Board of Zoning Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening.

We are going to call to order our July 28th, 2026 meeting of the board of zoning adjustment. If you have not been here before, we hear 2 types of cases. We hear appeals of zoning code. Enforcements, and then we hear requests for variances and special permits. We, um, the appeals and we do have some on the agenda tonight. So for the appeals, um. The city code enforcement and the property owner come forward and we hear from them. Um, it is not a court proceeding, but we do ask questions so that we can understand the facts. Then, when we move on to variances and special permits, we ask the applicant to come forward and the city presents the information, a summary of the case and then the applicant can. Clarify if they need to, or add to the record. Any information that we would need to make a decision. We will then open it up for, um, concerned neighbors. Um, to speak for or against the application, um, in that timeframe, each person has 3 minutes. We do not deduct time if we are asking questions. The applicant has 5 minutes to present their information and then we will call after the, we call for open. Um, comments we will bring back the applicant back up and they can clarify and speak to the record again. You need to get 3 affirmative votes to have your request granted if you feel that you are not. Getting the affirmative votes of 3 people, and you think that you need to go back. Sharpen the pencil a little bit, maybe speak with the neighborhood commission and revise something you can ask to table. Your application, and at that point, you would go back through the queue with the city notices would go out and you would get on the next available agenda. I say that because if you get a no vote from this. Committee, you cannot come back with the same application. You would have to have a significant change of facts. To come back, so I don't want that to be, um, you to be blindsided by that. If you felt that you weren't going to get the yes votes. Um. If you are going to testify on the record, I will ask for your name and ask for you to have been sworn in. Meaning that you're planning to tell the truth when you come up to this table, they are sign in sheets. We would like for you to sign your, I should actually say print. Your name visibly so that our reporter can actually have a record of your name. If you are planning to speak, I will swear you in all together so that we're not doing that individually as you come up. So, if you plan to speak tonight on the record, please stand raise your right hand. If you're planning to speak at any point in this evening's meeting, okay. If you promise that you will provide the truth, nothing but the truth, please state I do. Thank you. Okay, do we have any preliminary matters from the city to...

Yes, um, item number 9, the last item on the agenda is requesting a tabling. Um, the reason for the request is that the notices were sent incorrectly. Um, it included 2 listed, uh, code sections to be varied, but it should have been 3. um, so for that reason, they're requesting tabling and because it was an error on our end, I told him they didn't need to be here.

Okay. So, if you were planning to speak on 2247 Crestwick street, that case has been continued. Just letting, you know, is there any opposition to us voting to continue to table that case? Seeing no hands can have a motion. Motion to table 2nd, please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Tabled? Anything else?

Do you want to?

Uh, yes, we are going to have a 4 appeals today. Okay. Uh, 3 of those appeals are going to request a postponement to September. Um, they're being represented by the same entity. So, we will go ahead and have, um, the, uh, appellant and code enforcement for those 1st, 3 up 1st, that would be for, I believe it's B. Z. A. 26. 071 B. Z. A. 26. 072 and B. Z. A. 26. 073. These are all related somehow. Correct. They're all for the same condominium complex.

Okay. Well, the with the city and the property owners come forward.

Can you state your name with for the record and whether or not you were sworn in.

Yeah, it should be green. Yeah. Perfect. Same for you, sir. There you go.

My name is Matthew Mercer. I'm a code enforcement officer with the city of Columbus and I have been sworn in.

Okay. Are you speaking?

My name is Kyle Kirker with code enforcement and I have been sworn in.

Okay. Okay. So state for the record, the reason for the. Agreement that you've arrived to on. Yeah.

We've had discussions with the city. Attorney's office on some matters, and we're attempting to. You know, discuss a resolution of. You know, these matters, the city's attorney's office personnel that are involved were out for most of July. I'm going to be out. two days for most of a good part of august um so we had discussed uh continuing this out to september uh it's my understanding there was no objection from the city um i thought it was already going to be continued that's why i'm i understand that but i mean that's why you know I look the way I look at the moment I didn't I didn't know I was going to be here until, you know, half an hour ago. So, um. So, anyway, we would request that, uh, you know, consistent with the discussions that we've had with the city. So, attorney's office that we get this continued out to September to allow us to see if we can get this resolved.

Okay, as the city in agreement with the continuous until September.

Yes, code enforcement has no objection.

Okay. Okay, so the parties have agreed to a continuance.

My name is still arm and I represent a little order. Madam chair is out of order.

So, there is nothing to be heard on tonight because the parties have agreed to continue. So. As far as I understand, it will be back to us from September, unless there's an agreement reached that. The code enforcement cancels the violation, but there's, there's nothing to be heard because we're about to continue with the case.

And just to add some color for the board of zoning adjustment for these types of cases, historically, if the parties are in agreement, the board routinely gives a continuance until whenever the parties agree to hear the case, these cases involve the city's interest in its. Obligation to enforce the city code, it doesn't involve neighboring property owners like a variance would so unless there are. Planned witnesses to be called in the course of the appeal, there would not be a case for any neighbors to be heard. So it's a little different than the variance cases where we, we don't hear.

Yeah, that was going to get thanks for that. So there is not a public comment on appeals. Like, the attorney said, this is a matter between the city and it's. The property owner and violation of some code, but. Ordinance, so there is nothing really that we would take from. Concerned citizens about that. So, that being said, do we have a motion to continue till September 2026. Motion to continue 2nd, please call the roll.

Yeah, yes, yes.

Yes. Um. 071072 and 073. All continued until September 2026. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. You kind of have to talk to the city about any concerns that you have about the proceedings of here. I cannot answer questions from here. Sir, I don't I don't I don't stand. For disrespect of this session, as I said, you can speak to the city about your concerns about this forum.

Thank you do we need to vote on these separately or is 1 vote for 3.

1 bro for 3 is sufficient. Okay.

Okay, so getting to the request for variances and special.

Yeah, we have 1 more.

I'm sorry.

There is 1 more appeal.

Okay. 5310 John Browning drive is the app is the. Property owner and the city code enforcement here.

Is your parent here? Thank you.

Thank you.

Can you say your names and whether or not you were sworn in please?

Jenae Crawford, code enforcement officer, and yes, I was sworn in.

Okay. I don't see, I see all code enforcement people, but I don't see a property owner. Are they here? Do you know what they look like?

Miss Keaton, and I don't see her.

Did we make contact with them this week? Do they know it's today?

We should have. Yeah, we should have email correspondence stating that they'd appear, but that's Adam's case and he's at jury duty.

Okay, I don't think we're going to have want me to check out in the lobby.

Sure. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. You can't argue against yourself.

Question for you council lack of appearance do we roll in absence or do we continue it?

