the question?

I'll call the questions. Please call the role. Mr. Jones, I agree with the chair's assessment and two would note that the spirit of the zoning code is being met with the attempt at um mimicking the desired uh transparency for the glass and vote yes. Mr. Wley, I agree with both the chair and my colleague, Mr. Jones, and vote yes. Miss Ageloff, I likewise uh agree with the chair and our colleague and vote yes. Chair Bon Bailey. Yes. Experience is granted. Thank you. Thank you very much.

1815 Woodland Avenue. BZA25-163 for 1815 Woodland Avenue. It's located on the west side of Woodland Avenue across from Germaine Drive. It's zoned LC4 and R2 limited commercial and residential. It's located in the north central area commission. Uh the 4acre site is currently developed with a religious facility. Surround uses are primarily single-unit residential to the south, east, and west with a religious facility in daycare to the north and a convenience store further to the south. The applicant proposes to bring a previously approved event center into compliance and is requesting a variance to provide the required parking lot trees throughout the site rather than being located within the parking lot. Planning has no comments on the requested variance. Division of traffic management has no comments. And the North Central area commission recommends approval of the request by a vote of 7 to zero. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance since it is minor in nature and although the trees will not be provided in the parking lot as required, they will still be provided on the property along the edge of the parking lot.

Okay. Can you state your name whether you were sworn in? Uh my name's Jack Reynolds and yes, I was sworn in. Okay. Do you have anything to add?

Uh no. Uh we uh I reszoneed the property from R2F to uh LC4 to change the uh church to an event center. And uh subsequent to that uh obviously we being good citizens, we filed a zoning compliance for the property and at that time it was determined that the uh three areas that were originally uh per that were to be provi pro prov provided for the site were not uh installed. So now we came back and looked at installing trees in the parking area. It was determined that to do that it would probably cost us anywhere from 30 to $35,000 because we'd have to go cut asphalt out uh remove the soil, put in new soil. Uh and so what the property owner said is we still want to provide the trees on site. So we're going to provide 19 trees on site uh to uh add those trees to the facility. It's just that uh we're asking you all to vary the location of the trees on site

and I believe that is far and above the required number of trees. Okay. Thank you for that.

So I have a question. I am familiar with this site and two questions. Isn't the purpose of trees within a lot within parking is used to like reduce some kind of something. They're they're there and concentrated for a reason in those respective areas. I again truly appreciate the the compromise. Yeah. because of cost etc. But isn't there a dual purpose in that? And is there any consideration for the houses that are let's just call it to the southwest um of this area. Are is there going to be any focus over there to help mute

um remember what's there? But I feel like you could see part of the parking lot from those rear yards because there's a railroad thing, right? Or a stream or something. Pardon? Oh, yeah. Right there. Thank you.

There we go. That's the rear yard. Now, our problem with the site is that the parking lot goes almost to the lot lines. So, where we could locate trees along the lot line, if if you look, uh we were able to add them to the side along the church. Uh but the uh parking lot was so close to the lot line to the south that we added them where we could without a damaging the parking lot or infringing on the neighbor's lot.

So I guess what I'm saying is you're you're attempting to compensate for the trees, right? Yes, we are. But but you're not doing anything that supports the reason that you would need the trees in the beginning is my point. Because the area to the north is already commercial, right? It it's to the north. It's a church. Commercial. Yeah.

So, you're not helping anything by creating that buffer there. You're not helping the environment by putting it in a parking lot, which is part of the reason that I think they go in parking lots. So, it's like you're saying, we'll put trees because they're required, but they're required for a reason. A and again what we're saying is the the the placement of the trees in the parking lot at this time is is uh a very high cost. Agreed. I I would be okay if you didn't have trees. That's my point. Because you're not serving the purpose of what trees are there for except for buffering to another commercial space which you could usually

we're adding them along the side of the building uh as well as along the south side of the building itself. and then to the rear uh of the property as well. It was kind of an academic comment and question. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna say yes because obviously you can't do what you can't do, right? And adding it anyway, so it's your expense, but we wish we wish that the church had done it at the first time. Yeah. And we wouldn't be in front of you this evening because obviously with where they placed them.

