Board of Zoning Adjustment - Special Meeting

for or against a proposal as presented. Each person in the audience will have up to three minutes to present testimony for or against the proposals as presented. At that point the board will have the opportunity to adjudicate And make a decision on as to whether or not we want to see that move forward That being said in the course of hearing these cases We will take testimony from people in the audience as well as applicants and we like to swear you all in as a group up front So please if you do plan to provide testimonies today, please stand up and raise your right hand Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. Thank you so much. And we have the benefit of having a zone in update from our chief zoning official. Miss Shannon, take the floor.

All right. Hello, everyone. I just was trying to refresh, see if you have had any presentations from planning division on the growth strategy, and it doesn't sound like you did. So you probably really haven't heard anything about what we're doing with zone and except for maybe some emails that you've received. So I'm very happy to be here tonight to let you know about our phase two endeavor. It's economic housing and economic and housing opportunity priorities. So you can go to the next slide please. This phase of zone in it is covering a very large geographical area. It's 40% of the city. And what the priorities are for this phase is to leverage additional corridors to create more housing. grow the local economy and support neighborhood investment, connect housing, jobs, and transportation, and promoting high quality development with continuing the code that we already created with clear objective standards. And if you can go to the next slide, that's our timeline. So we started this endeavor way back in fall of 2021. We made it through the first phase of zone in summertime of July 2024, July 2024, council adopted the title 34 mixed use districts. And then we began in late 2024, kind of laying out what we thought phase two would be. Last summer we did a lot of engagement. The first phase of zone in, we had the policy base to create mixed use districts because land use plans recommended mixed use in those areas. For phase two, we didn't always have the policy. Planning has been wanting to create a citywide land use plan. So that is what happened in the summer of 2025. We did a lot of community engagement to create the Columbus growth strategy. I'll get into that later on. But here we are at summer, fall 2026. The public comment period for zone in phase two just began today. Today is the first day council adopted the resolution last night. So a little bit about the 2025 work that we did in the growth strategy. So the city was divided into 3 main land use categories, keeping in mind that we are saving residential and neighborhoods for the next phase of zone and most likely. So we did not provide land use recommendations for most of those residentially zone parts of the city. So this work covered. commercial areas, industrial, airports, quarries, and also our large business and institutional employers like Nationwide Children's Hospital, our universities, our corporate campuses. So what happened was that we decided which category our geographic city should be put into. And if you go to the next slide. That kind of covers the what the growth strategy, which was adopted by city council in January and became effective in February of this year. So from that growth strategy became this Columbus land use plan. And the three buckets of uses were business and institutional campus, industrial warehouse, and mixed use. Mixed use was divided into three different intensities. Those intensities pretty much referred to the height of the buildings. And we can go to where we are now. Or what we yeah, where we are now. So we've taken these land use recommendations from the growth strategy, and we have assigned draft zoning districts to the draft zoning map. Of course, this is draft because it's up for public comment right now. So if it was a mixed use too, we have a couple of different zoning districts that correlate to a mixed use to land use category. Industrial warehouse, is it heavy? Is it light? So that's how we came to place the different zoning districts that are up for public comment. You can go to the next slide, please. So phase two features 15 zoning districts. Six of them are the existing districts that we used in phase one. And then there are nine new ones. There's three new mixed use district and one new sub-district. We have EMX, which is an emerging mixed-use district. Think of corridors that are zoned residential but might have the potential to develop into some small commercial uses. Think of stretches like James Road, Carl Road. Those are areas that we've likely placed the EMX district. I am next is industrial mixed use. That was used in areas where there was historical industrial development. So parts of Franklinton, for example, have some industrial uses that are still active and still productive, but perhaps those will eventually transform into something else. So we wanted to be able to keep the industrial permissions on the property while allowing other uses. The NAC District Neighborhood Activity Center is like the RAC and the CAC districts that I know you have seen in some of your variance proposals, but it is a lower stories, four stories max in that district. And then the RACO is just a sub-district of the RAC district. It allows higher heights. It's been placed in areas where maybe there was a 200-foot height limit, like in places like Polaris and Easton, because the RAC district capped out at 12 stories, I believe. It just kind of gave those existing permissions that they had.