So you have 2 options in my view. Um, you could table the case. To the future to have the full hearing, or you could hear if we understand that proper notice was achieved. So, in other words, if the appellant had noticed that today was going to go forward for the appeal hearing could present its case and then you could. Here on the evidence that has met it's. It's well, in this case, it'd be defeated the appellant's burden. I think in the past we have also just dismissed the case. I think the preference would be to continue it to give an opportunity to have a hearing.

Have you made contact with the property owners on this?

Yes, I'm Janae Crawford and I have spoken with miss Keaton at the property at the time that the notice was issued. They also did come down her in her house guests. Deandre nearly because it's his vehicle and they said they wanted to appeal. They came down to the office met with my supervisor bill Williams, which is out on right now, but, and he helped them to walk through to fill out the paperwork for the appeal.

I know that that appeal went out.

Um, everything else that we've served them, because he has said that he's a sovereign citizen has been through certified now.

Um.

Yes, and so from there on our office, because of his aggressiveness, we thought that it may be asked that everything go out certified now and that did indeed happen.

Okay.

Use your microphone please.

Parked and is it is the is the is the violation still current?

Yes, as of yesterday, the same vehicle is still parked in the driveway with expired tax.

Okay, thank you.

Do we know if notice was achieved. If we got a certified mail receipt back.

So, we're moving away from doing certified mailers, um, email correspondence back and forth between the appellant city staff, um, and the code enforcement officer is sufficient notice. Um, and when we receive these, the assigned planner in this case, Adam, again, he's not here, but. Um, coordinates between the appellant code enforcement officer and our staff. And on the front page of the application, it was agreed to that they would appear on. The July 28 meeting.

So, board, it's up to you, you could hear from tonight and then rule upon the case. I think. It's safe to say the applicant had notice of the appeal going forward today and the standard is reasonably apprised in an opportunity to be heard. He had enough. He or she had an opportunity to be heard and chose to decline the opportunity.

Yeah, it doesn't sound like this is a interpretation of code provisions. It sounds like this is a. Pretty clear. I mean, if you said. Expire tags, that's just a question of fact.

And I don't want to hear the whole I don't want to hear the whole case, but it talked about zoning clearance.

So is it a vehicle that is a commercial vehicle per. Received as a commercial vehicle as that part of it.

Yeah, help us understand.

Is this something that, um, don't just put out for expired tax?

No, I didn't have zoning clearance on here. It was just for the inoperable vehicle in the driveway. Got 331227. Okay.

Okay, that still seems pretty clear.

My only reason for suggesting a postponement is that the assigned planner is not here and the appellant's not here. Otherwise, the assigned planner, Adam, oh, the appellant's not here. Adam's not here. We haven't heard from either of them. That's my only reason for suggesting postponement. But I take your other points.

What's the pleasure of the city zoning?

Sorry, could you repeat that?

What is your pleasure? Do you want to continue or do you want to go ahead and be heard?

Would rather be heard.

Board. Let's hear it.

So I would recommend hearing the code enforcement's case in chief as they normally would have proceeded in this case. We just won't have the opportunity to hear from the appellant.

Okay, in your packet. Sorry, the exhibit a is your violation notice. Um, I was out at the property, April, the 8th, 2026, um, issued the notice, um, spoke with the resident, um, explained to her that her. Vehicle didn't have current tags on it. The gentleman stepped around her and said that. The vehicle belonged to him, not her. That he just moved here from California that he was a sovereign citizen, and that he didn't have to abide by Columbus city code orders and that his vehicle wasn't used to carry passengers. It was just for him or E, commerce and that he just needed to. Go back and forth to the store and that our rules did not apply. I explained to the homeowner, because she said, I needed to direct my questions to her and she said, I said, she can apply for an extension if you just need an extension of time, because her vehicle was also in the driveway, but her vehicle had current tags on it. Um. She said, you know, they would talk it over and he said, no, your order says I can file an appeal. That's what we will do. And I said, okay, we sent this out certified mail. Your exhibit B would be the initial photo on that day. Where you can see both of the vehicles in the driveway and clearly see. The tags, well, we can't clearly see the tags. So. You can see that the vehicle doesn't have a tag on it at the bottom and then all he has is just a piece of a piece of paper where he written on in the window. We can't see that on this photos ma'am.

Sorry it might help if.

Yeah, so the, the card that is in question is the older Cadillac, the gold car there, the other car to the right that little Honda was did have valid tags.

Okay, so that that note in the rear view window is that the rear window? Is that what you're saying?

Yes, that is just a note that he put in his window. Okay. But it's not tax plates. Okay.

And are they being cited for an inoperable vehicle or expire tags?

Well, and we consider in our code, a vehicle, if it has expired tags, no tags, a flat tire, whatever, if it's not moving, he said that the vehicle was drivable. But he wasn't going to register it or get it. Put tags on it at all because he said he didn't need them.

I get that. I'm just trying to ascertain. Is this about vehicle registration or?

Yeah, it's about it's about the vehicle is considered inoperable. You can't drive it on your regular streets without without any tag on it.

I hear you. I don't know. I've ever characterized it that way. We've looked at vehicles that were truly inoperable flat tires, missing tires and and reflected on that in our deliberation, but not surely somebody's lack of registration. That seems odd.

So, for the benefit of the, the board, the section of code that cited supervisor, like, she was saying is off currently with a medical thing. So I'm helping out. Um, I'm a supervisor for a different area, but that code section 3312.37. Says, for the purpose of this section, a motor vehicle shall be deemed inoperable when any of the following conditions exists 1, or more wheels are missing 1, or more tires are missing to your point 2, or more tires are flat 1, or more windows are missing or broken. The windshield is shattered or missing parts necessary for the operation of the vehicle are missing. Or a license with a distinctive number and valid for the current year is not displayed there on. So that section at the end is the part where the requirement is of a current license plate with a valid registration sticker.

Thank you. Your exhibit C is the inspection that was made July 27th, 26, which was yesterday and it shows in the picture that the vehicle is still parked in the driveway and still. With no proper tag.

Okay.

Exhibit D is your zoning aerial map showing you the property. Why is that relevant for us? This is just giving you an idea that it is zoned in the residential. Does that matter for operable vehicles? Okay. And then your Franklin county auditor. Area we included that also. To just show you where the property lines and things are. That's on exhibit E. You're a zoning report is I'm sorry.

Go ahead having exhibits clearly those are already in the driveway.

This is just giving you the actual what the, what the property is just an area not right. Exhibit F, you're a zoning report. This gives you the actual property gives you the property owners.

As who were notified in our notice.

So, the owner is the female. Yes, her and her husband are soon to be ex husband. They both were notified.

Oh, okay. The gentleman is claiming sovereign citizenship is the is not the husband is not the husband. Okay. Okay.

And the husband doesn't live there.

Okay.