Correct. Is there anybody here to speak about this application? Any other questions from the Okay, so the property in question um could yield a reasonable return without these this variance. Um although they would not be in compliance, uh the applicant did say they are trying to be good citizens and do the right thing according to the code. Um the variance is substantial because they are asking to not have any trees. um when multiple are required. Um however, uh taking into account the significant cost of putting those trees, um I think that the essential care to the neighborhood wouldn't be altered by not having them. And so I'm I am persuaded that uh they would not they would not add to the usage of this this property. The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services. The property owner um possibly did not know that this was the issue until they went to pull the actual records. the predicament. Um, as as the applicant said, they were trying to be compliant and so the only way to do that is to come and get a revision um and get a a variance. the spirit and intent I think behind the zoning requirement um would be um would not be observed but I think substantial justice would be done because we would not be requiring a property owner to spend um a ton of money just for compliance purposes. Are we ready to call the question?

Call the question. Mr. Wley, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff, I likewise agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Jones. I agree and vote yes. Sher Pond Bailey. Yes. Spears granted. Thank you folks.

850 Oak Street. 850 Oak Street is located at the northwest corner of Douglas Street and Oak Street. It's part of the Near East Area Commission and existing zoning is ARLD, Apartment Residential Limited District. The 0.1 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses include a community center to the north, multi-unit dwellings to the east, and single unit dwellings to the south and west. The applicant proposes to convert the single unit dwelling to a 10 resident shared living facility and is requesting a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces for the proposed use from seven to zero. Uh planning has no comment on the proposed variance and the division of traffic management likewise has no comments. Uh the nearest area commission has recommended approval of the requested variance voting 14 to zero in favor. State department's recommendation is also likewise that of approval. Uh staff recommends approval as the reduction is mitigated by the fact that the shared living facility is intended for youth people who will not have as strong a need for vehicle parking. The applicant also faces a hardship for providing code compliant parking as the property lacks adequate space to situate parking in the rear and has no access to an alley. Chair of people. What kind of people?

Oh, can you state your name and whether or not you were sworn in? Yes. Hi, my name is Tyra Martin. I was not sworn in. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? You promise that the testimony you give tonight was the truth and nothing but the truth. Please state I do. I do. Okay. So, can you tell us about the usage for the of the property and why you don't think it's you need seven parking spaces?

Yes. So, um we are a group home for youth who are in the custody of children's service agencies throughout Ohio. So, we're Fly House Foundation of Love for Youth. Um, and our youth range between the ages of 12 and 18, but we typically have like older youth, but they are not allowed to get their temps or to drive through their county agencies. It's just a rule, I guess, liability purposes. So, at MAX, we have two staff there at a time, maybe three. It just depends, but usually it's just two. And then when we do have all of our staff together, we're not at the Oak Street address. will usually be at Cohatch or now we'll go to um the Oh, it just el the new rec center that they just built over there. The name just eluded me. Um so we'll go there and um so we never have more than one or two parking spaces that we're using on the public street. We've been there for almost 5 years now and we just we haven't had any issues with parking and we just now we get along very

So you've been there for five years but why are you now coming in asking for parking variance? Great question. Um, I'm asking for a parking variance now because I want to say HB. Well, some regulation came out with um the group homes and like DCY when they broke off from ODJFS, our licensing agency. So, now we have to be zoned. There's just a lot of rules and regulations. it wasn't really enforced too much, but now because of things that are happening in, you know, within the industry, so to speak, um they're just regulating it, which is not a bad thing. So, okay.

So, is it possible for us to I mean, this seems like a very specific use, right? Which would require a different standard, but we usually provide variances that run with the land. And in this case, it doesn't seem like we want to do that because we don't want to give a seven parking variance, a seven space variance, but for the fact that this is being used for this specific purpose. I mean, we're talking about a 10 resident shared living facility. I don't know what to you have that ability under 3307.09B to place that condition so it doesn't run with the land. Okay. And that would just follow the property owner. Okay.

For the use. Well, I never knew that before. You've never asked, Mr. Jones. Um because thank you for bringing that up, Eleanor. We've usually done it for places that were new and built that would never likely change into something else, but that's a great point. So, we we'll limit that. Okay. And we have done this before with special permits for food trucks, right? You have analogous ability for variances. Well, that's why I was looking. I was like, well, this is not really a special permit. So, okay. So to that point, do we have to call it anything else or we're just invoking this code section? I would place a condition on the approval of something to the effect that so long as it's used as a shared living facility or Okay. Youth shared living facility.