We have three... Do you mind if I ask you a question? I'm sorry. I might forget. Okay. An IMX, for example. Yes. Which is an industrial mixed use. Yes. Which could include residential. Yes. We historically are hearing cases where industrial has to be so far away from those going away. I mean, because that seems to be in direct conflict with what we deal with today. But now we're talking about... intentionally putting them in the same bucket.

Yes. So the separation is for our heaviest industrial uses. Those are not allowed in this district. So it's very light industrial and then some commercial and retail and then the residential. Thank you. We have three new institutional, business and institutional campus districts. Campus, the CMP is for our large campuses like Ohio State, like Nationwide Children's, like Chase corporate offices. The COI is community office and institutional. That is mainly for our office and industrial parks. So preserving some of that industrial, but it's light industrial, and allowing some residential if it meets a certain ratio. The ROI is the same way except the ROI regional office and institutional doesn't allow the industrial. So that the ROI district was placed more in areas that were strictly all office park development. But the reason why we're allowing the residential in these areas is because most office developers want to be in a More mixed use environment, and if we're allowing some residential and some of these office parks that are somewhat failing, it might spark some life back into these office park areas and. Has the ability to transform. With some residential, if need be. And then the industrial districts, we have industrial urban. So these are our areas. Think of like Marion Road. It's interfaces with some of the mixed use districts. We wanted to make sure that that district had some design standards that mirrored some of the design standards of the mixed use districts. And then we have industrial light and then the industrial heavy. And if you go to the next slide. I do have a preview of the map. This is Ohio State's campus, so the CMP district. What I didn't show in one of the slides is for the placement of the industrial heavy district, we tried to flank it by industrial light so that it was not touching residential. That way, that separation of use that you had brought up, it helps that problem. But you might still see some BZAs here and there. And then we have the draft code itself. It's laid out very similarly to the existing Title 34. So lots of pictures, graphs, tables, clear standards, a use table. So hopefully everybody gets an opportunity to dive into it and provide comments. And I'll just go over, if you go to the next slide, what we've done so far for community engagement. City staff has been attending meetings all throughout the year. It's probably over 125 now. we've shared the zone in updates and given presentations to over 1900 community members the zoning advisory committee meetings have been ongoing since late last year we have been interviewing stakeholders to try to make sure that this new code is going to work for them And we're continuing area commission and civic association engagement through this fall. In July, we held one-on-one meetings with commissioners. In August, we've gone out to visit them. That's where I'm going tonight. September we're catching up with any of those who didn't have meetings in August in October we'll be back out to them and then the 60-day public comment period will include some gallery visits where council members will invite for their district whatever area commissions are in in their districts so there's lots of area commission nights at at the gallery And then you can go back to the next slide here with our tentative timeline. So the resolution of intent to rezone was adopted by council last night. The 60-day public comment period runs from today until October 24th. and during the 60-day public comment period about 205 000 mailers will go out to property owners that either are being rezoned or within 125 feet of properties being rezoned and also the same with tenants and renters And then we will have a public survey. Actually, we do have a public survey. If you go visit the Zone In Columbus website, you would be able to access both the map survey and the code survey.

Question, Shannon. Yes. What's the strategy or the thought behind sending it to tenants and renters?

Just so they're not caught off guard and have an understanding that the new zoning code may impact them in some way, shape, or form, especially like a business tenant. If they're like maybe they're an industrial tenant or maybe they're an auto sales tenant.

More on the commercial side, not necessarily a residential. Correct. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, because it's not really – We are zoning some apartment complexes into mixed use districts where it made sense. I think areas like Hilliard Rome Road, Stelter Road, these were major corridors that did not get picked up for the first phase of zone in. So there's definitely going to be some tenants of apartment complexes that are probably going to be like, well, what does this mean? And it's just more to just engage and make sure everybody is aware and hopefully get their feedback. um during the um Oh, I lost my place. The Zoning Gallery. It's open. It's open six days a week. We encourage that you make an appointment if you do want to go visit. We would love for the BZA, maybe before your September meeting, can stop into the gallery for a little tour. We're encouraging all our boards and commissions to come see what the new code is all about and the new map. uh there will be two public hearings um hosted by council during the public comment period the first one is this thursday august 27th it's at galloway ridge intermediate school at six o'clock that meeting is going to cover just an introduction to the new districts and the map On Wednesday, September 16th at the King Arts Complex, I believe that meeting starts at 5, we will be going into the new districts in more detail at another public hearing. There will be a public webinar in October. We're going to be continuing with our stakeholder interviews, and then there will be scheduled events at the gallery. After that public comment period closes, the zone and team will be reviewing all of the comments. and then there will be two more public hearings hosted by council if there's changes that we make those will be made before we submit the legislation to city council and then there will be a first and second reading of that legislation hopeful for that to happen at the end of november but it could shift into december and i think i have one more slide Yeah, so that's what you'll see when you go to the Zone In web page and the links to the proposal and the map. And then you'll also, when you open those proposals up, the survey opportunity will exist. So that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. All right. Well, thank you for your time. And come visit us at the gallery.