And then in exhibit G, it's just citing the section of the code 3312.37, the inoperable vehicle.

I'm curious to the original complaint arise from a 311 complaint.

Yes, we've had several 311 complaints in regards to the property, but we only work the 1.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Okay, absent a test, sorry, were you finished? Okay. Okay. Absent any testimony from the appellant. Board members, do we have any questions for the city? Okay, I'll say the finding of fact upon the evidence presented at the hearing. Each witness is testifying under oath. The board makes the following findings of fact. there is an inoperable car EG without current current and valid license plate parked Art in driveway and the alternate any. Changes to that. Okay. Can we have a motion on the findings of facts? So, 2nd, 2nd, please call the role. Please call the role.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes, okay for the order based upon all the evidence presented the board upon a motion duly made and 2nd, that makes the following order. The appeal is denied.

You have a motion so moved. 2nd, please follow the role.

Yes.

Yeah, yes, yes, thank you.

That's that.

Hey, so number 1. 637 South 3rd street.

All right regularly scheduled programming. 637 South 3rd street is located on the West side of South 3rd street approximately 10 feet North of East Sycamore street. Existing zoning is residential district. And as part of the German village area commission, or German village commission, rather the 0.96 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling surrounding uses include a book shop to the North single unit belongs to the South and West and a private school to the East. The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage and is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum side yard from 3 feet to 1 foot. Division of planning has no comments and refers to the German village commission. The division of traffic management likewise has no comments and the German village commission has recommended approval the requested variance voting 6 to 0 in favor. State department's recommendation is likewise that approval staff recommends approval as the reduced side yard is a common feature of development pattern of German village given the density of the area. Sure.

Can you say your name and whether or not you were sworn.

I was not okay.

Do you promise that the testimony gives tonight with the truth? Nothing but the truth please state? I do.

I do. Okay.

Do you have anything to add to the application?

Uh, no, I do not.

Okay.

Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Board members do we have any questions for the applicant?

Are we ready to call the questions?

You're going to do the gun can factors rusty.

Okay. The property in question. Um, could yield a reasonable return without the variance. However, I don't believe that the variance is substantial going from a side yard from 3 feet to 1 foot for a detached garage. I don't think the care to the neighborhood is substantially altered. And I think that the delivery of governmental services would still be provided. The property owners purchase and knowledge was not relevant to this discussion. Um, but I think that in order to. Get full usage out of a detached garage. The only way that they could do that was through this variance request for that reason. I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Already called the question I'll call the question. Question has been called. He's called the role.

Mr. Jones. Mr. concur with the chair and vote. Yes.

Or with the chair. Yes.

Chair. Yes. Thank you.

1466 Harrisburg Pike.

Easy 826 dash 022 for 1466 Harrisburg Pike. It's located on the Southwest corner of Harrisburg Pike and big tree drive. It's zone community activity center, and it's located in the Southwest area commission. The 0.89 acre size currently undeveloped surround uses include undeveloped parcels to the South and auto parts store to the Southwest and auto repair shop to the Northwest and eating and drinking establishment to the Northeast and single unit dwellings further to the East. The applicant proposes to construct an auto repair facility variances are being requested to allow a circulation aisle to be located between the principal building and Harrisburg Pike to reduce the front parking setback from 30 feet to 5 feet for the drive aisle along Harrisburg Pike to reduce the required ground floor transparency for non residential uses from 60% to 55% to reduce the amount of landscaping required between the building facade and just in the Jason front and side parcel lines. From 70% to 47% to reduce the minimum required total length of facade required within or budding the facade zone from 60% along Harrisburg Pike to 29% and from 50% along big tree drive to 17%. And to increase the maximum permitted setback of the building's front facade zone from 25 feet to 28 feet along Harrisburg Pike. Planning continues to generally to be generally supportive of the requested variances, but request additional street trees along Harrisburg Pike staff note screening of the loading zone as well as proposed street trees along big tree drive consistent with Columbus growth strategy. Design guidelines mixed use design guidelines recommend street trees should be provided as part of new development with guidance from the city Forrester staff requests. Additional street trees are provided along Harrisburg Pike if recommended by the city Forrester. Staff note the existing preservation easement for the stream corridor staffing courage. Consideration of additional landscaping along the creek to the West and constellation. And consultation with Columbus reckon parks on trail opportunities, therefore planning is generally supportive of the requested variances, but request additional street trees along Harrisburg Pike for greater consistency with design guidelines. The vision of track management informed the applicant that a right away dedication of 60 feet from centerline of Harrisburg Pike would be required in that access to Harrisburg Pike is under the jurisdiction of the Ohio Department of transportation and the application would be was forwarded to them for review informed the applicant that they are not in favor of an access point on Harrisburg Pike. Um. Which they were able to, since they are able to obtain access onto big tree drive, they explained that if they write in right now, access is desired on Harrisburg Pike. A traffic study will be needed showing that the additional access is needed to meet analysis and simulation. Uh, many manual measures for effectiveness level of service delay and a queuing site circulation would not be considered justification for access onto Harrisburg Pike. If an access point is shown as needed for capacity reasons. Said drive would need to be restructured to write in right out. Only the applicant has since revised the site to remove the access to Harrisburg Pike, resolving these comments from. The Southwest area commission recommends approval of this request by a vote of 4 to 0. And staff recommends approval of this quest, because the site is constrained by a stream corridor preservation easement on the Northwest corner of the site in a flood zone, which covers a good portion of the Western portion of the site. And the applicant has revised the site to reduce the jury of the requested variances. The requested variances will allow the site to operate effectively without impacting the preservation easement and staying away from the flood zone. We do have the condition that the applicant will work with city forester to provide additional street trees along Harrisburg Pike.

Okay, can you say your names whether or not you were sworn in?

Yes, my name is John Slater. I'm legal counsel for the applicant and the applicant I was sworn in, but as a lawyer, I'm obligated to tell the truth anyway. So, and I have with us sure.

Micah Smith with core 3 design.

I was sworn in.

Okay.

Then McDaniel with Arnold consulting engineering.

Okay, you were sworn in as well.

I was okay. So, um, these are the latest drawings without the access off of Harrisburg Pike.

That is correct. Yes.

And then you are. Willing to provide additional street trees along Harrisburg.

Yes, absolutely. Okay. No objection to that at all.

Okay. So, um. Tell us anything else we need to know about this.