Youth shared living facility. Right. Okay. Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Okay. So, um, let's, uh, I'll go through the Duncan factors that will be contingent on us limiting this variance to the property as long as it is being used as a youth shared living facility. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. If if it's okay, I would just like it phrase shared living facility, not youth shared living facility, because shared living facility is defined use in our code. Does it define it as youth?

No. I I guess we we've had So, thank you for that distinction, but we've talked about senior living and we make exceptions because maybe they don't have cars and for youth, not generically um not generically aired living facility and and when people come to us, they come under the guise, oh, we're youth or we're seniors and we don't have this. So, I appreciate what you're saying, but we need to figure out a way to do that. Uh, can we I mean I guess can we take it out of the title and just say a shared living facility used for youth? Yeah. Or I think we even have the ability to say current user, you know, because Yeah. Go with that. Okay.

Okay. So, we would be limiting the uh variance to the current user using it as a shared living facility for youth. I mean, that's what she's using it for. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So, the property in question um sounds like they cannot yield a reasonable return without the variance because of the new regulations um and them having to be in compliance. The variance is substantial in nature going from 7 to zero in spaces. Um however with the usage that has been um described here not allowed to have temps youth and the ages um we don't think that and and the number of staff people that are at the house at one time. We don't think that the actual usage is um variance is substantial. The character of the neighborhood not substantially altered because of this variance. um delivery of governmental services not adversely affected. The property owner purchased this property um with knowledge wasn't sure how that panned out but the property owner can only um continue to operate in the space by getting this variance. The spirit I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting this variance as we talked as we said before because of the limited and restricted use by the current owner. Are you ready to call the question?

I'll call the question. Please call the role. Miss Agelhoff. I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Jones, I too agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Waldley, I concur as well and vote yes. Chair Palm Bailey, yes. Vance granted. Chip 1010 East. Oh. Oh, yeah. That was that's what the eye contact was. Got it. 1010 East Dublin Grand View Road.

1010 East Dublin Grand View Road. Located on the north side of East Dublin Grand View Road, approximately 300 ft east of Boardwalk Street is zoned RAC Regional Activity Center and part of the Northland Community Council. The 1.7 acre site is developed with a parking lot and a pole sign for the adjacent self-s storage facility. Surrounding uses are an eating and drinking establishment to the east, a motel and self-s storage facility to the north, an office building to the south, and retail to the west. The applicant proposes to construct an eating and drinking establishment. Variances are being requested to reduce the total length of the facade or of the facade on the south side from 70% to 15% and to reduce the ground floor transparency from 60% to 30%. Planning has reviewed the updated materials and remains supportive of the requested variances. Staff notes that the existing landscaping provided along Zoomstein, I don't know, drive and the proposed headlight screening wall. The division of traffic management had no comments and the Northland uh community council recommends approval with a vote of 16 to zero. And I will like to say that Dave Paul did call me and tell me he's not feeling well and to relay that message that he wanted to be here even though he he just I told him to stay home. Anyway,

u staff is recommended approval um as a proposal is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and it is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the adjacent properties or the character of the area. Sir, can you state your names and whether or not you were sworn in? Uh my name is Dave Perry. I'm here as agent for the applicant. I have not been sworn. Okay. My name is Steve Hermiller. I'm the civil engineer. Were you sworn? Sworn. Okay. The testimony you give tonight with the truth and nothing but the truth. Please state. I do. I do. Okay. Who's going to speak on the property?

Um I'll go ahead. This is um a little bit of history on this property. the the um in 20 this this used to be uh part of the Giant Eagle parking lot and the the large building to the north was a Giant Eagle that closed in 2018 and was converted to self- storage and then these two outlots this being the east outlot were created. Um our client Meer Meyers Food Management proposes to develop this outlot with a Culver's restaurant and request um the variances as indicated. The um what has what has changed since the lot splits were done in 2019 was uh zone in in August of 2024 and that has established these two standards that we're requesting variances from. And I would I would note um on the variance about the 70% of the uh total length of of the facade. This parcel is 272 ft wide and that would mean that a building would have to be 190 ft approximately long. That would be highly unusual for a building to be 190 ft long. And um so we have a variance to that. And wait. So go take me back through that. Sorry,

take me back through you said um variance E2090C building placement to reduce the total length of the facade on the on the south side from 70% to 15%.