Thank you, Shannon. Are there any preliminary matters from the staff?

Yes, we have a handful of requests to table. I have two and you have one, two. So agenda item number six for me and my other one is agenda item number 11.

Okay. Six and 11, you said? Yes. BZA 26-064 for 174 West Lane, please step forward.

Where did David Hodge run off to?

He's out in the hall talking on the phone.

All right, I'll go get him.

Do you want me to just call 11 and you can go out and get him? Somebody. Thank you.

Mr. Hodge. No worries.

You want to state your request for tabling and why?

Yes.

I beg your pardon. Please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn.

David Hodge, attorney for the applicant, and I have not been sworn.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

David Hodge, attorney for the applicant. We have some unresolved issues with traffic management related to the right-of-way along the frontage of the property at Lane Avenue. We need another month to continue to work with traffic management to resolve the issue and hope to be ready next month.

Is that a request for an exemption that you're looking for from them?

It started out as a request for a right-of-way dedication waiver, but it has to do with that in addition to the building setback. I think that the analysis that the city is undertaking is, will there be enough pedestrian opportunity along the frontage of the building? It's essentially campus, and they want to make sure that um that there's plenty there i think there's an ongoing analysis of the same area by by ohio state and we are all both us and the city is trying to figure out what that ohio state information is and um until we have that and analyze that we can't um get to where we need to get and ball's kind of in the city's court this thing is here though with a across the board unanimous recommendation of approval from university area commission zoning committee and full commission one round of meetings so i was rip roaring and ready to to get this project approved tonight but we have a little more homework to do okay understood is there anyone here to speak for or against this proposal again bza26-064 for 174 west lane avenue yes okay please step forward

To be clear, what's being discussed here is tabling this matter, not for your testimony. Do you want to speak in favor or against the tabling of this matter?

Favor in tabling it.

You are in favor. Okay. And I beg your pardon. Would you please give us your name and indicate whether or not you were sworn? And have you been sworn?

I have not.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. Okay. And you're speaking in favor of the tabling of this matter?

Yes.

Okay.

We were here just talking about the setback.

Okay. Great. Well, if you could just sign your name on that sheet. Is there anyone else here to speak for or against not the proposal, but the tabling of the matter? Seeing and hearing none, is there a motion to table?

So moved. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Matter is tabled. Thank you very much, Mr. Hodge. Next case is BZA 26-080 for 2802 East 5th Avenue.

Please step forward.

Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? And have you been sworn? Did you stand up and swear? Okay, thank you. Tell us about your request for a tabling and why. My request is... Can you speak into the microphone there? Thank you.

Thank you. My request is asking for variant on special permit number 3312.27. That is parking setback. that is to reduce the parking required parking setback from 10 feet to zero also uh three three one two four nine are required at parking. That is to reduce the number of the required parking space to zero. Also 331.21.21 landscaping and screening to reduce the requirement parking lot screening to zero. And also the 3389.12 special permit to use that is to allow a portable building to use as an office.

And I understand that you don't want to be heard today. Is that correct? You don't want this case to go forward today?

So I we discussed over the phone that it would be best to request a tabling because he's made efforts to get with the East Columbus Civic Association, but they have not given a recommendation yet.

OK, and where are you in that process? You've reached out to them and they haven't responded. Have you been heard by them?

Yeah, I reached out to them. I spoke with Mike yesterday. I mean, on Saturday. So I haven't heard anything from them.

But you've presented and they have voted?

Yes.

They haven't voted on it. You haven't made a presentation to them.

I spoke with Mike.

Have you presented like this body? Have you presented to them? No. Okay. And so are you on the schedule to do that?