Now, 1st of all, we appreciate the consideration and also working with staff to get to this point. We went through multiple designs, um, believe a variance is appropriate. I do have a letter also submit just for the record from the owner himself who, uh, couldn't be here. They're out of state. But they've been trying to market this property, um, for at least 4 to 5 years. They had a Dell taco that originally was going to come in, um, and the. Conservation area that you see the green area was, uh, dedicated to Columbus as a result of approval for the Dell taco. Del taco did not go forward. Uh, my understanding that some financial issues as cited in the letter. Um, but we, you know, put that in place because there is a repair in corridor there. And so we're respecting the easement. It just provides a very, there's a large parcel, very small buildable area. Um, take 5, if you're not familiar with it, they do oil changes. Um, this is a authorized use in this district, which allows auto repair. Ours is the most that we change our filters and windshield wipers and your oil. So, um, we also provided traffic, uh, information that we have, I believe, um, take 5 is over 700 stores throughout the country and. Are at peak hours, we have 7 vehicles in an hour and so even though you see stacking lanes and that it's. Unusual, we just have to do that for code purposes. So we think it fits in very well. We did go to a local community. They unanimously approved it and they were particularly happy with the fact that we're not having access to Harrisburg Pike. Uh, so, but because of that, in the small site, it does create practical difficulty in terms of, you know, you have to have a small building, um, to fit everything there and on it and have circulation, um, proper circulation for safety purposes to maneuver cars out of the building and around. Uh, you need these variances, unlike a Wendy's that's across the street, or even auto zone. We don't need all the parking that you would normally have. So you've got kind of an auto repair wrecking facility across the street. Wendy's, uh, directly next to us in auto zones, kind of across the repairing area. So it fits within the area. We believe very low impact. Um, and, you know, look forward to working with the city. We believe it provides a great opportunity to develop this and there's very few users that would fit in as well as we can. So. Look forward to be part of this area and providing a feasible financial use. So thank you for consideration. I have with us. Our architect who can address the facade issues and also from our engineer. Office of project manager who worked with the site. He's not an engineer, but he's designed more than a 100 of these. Um, so they're both here to answer whatever questions we have and thank you for your consideration.

Okay. Or do you have any questions I don't. Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Okay, um, so I think the property, uh, because of the, uh. Topography, and I think the easement granted, I think that. The there's probably a few establishments that could go in this property. Um, and I think a variance would be required as they're done here for the parking setback to move the building closer to, uh. The street, which is the buildable area, I don't think the good appearances are substantial. I think that the central character, the neighborhood will be the same as mentioned. There's other retail establishments. I don't see that the delivery of governmental services would be adversely affected. I don't. Think, um, well, the owner of the property is not here, but, uh. The usage. Of the property is taking into consideration some easements already given. I don't think that there was another way to get around this usage, but for these variants request, I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.

Are ready to call the question call the question has been called.

Please call the role.

Mr.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry with the condition that the applicant provide additional street trees along Harrisburg Pike in consultation with the city Forester.

Mr. I concur with the chair's assessment with the. The condition with the condition.

I concur with the church analysis and yes, Mr Jones.

I agree with the chair and vote. Yes. Chair.

Yes, man, this is granted.

Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

155 South oak Avenue 11 05 oak street. On 11 0, 1, oak street is the applicant here for these properties.

Easy a 36 or 26 dash 036 is located on the West side of South Ohio Avenue between oak street and Elliot Avenue. It is part of the near East area commission and zone R3 residential. The site consists of 3 parcels developed into 2 single unit dwellings. The remaining parcel is undeveloped channeling uses are a mix of multi unit residential dwellings. Property was the properties were subject to of council variance cb 97 dash 045 approved in 1997, which permitted 3 single unit dwellings with reduced law area a lot with yard setbacks and increase lot coverage. Following that approval, the 2 original plotted lots were reconfigured into 3 parcels. The applicant now proposes to reconfigure the 3 parcels. Again, um, the application was tabled at the previous board of zoning adjustment meeting to allow the applicant to revise the site plan. The revised site plan provides 2 full size parking spaces at 155 South Ohio Avenue and removes the proposed parking space at 1105 Oak Street. These revisions remove the requested compact parking space variance the parking setback variance previously requested for 1105 Oak Street and the 3 and the I'm sorry and the parking related vision clearance variance previously requested for 1105 Oak Street variance was to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 2 spaces to 0 spaces at 1105 Oak Street has been added. The current request includes variances to reduce the required parking setback from 10 to 0 feet at 155 South Ohio Avenue to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 2 spaces to 0 spaces at 1105 Oak Street to allow motor vehicle parking 0 feet from the right of way line where 12 feet is required. At 155 South Ohio Avenue to reduce the clear vision triangle at the alley adjacent to 1105 South Ohio Avenue from 10 feet to 8.49 feet to reduce the required clear vision triangle at the street intersection adjacent to 1105 Oak street from 30 feet to 25 feet to reduce the required lot width from 50 feet to 37.14 feet. And to reduce the required lot area from 5,000 square feet to 3,854 square feet at 155 South Ohio Avenue and from 3154 square feet at 1105 Oak street. And 1101 Oak street to reduce required building setback from 10 feet to 4.7 feet at 11 or 155 South Ohio Avenue and from 10 feet to 7.3 feet at 1105 Oak street to reduce the required South side yard from 3 feet to 1.34 feet at 155 South Ohio Avenue and to allow concrete pad to remain within the required side yard at 1105. Uh, division of planning had no comment division of traffic management management stated that a right away dedication of 30 feet from the center line of South Avenue would be required. If that's if this application commits to a site plan, that plan will need to show that the driveway is paved with an approved hard surface within the right away. The nearest area commission recommend approval with a vote 11 to 0. Staff can also recommend approval as the revised site plan addresses the concern raised by the board by providing 2 full size parking spaces at 155 South Ohio Avenue and removing excuse me and removing the proposed parking at 1105 Oak Street. The question variance largely addresses existing site conditions and allow a personal configuration that is consistent with the lot size setbacks in residential development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood chair.

So this is confusing. I don't understand why why these were lumped together like these parcels on adjoining. It's not. It's not the same. Like, what was the thinking behind that?

This is a, this is an adjustment of their lot lines. So that's why they're all together because all 3 are affected.

Well, I don't understand how they're effective. They're across the street from each other unless I'm looking at the map.

All 3 of them are on there and they all touch. We allow a single application for continuous parcels.

Oh, so then this is I'm looking at something not right.

It's just the middle of that page.

I'd be happy to give these were part of it too.

Gotcha. I'd be happy to give a little more background. So.

What streets are what on here?

Um, no, how's this 1? Yeah. And this is oak, I believe, but it's the album. Yeah. Okay, so I'm sorry.

I heard everything you said that I cannot assign it to anything that I'm looking at. And for that reason, I'm not going to vote on it until I'm clear. You can try and walk us through it, but there's not even enough information in here.

To really understand, so so stage your name for the record and whether you were sworn in.

Sure. My name is Josh tell me from side to studio and yes, I was sworn in.

Okay, go ahead.