70% of the width of this parcel is 70% would be 192 ft. So that section of the code is saying um a building should be 192t long on this parcel. It it can't be. That's not not realistic for a building to be 192 ft long. So my my point of bringing that up is that um there is um it's it's highly unlikely that anything would be built on this parcel in compliance with that uh percent of facade width requirement. So in in any event, this would be before you for a variance to that. And then and then due to the orientation variance number two um the building is oriented north south on the parcel. So a narrow a narrow side is oriented to uh the service road for Dublin Granville. And um we can explain that if needed on why why the site needs to lay out that way. But um these are this this is um in compliance with zone in other than the these two items and um supported by staff and supported by Northland.

So I'll have I'll ask this question. It's not going to influence my decision, but this is consistent with this new zoning requirement and facade lengths uh opacity uh for glass. We can make exceptions and I feel okay making an exception here. You know, that lot cuts in a little bit. So, we can say, "Oh, it's a unique lot." But generally, when you own this out parcel, a solution to this is you split the lot again, right? You say, "Oh, this is going to be our parking. This is going to be our building." That's the exception. That gives you your code compliant, more code compliant. And I'm just giving you food for thought because you'll be here again arguing the same things. And I'm saying I can do it in some cases. We've done it in some cases. You've had to come back. I think in some cases after revisiting it, but that might be a solution that could be recommended to clients because that overcomes that versus us just continuing to make the exception. But it's just a thought.

Um that that would be a solution for say a u retail use that doesn't have a versus a restaurant use that doesn't have a pickup window. And the Q lanes and stacking lanes for pickup windows eats up a lot of ground. So this this use could not exist on a split lot, but I agree with you. Other other uses might be able to Thank you for that testimony. Yeah. So why why the transparency reduction? Um the building is rectangular. Of course, that was the front entrance on the south side. Um Adam, do you have the renderings in the

Yeah, there we go. There we go. Okay. So, um, lower lower left is the Dublin Granville and and service road view. Um, it has a front entrance. It has glass. Um, it is the narrow end of the building. Uh there is a um a driveway to the self storage on the west side of this and that would be the lower lower right um view that also has an entrance and has a substantial amount of glass. But due to the building orientation and Manx Smith Group needing to make the building work, the circulation work for the drive-through lanes, um we we looked at other options on this. Um, Manx Smith could have pushed the building way back and then that would just be a different variance. Um,

but I don't I don't understand how the the location of the building is affecting the transparency because it just says, unless I'm a misunderstanding, reduce the ground floor transparency from 60% to 30%. So, it sounds like it's all the ground floor. Are you saying it's just the front? The front is what's measured by the transparency and not not the other elevations. Okay. So, because of your positioning of the building, you're saying your front is only going to have so much transparency because of the door and the windows, correct? Okay.

The side may have more. And then I I don't know if you wanted to mentioned I think the knee wall uh along the frontage also might have been an added way to try and put some uh buildable area I think on the on that frontage. Or is that more of a screening? Yeah, that that's a screening. A screening beats element. Okay. And it's 60% of what? The total building. The frontage has to be the the transparency of that frontage have to be 60% of the total. Okay. Right.

Gotcha. Okay. Any other questions? Is anybody here to speak about this application? Okay. So, the property in question sounds like it would not yield a reasonable return. um for a a a retail establishment that's trying to have stackable drive-thru um and meet the code um length facade requirements. Um the variance does appear to be substantial um but based on the applicant's testimony around the placement of the building and the positioning of the um the front doors and the windows. um this is the um best effort that they could present. I don't think the character of the neighborhood will be substantially altered. This is in a commercial district. The variance would not affect adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. Um the property owner I don't know if they purchased this property knowing this zoning restriction. um the property owner had to come and request this variance before they built a incompatible building. But I think the spirit and intent behind this owner requirement will be observed because of the um the the placement of the windows and doors do present an inviting um inviting space. Are we ready to call the question?