I'm expecting from him, so I don't know. I'm expecting from him to, because it says going to reach out to me, I mean, on Saturday.

Okay. Yeah. I don't know if there's a disconnect with the area commission. Is there any way that you all can engage with the even if it's the Department of Neighborhoods to ensure that there's either a communication, better communication established, something along those lines? So what we're talking about today is you won't be heard here today because you don't have that recommendation from that area commission. So we're encouraging you to get back with them, be able to make a presentation to them. And if you have problems, you need to talk to the Department of Neighborhoods at the City of Columbus so that they can intervene on your behalf to ensure that you have an opportunity to present your case. that being said uh you're okay and requesting for a tabling so that we can table your matter to hear it at a later date is that correct okay is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the tabling seeing and hearing none is there any is there a motion from the board so moved second it's been moved and seconded please call the roll yes yes your matter is tabled we wish you all the best in getting with the area commission to make your presentation and getting a recommendation one way or the other back to us and then us we can hear your case all right okay thank you so much i'll send an email to you and copy the department of neighborhoods and their liaison will help you get scheduled with their with the civic association thank you sir thank you

And what do we have next? BZA 26-069 for 437 through 439 South 22nd Street. Their area commission meeting was canceled because of the storms the other week, so they don't have a recommendation yet either.

Are they here? Okay. Please step forward.

What case number is this? The case number? Number 8.

8.

Thank you.

Good evening. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

It's David Flores, and I haven't been sworn.

Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you very much. And would you explain to us, I guess it was already explained, and so you're requesting a tabling for that same reason. Yeah.

Because we haven't received the letter.

Okay, understood. Is there anyone in the audience that's here to speak for or would like to speak for or against the tabling of this matter? Seeing and hearing none, is there a motion to table? Motion to table.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes. The matter is tabled. Please sign in on that sheet there. And that was eight. Any others?

Last one is case number nine, BZA 26-070 for 2253 East Livingston Avenue and 1031 through 1039 College Avenue.

Okay. Good evening, sir. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Jack Reynolds, and I have been sworn.

Okay. Tell us why you want a table.

AS DAVID INDICATED, WE ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SECTION. WE'RE TRYING TO IRON OUT ONE LAST ISSUE AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT WE WILL BE DONE BY THE NEXT MEETING. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE TIME TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE WITH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the tabling of this matter? Seeing and hearing none, is there a motion?

So moved. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Matter is tabled. Thank you so much.

Anything else? OK.

Case number one, BZA 26-045 for 1401 Sullivan Avenue. 1401 Sullivan Avenue. Okay, we'll move that to the back of the list.

Okay, thank you.

BZA 26-051 for 1992 Woodward Avenue. Good evening.

Good evening.

Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Melva Williams Argyle, I have been sworn.

Thank you. If you wouldn't mind signing in on that sheet and we'll hear from the city first.

1992 Woodward Avenue is located on the northwest corner of Woodward Avenue and Brook Cliff Avenue. It is on R2 residential and part of the North Central Area Commission. The site is developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses are single unit dwellings to the north and east, manufacturing uses to the south, and the cemetery to the west. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing single unit dwelling to accommodate an. A variance is being requested to reduce the required rear yard from 25% to 23%. The Division of Planning had no comments, the Division of Traffic Management has no comments, and the North Central Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of five to zero. Staff can also recommend approval as a proposed addition results in a minor reduction to the required rear yard and is compatible with the established residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. The request will not negatively impact the surrounding properties, Chair.

Thank you very much. You have the recommendation of approval from the City of Columbus as well as the North Central Area Commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

We appreciate the support. The client is looking forward to having a release of their building permit for the plans examination to come to a conclusion as well with the approval of the variances.

Okay. Thank you so much. Let me get my list here. Reviewing the Duncan factors, whether or not the property in question would yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, the answer is yes. Whether the variance is substantial, it is not going from 25% to 23%. whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance i would say no whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services i would say no whether the property owner purchased the property without with the knowledge of the zoning restriction Probably not, but we don't know. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, not likely. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say yes. Would someone like to call a question?

I'll call a question.

Questions have been called. Please call the roll.

Ms. Ageloff?

I agree with the chair's analysis and vote in favor.

I concur with the chair as well and vote yes. Chair Jones?