These 3 current parcels have a use agreement that is recorded for the situation that's shown now, but the lot lines are not currently indicative of who has the rights to which property. So, in order to make that formally correct, we are moving the lot lines to align with their recorded use agreement. My previous application had the old lot lines on there, but I was directed when submitting the site plan to remove them. So that would probably meant more helpful for you to understand. But I was told to remove them.

Do you have copies now?

No, it would have been on the former 1 if you guys still have a copy of it from the last appearance.

Um, this is not this wouldn't be the old lot lines.

Yes, that would be the old lot lines what you have in your hand there.

Hey.

You can see there's a kind of a strange flag lot, which is indicative of potentially an abandoned alleyway that at 1 point had occurred. Um, that was assigned to the northern empty vacant parcel. Um, and then at 1 point, the southern most property owner negotiated with the northern most property owner to purchase more land in order to allow for a wider yard. So, they have a share, they have a purchase agreement that is recorded, but the lot lines don't align with how they functionally use the properties. So the point of this was to make the lot lines agree with their recorded legal agreement.

And this is the new, so you're planning on just taking that?

And making it a true rectangle that goes all the way back.

Everybody's lot line is just perfectly square.

We're rectangles now instead of strange flags, correct? Yes. And the property owner that faces Oak Street, they own both of those properties, the one that appears vacant and their house. It functions as their side yard or as their backyard, I guess I'll say.

That in and of itself doesn't bother me what I saw. It looks like we're legitimizing some of this parking at the lot lines and all this other stuff. The driveway that I saw a picture of was right in front of a bus stop. None of that, none of that seemed right. There's a driveway and a bus stop right there. What is this?

That is a bus stop. The driveway exists. It is going to be extended as part of this project to fit an actual parking space size.

And that's what I'm saying. Are we trying to legitimize this parking right there?

So, I originally submitted the application with zero parking spaces. I was then told. Hey, we got we have these parking spaces. You need to instead submit them and the neighboring parking spaces as for reduced size parking spaces. Um, I submitted those my colleague attended for me at the spontaneous moved meeting last month. And we heard, hey, we're not in supportive of these reduced size parking spaces. And I was like, okay, should I reverse back to having no parking spaces? Uh, and we were told no due to for the parking spaces on the driveway, because that parking can be extended. They're gonna remove the fence and make it a true normal parking pad. Um, and then the other parcel, they said, we'll just tell our tenants to stop parking in the mud. So that 1 is back to 0 parking spaces.

But you have, but you have on here a reduced parking. To reduce the required numbering of parking spaces from 2 to 0. correct.

That is for the northernmost house 1105.

Correct, but I don't see any other.

Parking reduction the look at the Ohio Avenue 1 that would have to that 1 won't have any reductions because it meets the 2 parking spaces. Oh, so you mean, so it wouldn't be listed.

Okay. Correct. That 1 originally was. He tried to get a variance to change the size to a compact and compact parking space, which was. We'd said no to, and then he made it a full parking space.

Okay. So he made a full parking space. Okay. So, the, the lot that's on the. Bottom, I guess it's a self, um, they'll have access to Ohio or their, their access to the alley.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

The driveway is southern most home.

Their driveway is accessed off of Ohio Avenue and then the northern home will has no parking spaces. It currently has no parking spaces.

I see you got full approval from the area commission.

As well as the old time, these neighborhood association.

Okay. Thank you for helping us do this 1. do we have any other questions? Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application?

Okay. I have a question for staff again, so. Taking the parking set back from 10 feet to 0 feet at 155 South Ohio. That means they can park right at. The street basically that's that's interpreted. Yeah.

At the right-of-way line? In this case, the right-of-way line is almost 15 feet from the curb, so it's pretty far back. Into the yard? Correct.

And I guess, why are we going to zero then?

Because the parking space would start at the line.

But you're removing the fence?

In order to extend it to make the parking space the size that is required, the length that's required.

Is it existing non-conforming?

That's what I'm concerned about.

You're asking me if it's recorded with you guys as an existing non-conforming?

Are the parking spaces as they exist currently smaller than 9 by 18?

Yes. Currently, it's only, I think, 16 and 7 inches, which is what we submitted the first time was for a substandard length. But it was not supported by transportation.

You're proposing to make them

Yeah, we're proposing to remove the fence to make the parking spaces the correct 20 foot length.

But I do see there's vision clearance.

The vision triangle is for the corner. The house is built at the alleyway. So that's where the vision variance is coming in.

It was built in, you know, 1905. Okay.

Good Mr. Jones getting there.

You might have asked another question.

Okay. Okay, so the property would yield a reasonable return. Is there beneficial use? It sounds like. The usage has been, um. Altered and this these variances are to bring the legal stand the legal records. To match with the usage, the variance, um. Are not substantial in character, although they do appear substantial and length, the character, the neighborhood would not be substantially altered as these are all joining properties and have been operating under these conditions already. Governmental services would not be adversely affected the property owners purchase and knowledge of the zoning restrictions. Um, sounds like they knew about these parcel lines and, uh, contracted. Around them, and now I want to get them in line, the property on this predicament couldn't feasibly be obviated through other methods than these variances. And I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement will be observed as substantial justice done by granting the variance. Already call the question call the question has been called please call the roll.

I agree with the chairs analysis and Duncan factors. I appreciate the applicants revising the site plan based on our previous comments and vote in favor.

Mr Jones, I, too agree and vote.

Yes, Mr.

I concur with the chair and vote. Yes. Sure.

Yes. The answer is granted. Thank you. Thank you. 31 50 Watkins road.

31 50 walking road is located on the North side of walking's road approximately 100 feet West of Schwartz road. It is owned our 1 residential part of the far South Columbus area commission. The site is developed with a single unit dwelling with an existing shed surrounding uses of primary single unit dwellings. The applicant proposes construct a 20 by 20 foot shed variances being requested to increase the maximum height of the shed from 15 to 18 feet. An existing 10 by 6 foot shed is also located on the property. The division of planning has no comments division of traffic management states, a right of way dedication of 40 feet from the center line of Watkins road will be required. The far South Columbus area commission recommends approval with a vote of 8 to 0. Staff can recommend approval as the requested height increases modest, and the post shed will remain accessory to the existing single unit dwelling and compatible with the residential character, the surrounding area chair.

Okay, can you say your name whether or not you were sworn in yes, I was sworn in. Okay. You have anything else to add about the application?

No. Okay, the extra height is my, my son passed, but I'm raising my grandson and he was 64. my grandson is now 52. Papaw 65 and papaw is got some health issues that we're dealing with. So we need a place for the 10 year old to go play. He needs his own little workshop in his own little space. So I think if we made a short shed, it just wouldn't. It would be a waste.

Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application?

Does any board members have any questions?