Call the question. Question has been called. Please call the role. Mr. Jones, I agree with the chair's assessment and more specifically would note that the angle the unique angle of the southwest corner of the parcel is um narrows the overall depth and I feel the applicant has made best efforts to uh create the frontage that would be called for with the uh zoning requirement. Additionally, I feel that diminishing or reducing the sea of parking that has been existing in that space is a best effort to help improve the area. And I vote yes. Mr. Welley,

I agree with the chair's assessment and both yes. Miss Ageloff, I agree with the chair's assessment as well as my colleagues and vote yes. Palmer Bailey, yes. Bus Granite, thank you. 2886 Delta Road. One

2886 Steltzer Road located on the southeast corner of Steltza Road and McCutchen Road. It is part zoned CPD commercial plan development and part of the Northeast Area Commission. The 18.2 acre site is developed with a commercial center. Surrounding uses are multi-unit residential to the south and east, commercial to the west, and a fire station to the north. The applicant proposes to split a lot and construct an eating and drinking establishment. Variances are requested to reduce the maneuvering from 20 ft to zero ft to reduce the number of parking spaces from 14 to 13. Uh just a note, a variance was granted in 2009 to reduce uh parking on the southeastern portion of the parcel from 32 to 22 spaces at the Sonic location. Planning is supportive of the request and the Division of Traffic Management had no comments. The Northeast Area Commission also recommended approval with a vote of 420. Staff can recommend approval as the proposal is minor in reduction in required parking um and reflects a practical site design condition associated with the proposed lot split and ready development. Staff finds the request to be consistent with the existing commercial development pattern along Stelter Road and not likely to impact traffic circulation or neighborhood character.

Can you state whether or not state your names whether you were sworn in? Uh, my name is Dave Perry as agent for Banker Development and I have been sworn in. Steve Hermiller as engineer and I have been sworn in. Matthew Goodland. I'm from Banker Development. I've not been sworn in. Can you raise your hand and say, repeat, I'm sorry. If you promise that the testimony you get tonight will be nothing but the truth, please state I do. I do. Thank you. Okay. Another Culver's or we got something else? Uh, no. Um this is a large existing shopping center anchor an anchored by Giant Eagle and uh there are four existing outlots. This is a proposal for a fifth outlot. Okay.

So tell us about is it because the tell us why you can't maneuver. Um certainly the the way the the distinction one distinction between this outlot and the other four outlots is that a parallel service drive for the shopping center is in front of this outlot and not in the other four. So the placement of the west property line of this outlot is adjacent to the east side of that service drive rather than crossing it. that service drive is to remain owned by the shopping center and it grants full ingress egress access rights throughout the shopping center. Um so we have uh we have parking abudding abudding that property line. The spaces are fully on the parcel but abuing that property line and they will maneuver offsite but the maneuvering will be provided. Okay.

Same thing on the um south side of the proposed outlot. All all required maneuvering is provided. It's just due to the placement of property lines for this outlot. It's maneuvering off of the site itself, but into easement area. Okay. I have an exhibit if you'd like to see the overall. I saw it in the um I saw it here. Is it the same as this? I don't know. I'm looking at this. Oh, these are these. Are these the parking spaces around here? Is that what you're showing?

No. No. The four outlets along Stellza Road. Oh, right here. Yeah. And there's a hatch area that goes that jig jag. Okay. I see it kind of goes down jogging ement area that Mr. Perry was referring to which creates these.

Okay. this as a as a restaurant use under 5,000 square feet with a pickup window. The parking ratio for this is only 1 to 175 rather than 175. And so we're um we're uh one space one parking space short. The the shopping center has hundreds of parking spaces and is way over code required parking. And uh Mr. Goodland has arranged for um the ability to use adjacent shopping center parking spaces also in addition to what will be provided on the outlot. Okay. Is anybody here to speak about this application? Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Nope.

Okay. Um the property in question, would it yield a reasonable return without these variances? Um I think the answer is no on that question because of the technicality of the maneuvering variance. Um I think that that variance appears to be substantial but based on the layout of the property all required maneuvering will happen but since it's technically not on this parcel the variance needed to be sought. I think that the parking variance is non non-existing really is one space and as testimony of the applicant said that shopping center is underparked and so I don't think this will be creating any parking issues for this establishment. I don't think the character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered nor will government delivery of government services adversely affected. The property owner is purchasing this without knowledge with sorry with knowledge of the zoning restriction and therefore that's why they're here. The property owner's predicament um had to required coming to this board for a variance but I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variances. Are you ready to call the question?