Okay, the property in question could yield a reasonable return without this variance. However, the variance is not substantial increase of height and a shed to. For 3 additional feet, the central character, the neighborhood would not be substantially altered as it's shown here. The shed is. Um, back in the yard, uh, shielded from. Property other property owners, the government services delivery would not be adversely affected the. Property owners knowledge of zoning restrictions. Was not relevant for this discussion, the predicament could not be obviated through another method other than this variance. And I think the spirit and intent behind this only requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Are ready to call the question call the question question has been called. Please call the roll.

Mr. Jones, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote.

Yes. Mr. I agree with chair as well vote. Yes.

I like, why is agree with the chairman? But yes, sure.

Really?

Yes. Spare granted. Thank you so much.

I appreciate.

2580 law for ravines drive.

Well, 9580 Lafayette ravines drive is located on the East side of offer Lafayette road with the parcel divided by law for ravines. Drive is on community activity to activity center and part of the Northland community council. The advocate poses construct a 2 unit dwelling variances are being requested to increase the portion of the front street. Excuse me of the front street building frontage exempted from the 12 foot ground floor depth requirement for vehicular act driveway access from 25% to 73%, um, 40 or 44 feet of a 60 foot frontage. Excuse me to, um, I lost my place. Uh, to reduce the, the total length of the facade required within a, in a budding and within or a budding the front street facade zone from 60% to 27.7% to reduce the required ground floor facade transparency from 60% to 7% to allow parking between the principal building and law fair ravines drive to not provide bicycle racks with bicycle storage. Provided inside the private garages to reduce the required frontage landscaping from 70% to 28% to not provide landscaping buffer along the property line, butting a residential zoning district, and do not provide headlights screening along the driveway, providing access to the private garage. Planning is supportive of the question variance Columbus growth strategy, residential design guidelines, recommend a recommend new single and 2 unit housing should be oriented to the street and reflect the prevailing setback in spacing of nearby homes. Staff note that the proposed elevations are consistent with residential design guidelines. Staff also recognize the topography of the site as a limiting factor. Therefore planning is supportive of the requested variance staff note that the land use recommendation was recently updated to mix use 1 as a result of the passage of Columbus growth strategy. That legislation took effect on Wednesday, February 25th of 2000. 2026 staff note the site was resumed community activity center as part of zone in phase 1 work staff recommend contacting zoning update at Columbus dot Gov for additional information. There's a traffic management had no comments in the North and community council recommended approval with the vote of 12 to 0. staff can also recommend approval as the site's configuration and topography limit the applicant's ability to fully comply with the applicable development standards. Further, the proposed to unit dwelling provides residential info consistent with Columbus growth strategy, residential design guidelines and bicycle storage will be provided within the private garages chair.

Okay, can you say your names when I was sworn in.

John 1, I was sworn in.

Carly Maggio, I was sworn in.

Okay. So tell us about if you were only building one unit here, would you not have these variances?

Um, actually, we would have a lot of variances basically, regardless of we build because of the zoning that I'm described, it kind of was blanketed resound in the zone in process and it's for a very high density multi family zoning. So we would, we have to have a ton of variances. Anyways, that's why a lot of these are kind of weird and complex. And we did a lot of back and forth with Adam just to nail down what exactly we're doing. This is actually very applicable to what's right next to it. It's a low, um, it's 2 story housing and next year essentially. So I think that this zoning just based on where it is, it's kind of in a weird location off of the highway. It just got swept up into a zoning that maybe wasn't fully, um, applicable to its nature. So we're, we're building out. The best we can meet that, but, like, you can see in here, there's a ton of topography we're dealing with. Um, yeah, there's basically a huge call it cliff, but that kind of is what it is. So we're using as much of the areas we can to build as much density as we can while providing housing and then law for ravine drive actually. Cuts through John's lot. So there is also, um, a stream set back on the other side too. So we are constricted kind of in all ways. So really what John is doing is building the most he can the best possible use that he can figure out. And we just have some strange, um, variances because it really doesn't fit into what the zoning is for it. And, like, I'm happy to walk through them there. They really are crazy of, um. Just how the garage is set back the length of the frontage because our frontage seems long and also we even had to talk about what is the front edge of this because when the road runs through the center of the property, what is your front? So there's a lot of gymnastics. We had to play there when really he's just trying to build something a 2 unit. Property that kind of fits in with the rest of the area.

So, is it that you don't have the space to do the landscaping and the screening or is it that you don't or is it that you're not going to be headlights are not going to be facing. Other property.

Yeah, that's a good question. So, for a couple of them, there's 1 of the requirements was. Landscaping if you're buffering a commercial to residential, but since we are residential and extra residential, we're like, oh, I don't think that will apply. Um, and then we are doing some. Uh, landscaping in the front of his building, it's just the percentage of his length of his building is shorter than what is required. So we're not doing as much. And then the headlight screening that one's kind of tricky because we have, um, garages right on the front headlights have to go at this. So there's really no way around that. It's just the nature of the form of it. Um, and again, those just kind of came up because the multi family zoning here is more for, like, parking below residential above. So it's just a different type essentially.

So, this is a question for staff. What really CAC community activity center that's like, that is a catch all for it's part of the new title 34 zoning districts. But I mean, is it that's 1 of it's supposed to capture residential and commercial.

It's yeah, it's more of a mixed use. It's a wide range of mixed uses.

Okay.

Okay, if you look like the zoning makes sense around Cleveland Avenue, but this kind of right turns, you know what I mean? So.

But it does seem like there's some commercial aspects of these requirements that don't fit residential. So you're going to increase your variance.

Yeah, if this was on residential there. I don't even know if there would be hardly any variances.

Any of these, I don't think across the board. Microphone so I have to take these. Gotcha.

Okay. Is there anybody here that wants to speak about this application? Please come forward. Can you guys give, um. Yeah, but you need the mic.

Hi, Dave Paul with North and community council. I have been sworn. Uh, I can be brief. I think we did meet with, uh, Mr Wong and this, uh.

Thank you.

Sorry, uh, in late June, uh, we discussed this application as staff indicated the committee did vote unanimously to support it. I think there's been 1 variance added since he met with us and that was simply about the bike racks. But I don't think that would significantly change the committee's opinion.

Yeah, because that's a commercial requirement anyway.

Right and if it was, maybe if there were 30 units, we might still suggest bicycle parking, but in this case, it's there only to kind of make sense if they have a guest or something, they could put bikes in the garage as well. So, I believe our committee would support this application and would ask you to approve it.

Okay. Thank you. Can you sign your name on the sheet? Please?

Thank you.

I guess that was a no. Does the board have any other questions? Okay, so reasonable return on this property, um, as the applicant has explained, the property is a little bit of a, uh. Challenge to determine to find an area that is buildable and to fit a residential. Uh, property into the, and so those are, those are what's driving a lot of variances. Um, they do appear substantial, but. A point explanation that a lot of these are commercial. Relevant very, I'm sorry commercial relevant code provisions. Um, I think it's easy for us to say that we would, uh, the spirit and intent of the zoning. Code would not be altered if we would allow these variances. I think the property owners purchase and knowledge of the restrictions was not discussed. The delivery of government services would not be adversely affected. The character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. This is a allowable use in the district. And for the property owner to build this house. Or units should say there they would have had to come and get these variances. As I mentioned before, some of these are. As a result of the district, and not necessarily what they're attempting to build. Are we ready to call the question?

I'll call the question question has been called.

Please call the roll.

I concur with the chair's analysis and vote. Yes.

I likewise concur with the chairs analysis and yes, I agree with the chairs analysis and I vote.

Yes.

Yes, experience is granted. Thank you. 611 East Weber road.

611 East Weber Road is located on the south side of East Weber Road, approximately 150 feet west of Silver Drive. Existing zoning is M Manufacturing District and is part of the North Linden Area Commission. The approximately .65 acre site is currently developed with an office building and associated storage yard. Surrounding uses include similar offices to the north and south, fueling station to the east, and a rail line to the west. The applicant is seeking to legitimize current conditions pertaining to the storage yard on the site. The applicant is thus requesting variances to reduce the required drive file width for 2 way travel from 20 feet to 12 feet reduce the required maneuvering area from 20 feet to 10 feet and reduce the setback for open storage from 20 feet to 0 feet along the Western and Southern property lines. Division of Planning is supportive of the requested variances. Staff note the requested variances are to bring the site into compliance. Columbus Growth Strategy recommends service and loading zones should be located to the rear side or in an internal location to reduce visibility and noise and should be screened appropriately. Staff encourage additional screening of the dumpster area. Staff note the existing outdoor storage area is adjacent to a railroad and located more than 100 feet away from residential development. Staff also note the existing fence contains flats to limit visibility into the storage area. Therefore, planning is supportive of the requested variances staff note that the land use recommendation was recently updated to mixed use to. As a result of the passage of Columbus growth strategy. That legislation took effect on Wednesday, February 25th, 2026 staff, no corresponding zoning as part of zone and economic and housing opportunity is still under consideration. The division of traffic management has indicated that resolution will be needed for the pending comments returned with final site compliance plan. two five thirty four five dash zero zero two six four from traffic management regarding the aisle configuration for the site at final site compliance. I have some further specificity here that was sent today from traffic Further adjustments will need to be made to the site plan as part of the final site compliance process, as it is the intent of the Division of Traffic Management that the 12-foot aisle be fully contained on the subject parcel. That being said, since this case is not being conditioned upon a stamped site plan, traffic is okay with this case moving forward. It's just at the time of final site compliance that will need to be addressed. Um, I will defer to traffic if any more specificity is required. Um, but, uh, moving on the North London area commission has recommended approval of the requested variances voting 7 to 0 in favor and city department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the site is located adjacent to a rail line and separated from residentially zoned areas. The fact that the storage area and associated reduced setback is situated adjacent to this rail line is a mitigating factor in support of the requested variances. The reduced storage setbacks are further mitigated by the existing fence slats, which helps screen the storage area from public visibility. Chair?

Aye. Can you state your name and whether or not you were sworn in?

Joe place with plan for land. I was not sworn in.

Okay. Can you raise your right hand? You promise that the testimony gives tonight, but the truth, nothing but the truth please state. I do.

I do.

Okay. So.

Joe place place.

So, question I have for you is the, the storage, um. It's not visible from the street because of the, uh. Opaque fencing is that the case correct?

And, uh, the, the other side would be the railroad as well. Right? Okay.

Okay, that was my only question. Does anybody else have any questions?

Yeah. Where is that? You mentioned that dumpster. I don't see any on the plan.

So, that was, uh, 1 of the comments that, uh, planning had, uh, they encouraged screening, but ultimately had, uh, recommended approval regardless based on the mitigating factors of the offense slides. Um, the dumpster on this site plan, um, if the applicant also, um. Would like to point it out if it exists on this site plan, it could have been something that was on a previous site as well.

Yeah, I believe the, I do not believe there was a dumpster on site when I was there, but if it was, it would be within the slatted area.

And it could have been that was well, that was have been a comment after the 1st round of the 1st site plan. This is an updated site plan. So the updated site plan probably did not include that dumpster. It would appear.

And the 2nd question is that the 12 foot drive aisle is that the 1 that is straddling that center along.

So, the 12 yeah, the 12 foot drive, I would be here on the Eastern side. Uh, the reason for this, uh, 12 foot drive isles, because there is a parcel line here that bisects the main drive out the physical space is enough to get to the code requirements. Just, you know, since the parcel line is dividing it, we have that technical variance. I, this is something where I would again defer to traffic here, but I believe traffic's comment is pertaining to this bump out from the tree island, which does. Affects the amount of drive out there, but if you want to interject.

And, yeah, traffic's comment is about the northern now as well. So our comments are more specifically related to 12 feet on the. North of the building to provide access and that out to be fully retained within private property. So that's where the modification is needed. But yeah, we don't have any issues with the private to private centerline. Okay, so when you revise, it's going to be a significant, I guess. Modification needed before we get final site compliance plan approval.

Thank you and I would definitely comply with that.

Okay. Anybody here to speak about this application. Okay, does the board member have any other questions? Okay. So the property, uh, could yield a reasonable return without this. Variances they've been operating, um, the variance, um, appears to be substantial with the setbacks and maneuvering, but because of the positioning of the lot and adjacent to the railway and not up against residential, um, we don't find that that's substantial. And these are really technical variances. the central character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and adjoining properties would not suffer suffer substantial detriment the variance would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services and the um property owner uh Could not do what it wants to do on this property without seeking these variances, the knowledge of the zoning restrictions, um, not relevant to this conversation, but I think that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting these variances as I mentioned, because of the location of the operations on this lot are ready to call the question.

I'll call the question question has been called.

Please call the role.

I agree with the chair's analysis and vote. Yes.

Mr. Jones.

I, too agree and vote. Yes. Mr.

I agree as well.

Yes.

Yes, parents is granted. Thank you. Thank you. 316 South champion Avenue.

316 South champion Avenue is located on Northwest corner of champion Avenue in East rich street. Um, it is owned our 3 residential and part of the near East area commission. The site is undeveloped surrounding uses are primarily single unit dwellings. The applicant proposed construct a single unit dwelling. A variance is being requested to reduce the minimum very hard from 25% to 20%. Um, the division of planning has no comment. The division of traffic management has no comment. The area commission I'll get into in a SEC, or I'll just tell you now. So there was a bit of confusion about the area commission. He went to the zoning committee in June, which they approved. Um, and then when I reached out to them to get the staff or standard recommendation form, they said he needs to come back to the full meeting. However, they are on recess right now. They're in recess at all of July. So, happens decided, why not just try and go forward? He has the zoning approval. He hasn't gone back to the committee yet. It's up to you guys staff to recommend approval as requested. Rare yard reduction is modest and will facilitate compatible residential infill on an undeveloped corner lot. The proposed signal unit dwelling is consistent with the established residential development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood chair.