I'll call the question. Please call the role. Mr. Welley, I agree with the chair's assessment of the Duncan Bach. Miss Agelhoff, I likewise agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Jones, uh, with one exception about yielding a reasonable return, I think that the lot would without the development or without the variances. I vote yes. Chair Pala, yes. Vance is granted. Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you. 1256 Rand Avenue 1256 Rand Avenue located on the northeast corner of Rand Avenue and Livingston Avenue. Um it is zone AR1 apartment residential and is part of the M East area commission. Uh the 5.72 acre site is developed with an existing apartment complex. Surrounding uses include multifamily residential development to the north, east, and west, excuse me, with a commercial shopping center to the south. The applicant proposes to replace an existing apartment identification sign. Variance is being requested to reduce the vision clearance triangle from 30 feet by 30 feet to 8 feet by 4.8T. Um um sorry a BCA action is necessary to this. This also got a graphics commission um approval last week for the graphic area. Uh the division of planning has no comment. Division of traffic management had no comment and the M East area commission recommended approval. Staff can recommend approval as the request is minor in scope and is limited to the placement of an apartment complex identification signs the proposal will not negatively affect the surrounding development pattern and will not create noticeable adverse impact on traffic operations or the character of the area. Check

so no vision obstruction. No, this is replacing a sign that's that's been there. It's just updating it. Okay. Can you state your name whether or not you're sworn in? Eric Steel. I have been sworn in. Okay. Um I think I got the gist of this, but do you have anything else to add? Uh no, not really.

Okay. Board members, do we have any questions? Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Okay. The property in question could yield a reasonable return without this variance as it has been doing. This just sounds like this is a replacement of an existing sign and thus um necessitated the the variance request. The variance um appears to be substantial in the numbers identified but uh based on staff uh review there is no uh obstruction of sight. the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. The variance would not eventually affect the delivery of government services. Um the property owner's knowledge of the zoning restriction was not discussed. But the owner needed to come to this board to get the variance because of the uh to be code compliant. I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement will be observed and substantial done by granting the variance. Are we ready to call the question? question.

Please call the role. Miss Agelhoff. I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Rley, I agree as well and vote yes. Chair Palmer Bailey. Yes. Very granite. Thank you.

522 East Sycamore Street. uh 522 East Sycamore Street located on the north side of East Sycamore Street approximately 300 ft west of Parson's Avenue. Uh the 0.06 acre site is developed with two single unit dwellings and a detached garage. Surrounding uses are a mix of single and multi-unit dwellings. The applicant proposes to construct an accessory dwelling unit. Variances are being requested to allow the existing front yard setback of the principal dwelling to remain at 7 feet instead of 10 ft. To allow the existing principal dwelling to remain at a um sideyard of 67 ft. To reduce the minimum sideyard setback for the proposed accessory dwelling unit from 3T to 67 ft. to allow the minimum rear yard of the accessory dwelling unit to be 0% instead of 25% and to reduce the required number of uh hold on I think that's wrong. No, that's right. I'm sorry. Um introduce the required number of off- streetet parking spaces from two to one. Um division of planning had no comment. Division of traffic management had no comment and the Columbus Southside Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of nine to zero. Staff can recommend approval as requested variance. Uh variances primarily recognize existing site conditions and allow for an accessory dwelling unit that is compatible with the surrounding residential context. Staff finds the proposal will not result in adverse impact to adjacent properties or the character of the area and the reduced parking and setback conditions will not create negative effects on surrounding uses. Chair,

can you state your name and whether or not you were sworn in? Uh, Andrew Angelo and yes, I was Okay. How um how many bedrooms is the ADU? Oh, no. The it's it's uh one it's just a big open room. Really? It's going to be a fitness space 99% of the time, but we're having our first child and want the in-laws and parents to be able to come down and have a place to stay and make it more inviting is really all that it is. Um so, small bathroom, small kitchenet, and a Murphy bed. Okay. 99% of the time we're going to be using it as a gym. Okay. So, technically that would you would really only need one more space for that parking space. You would only need one more parking space for that ADU.

ADUs don't require any parking. Oh, they don't require any more parking. Oh, then why we have a parking Why do we have a Cuz he has one space for the whole thing basically. Oh, he only has one for the house. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. So, we just bring it into compliance. It's I guess it's worth noting, but the where it has has it now, it has to change. He has to provide it's 5 ft of maneuvering area, but we kind of talk on the phone about that. He's going to adjust the plan to have the correct amount of maneuvering area.