Okay, can you state your name whether or not you were sworn in?

Sue Vail, all commas and I was sworn in.

Okay, so let's talk about the zoning committee meeting that you did attend and what was the, what was the conversation at that committee and the votes?

Sure, there's 2 outcomes 1 was that, uh, well, actually 3 things that were mentioned, they said approved and then they said, as long as you make a design change to have a roof over the front stoop. So, incorporated that design.

Okay.

And then they said they would just come check out the property on August 8th, but it wasn't tied to any approvals or anything. They said they were just going to do a site visit. So that's all I know.

They were going to do a site visit after they voted.

Yeah.

I'm sure that it goes to the full body. Yes. And so they found that we're going to go on August and say still approved and then it would go for the final body. It just seems like they would give a vote before they didn't they basically advanced it. To go to the subject to. Evaluation on the 8th.

Okay. And so this is tell us about this project what you're trying to do.

Build a single family home on the unit. It's an undeveloped plot corner plot undeveloped. Yeah. There's a picture of it right there.

Okay.

Corner of champion and rich.

So, the only, so the only variance you need then is the. Rear yard.

Yeah, what's considered so the front of the home will be on South champion Avenue has been determined and then the rear is reducing that from 25% per the restrictions and setbacks to 20% to accommodate the design of the home and better suiting how it connects to utilities, which the taps are closer towards the corner. The what's closest to the corner, uh, each of the utility lines, like, water, electricity and gas.

Gotcha and so point for clarification that this is a corner lot and so they essentially have 2 front edges and so providing the amount of required rear yard open space is challenging.

Oh, for any quarter for any corner. Yeah. Um, what members do we, are we comfortable with moving forward on this without the area commission? I am just for the record, we usually do like to have the input of the area commissions, but. In my opinion, because of the, uh. Inconsequential, maybe else to say nature of this variance, um, the. The minimal nature of it, I should say, not inconsequential the minimal nature of it. Um, and the fact that you had gone to the zoning committee and gotten their approval and you incorporated their comments. I'm I feel comfortable that we can. Take this up without their input, but I did want to put that on the record that we don't usually like to do that. And we do value the input of our area commissions. That being said, um, the property in question, um. Because of the corner lots and the, uh, challenges to. Satisfy the rear yard requirements. Um, I think that any property usage on this. Lot would request a similar variance and thus I don't. I think that this is substantial in nature. I think the character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. Sounds like zoning. The committee has looked at this and has weighed in on the design and so they are comfortable that it fits into the character of the neighborhood. The delivery of government services will not be adversely affected the property owners. Knowledge of this zoning restriction is. Evident, because they're here requesting this before they get started on a project, the property owners predicament could not be obviated through another method. Other than this variance, I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Because of the shape. And location of the lot on the corner, are we ready to call the question?

I'll call the question.

Question has been called please call the roll.

Mr. Jones, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote. Yes.

Mr.

I do agree with the chair and vote.

Yes.

I like, why is agree with the chairman? But yes.

Yes, variance granted. Thank you. Thank you. 3710 West Dublin Granville road.

3710 West Dublin Granville road is located on the Northeast side West Dublin Granville road approximately 100 feet North of Martin road. Um, it is own RAC regional activity center and part of the far Northwest coalition of Columbus. The site is developed with a vacant commercial building formerly used as a restaurant sounding uses our commercial centers with large surface parking lots in all directions. The applicant proposes to redevelop evasion, vacant commercial site with a financial institution associated parking and drive through facilities. Variants is requested to reduce the required number of drive up stacking spaces from 12 spaces to 11 spaces to reduce the total length of facade required within an abutting the front street facade zone from 70% to 27%. To reduce the required blank wall treatment from 50 to 0% along a 16 foot 6 inch sections of the front facade to allow a shop front frontage type with a, with the primary entrance located on the side elevation. And to allow headlights screening are into allow headlights screening along West Dublin, Granville road to consist of landscaping shrubs only. Planning is supportive of the question variances staff note, the proposed elevations are consistent consistent with Columbus growth strategy, mixed use design guidelines recommends building should be generally parallel and facing the street and surface service and loading zone should be located to the rear staff note, the proposed building placement and service area located. Location are consistent with this recommendation. Lastly recommends parking space. Parking lot should be screened from view from public right away in adjacent development staff note that proposed landscaping along Dublin grand view road frontage properly screens to propose parking from the right of way. Therefore, planning is supporting up this request. Staff note that the column that the land use recommendation recommendation was recently updated to mixed use 3 as a result of the passage of Columbus growth strategy legislation took effect February 25th, 2026 staff note that this site was redesigned with 2 regional activity center as part of the zone and phase 1 work. The division of traffic management states that right away dedication of 60 feet from the center line of West Dublin, Granville road. Will we will be required and the far Northwest coalition of Columbus recommends approval with a vote of 0 or 4 to 0 staff can recommend approval as a proposal will facilitate the redevelopment of a vacant commercial site with a use compatible with the surrounding commercial development. They requested stacking reduction is minimal and the proposed building placements service area location and landscaping are generally consistent with C. G. S. mixed use design guidelines chair.

Okay, can you stage for names whether or not you were sworn in Claire hunter?

Yes, I was sworn in.

Andrew layman yes, I was sworn in.

Okay. Do you have anything to add about this application?

I'm just, we appreciate the time from the committee.

Do we have any questions from the board?

Nothing seems significant to me. I don't see anyone in the audience that wants to speak.

You outlasted them, huh? You outlasted them.

Okay. So the property in question, um. So that, I guess, could yield a reasonable return without these variances as a building existing there. But I don't think that these variants are substantial relative to the use that this these owners want to put this property to. I think the character of the neighborhood would be altered, but for the better. Um, I think that delivery of government services would not be adversely affected. Um, the owners knowledge at purchase was not indicated. Um. But I think that in order to do what they are trying to do, um, they would have to get these variances and I think they're appropriate for the use. And for the area, I think the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variances are ready for the question.

I'll call a question. Mr. I concur with the chair's assessment vote. Yes.

I likewise concur with the chairman. Yes.

Mr. Jones, I agree and vote. Yes.

Yes. The answer is granted. Thank you.

Thank you all.

Oh, yeah, meeting is earned. Adam, you were on the hot seat tonight. We had all the cases.