So, the plan that we're looking at now doesn't he would need a variance for maneuvering, which is not included. Um, so that's going to be changed. It's kind of slight, but basically parking space move up. It's got to go 5 ft up to give Oh. to give maneuvering in the back. Mhm. Okay. Which I have those updated plans and I believe I I sent you a copy of it um as well. Okay. So, yeah. Yeah. You can get it. Okay. Okay. So, we're we're really bringing the non-conforming use of the house into some of these Mhm. Okay.

A majority of a majority of the variances are for the existing conditions.

Okay. Does anybody here want to speak about this application? Board members, do we have any other questions? No. Okay. The property in question um could yield a reasonable return without these this variance. Um but I don't think the variances are substantial in light of what the uh applicant is trying to um do here. Uh the some of the variances are to um bring non-conforming uses into compliance and other variances are to allow for a one-bedroom/efficiency ADU. Um, I don't think the essential care to the neighborhood was substantially altered. I don't think that the delivery of governmental services would be adversely affected. Uh, I don't I don't know the property owner's knowledge of the zoning restrictions at the time they purchased it, but the property owner um the only way to not have to get these variances is to not build the ADU, which I don't think is a fair um usage of their their property. the property. Uh, I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Are we ready to call the question?

I'll call the question. Please call the role. Mr. Wley, I agree with the chair's assessment of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Miss Ageloff, I likewise agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Chair Pon Bailey, yes. Appearance is granted. Thank you. 4280 Maxway Avenue

4280 Maxway Avenue is located on the north side of Maxway Avenue, approximately 220 ft east of Kimberly Parkway East. It's part of Mid East Area Commission and existing zoning is CAC Community Activity Center District. The 1.16 acre site is currently developed with a commercial retail building. Surrounding uses include a car wash to the north, commercial shopping center to the south, an event venue to the east, and a religious facility to the west. The applicant proposes to relocate a dumpster and enclose an electrical box. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce the drive aisle width from 20 ft to 19 ft for the eastern drive aisle and to allow a parking and circulation area between the principal building and the right of way. Planning notes the proposal is located within a title 34 district accordingly to maintain alignment with the policy direction established by city council to promote walkable and mixed use development. Staff applies a higher level of scrutiny to variance and resoning requests in these areas. In addition to adopted land use plan and design guidelines, planning notes that the requested variances are generally consistent with the Hamilton Road Corridor revitalization plan and Columbus citywide planning policy C2P2 uh commercial design guidelines. C2P2 states a high level of landscaping and screening should be provided between the right ofway and parking lot. Planning requests supplemental parking screening and street trees if recommended by the city forester along uh the road frontage for consistency with plan and CGP2 design guidelines. Staff notes that the land use recommendation was recently updated to mixed use 2 as part of Columbus growth strategy. Um that legislation took effect on February 26, 2026 with uh the revised site plan. All division of traffic management comments for BCA26-5 are resolved as well and the M East area

commission has recommended approval of the requested variances. Um city department's recommendation is that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the variance to the drive aisle width is slight and the variance to circulation and parking location is mitigated by the fact that this particular parcel does not front the main thoroughfare of South Hamilton Road but rather a side street coming off of said thoroughare. We do recommend the following conditions, however. That the applicant shall submit uh commit to the landscape screening shown in this stamped site plan um in conjunction with uh planning request and that the applicant shall consult the city forester regarding the addition of street trees along the along Maxway Avenue. Chair,

can you state your names whether or not you were sworn in? Mel, excuse me, Melba Williams. Ariel, I I have been sworn in. Omar Sulleman, have you been sworn in? Yes. Okay. Um, so do you agree with the conditions placed on the property? Yes. Okay. Okay. Can you speak to the other items?

Uh, well, the um the variances for the east parking, the parking to the east of the building request a reduction due to the limitation of the limitation of the site and the width in order to get the um the 20 foot um width is um because of the property line there. And then as far as the um parking in front of the building, my uh the property owner purchases property in September of 24. Title 34 came in effect August 28, 2024. and the parking lot uh space was constructed from what I can ascertain looking at the Franklin County or the website that prior to 2012. So when my client purchased this property, it was already it would all it was property. They were not aware that the zone in would come in the next month and then the existing parking lot in front of the building, the principal building and the right of way was going to now be non-conforming. So the variance is our client in terms of being a good citizen because again the the um the parking lot in front of the building again had already been constructed. So, in terms of being uh trying to be in compliance with title 34 and zone in, they've agreed to actually eliminate parking in front of the building and and provide planting to be as close to compliance to title 34 because there are actually, excuse me, there were actually two aisles, two two rows of parking in front of the building. This site plan shows where we've eliminated the parking that was south closest to the ride ofway as requested by the city in order to gain approval.

So the lots you're going to you're going to unstripe or what are you going to do? The parking that you see in the site plan is existing and striped. So when you say you're not going to allow parking, I'm not sure I understood. There was parking to the additional row of parking south where the planning. Oh, so you're saying you're going to eliminate that second?

Yes. Thank you for that vision. Yes. And so again, my client, this parking was there prior to title 34 and and um and now the city is re uh planning is requiring in in terms of condition of approval that we eliminate some parking. Okay. to be closer to complying to men in the spirit of title 34. And to answer your original question, yes, our client, the park owner is um in is approved to that condition to eliminate that parking. Okay. Okay. So, that's the landscape screening that you're talking about.

Yes. So, we've eliminated that row of parking and we've added additional planting as required.

Okay. Any other questions? Anybody here to speak about this application? Okay, so let me go through the property in question um probably could not yield a reasonable return because it seems like this maneuvering I'm sorry the aisle um because of where the the property line ends in order to get the parking spaces there. You have to lose a foot of on the aisle. Um the variances are not substantial. I think that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. I do note that title 34 parking in front the applicant is willing to um reduce um some of the parking in front of the building to comply and put landscape screening there. And so I think that that helps with um maintaining that character of the neighborhood that the city is going going for. I don't think the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. The property owner has indicated that they purchased the property without knowledge of the new title 34 requirements but wanting to be a good citizen to get their property in compliance um came and asked for the variance. I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Everybody call the question.

I'll call the question with the condition. Miss Eglehoff. I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Wley, I agree as well and vote yes. Chair Palmer Bailey,

yes. Barance is granted. Thank you. 4445 Cecil Court. 445 Cecil Court located on the north side of Cecil Court east of Cherry Bomb Road. Um the site is developed with a single unit dwelling. Excuse me. Surrounding uses are primarily single unit dwellings. The applicant proposes to construct a 16 by 12 foot screened in porch to the rear of existing dwelling. A variance is being requested to allow the porch to encro encroach 10 ft into the rear rear yard building line. Division of uh planning and no comment division of traffic management stated that a right-of-way dedication of 50 ft from the center line of cherry bottom road would be acquired. Um and staff can recommend approval. As requested, your rear yard building line encroachment is limited in scope will not result in any um impact to adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood character. Chair,

you state your name whether or not you were sworn in. Uh James Knox with Suncraft and yes, I have been sworn in. Okay. Do you have anything to add about this application? Um, no I don't. I I appreciate the staff review and um given their recommendation for it. Um just anxious to get started with the project. Okay. Well, after we get the building permit. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Chair. Quick question for my colleague. Is the right-of-way dedication a condition?

Uh no, we would not request that to be a condition. It's it's noted in the report um that um you know if and when we would receive uh opportunity to review that plan, we would require that at that time. So there there's no reason for a condition.

Yeah. Okay. So, the property in question I think would yield a reasonable return without this variance. I don't think the variance is substantial. Um, but the applicant is here because they are attempting to build in the rear um sorry, what is it called? Rear yard building line. Um the central character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. I don't think the variance would adversely affect delivery of governmental services. Um, the property owner did not indicate the knowledge of the zoning restriction, but I think that the property owner in order to build this porch, their only way around the restriction was to uh request the variance. The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Are we ready to call the question? I

call the question. Please call the role. Mr. Waldley, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Melhoff, I likewise agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Pon Bailey, yes. Apparent granted. Oh, thank you. So, we we need to um table Y 3998 Grand Bin Drive. The applicant is not here. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second. Please call the role. Uh, Miss Agelhoff, yes. Mr. Waldley, yes. Chair Palmer Bailey, yes. Meeting is adjourned.