Yes, variance is granted. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Getting through to these staples or something.

Chair Jones, did we ask if anyone in the audience was here for this? We did not.

I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

Sorry about that. I'm so sorry. Is there anyone in the audience that's here to speak for or against this proposal as presented? I'm so sorry. Please step forward. And I'm hoping you're here to support it. Okay. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you'll provide is true to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. Thank you. You have Just sharing what you guys voted for? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Would you mind signing in there? Is there anyone else? Okay. So I don't know that I need to go through that again. The young lady has been heard and she was voting in favor. So there's no change, no substantive change. So you are excused and congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Case number three. And where is this please?

Okay.

B. C. a 26 dash 054 for 3693 East Livingston Avenue. The 0.60 acre site is developed with a used automobile dealership. Surrounding uses include a multi-tenant shopping center and eating and drinking establishments to the west and south, multi-unit apartments to the north and a warehouse to the east. The applicant proposes to bring a previously constructed addition into compliance variances are being requested to not provide landscaping between building facade in the public. Sidewalk to increase the front building setback from 25 feet to 65 feet, which is existing. To increase the side street setback from 25 feet to 71 feet, which is existing. To reduce the front facade zone from 60% to 33% existing. And to reduce the side street facade zone from 50% to 22% existing. To reduce the front parking setback from 30 feet to 0 feet. To reduce the side street parking setback from 5 feet to 0 feet. And to allow the existing parking, stacking, and circulation aisles to be located between the principal building and adjacent streets. To increase the distance between glazing and or doors from 2 feet to 7 feet on the front. To increase the shop front base slash bulkhead from 32 inches to 60 inches on the front. To reduce the depth of recession and or cover from 18 inches to 0 inches on the front. and to allow some entry doors to not be recessed nor have an awning slash canopy, to reduce the landscaping percentage between building facade and adjacent street from 70% to 0%, to reduce the required number of shade trees from 1 per 10 parking spaces to 0, and to not provide headlight screening between the parking area and adjacent streets. This application will help resolve zoning code violation order 24470-01237, which was issued in February of 2024. Planning staff note the requested variances are to bring the site into compliance. Columbus growth strategy mixed use design guidelines recommend high level of landscaping screening should be provided between the right-of-way and parking lot. Planning is in full support of the proposal based on the revised material shown landscape screening of the parking on both roadway frontages consistent with Columbus growth strategy design guidelines. Division of Traffic Management informed the applicant that a right-of-way dedication of 40 feet from the center line of Courtright Road and 60 feet from the center line of East Livingston will be required. The applicant has submitted a right-of-way dedication exemption. The applicant was also informed the existing driveway apron that previously provided access to East Livingston will need to be removed. They did indicate on the site plan that this curb cut is to be abandoned. and the mid-east area commission unanimously unanimously recommends approval of this request staff recommends approval of the requested variances because they allow the applicant to resolve a long-standing zoning code violation order by bringing the previously constructed addition into compliance as well as conforming the property to the new title 34 standards the addition of landscape screening along both fringes will help reduce the visual impact of the use have the conditions recommended that applicant will commit to the landscape shown on the stamp site plan and any proposed landscaping within the right-of-way is subject to the review and approval of the department of public service the department of public service will have no responsibility for the maintenance of such landscaping and such landscaping may be removed in the future at the sole discretion of the department of public service

Steven, you talked about a variance for landscaping and then he's providing it. Is the variance here because it doesn't meet CAC, but he's doing something that you find acceptable? Is that the case?

Yeah, the landscaping that they are proposing, as mentioned, the second condition is in the right of way. So it doesn't count towards the CAC requirements. Because it's not on their property.

So, and that's still subject to review?

Review by public service. Because it's in there right away.

So let's play this out. Let's say we give this variance and they don't approve of the landscaping that's there. Then there would be no screening of headlights. That's problematic. I think. What do you think?

It's unique.

Yeah. Okay, thank you for that. It is a existing site. And they do have very little go back to the site plan. There's really no room between where the cars are parked and displayed and the sidewalk. Okay, there, the cars are parked right up to the property line.

Okay. Gentlemen, would you please give me your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

I'm Dino Herbert, the architect for the applicant. I have not been sworn.

Right.

Owner of the property.

OK. Turn on your microphone for me. Please move your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you so much. So you have the recommendation of approval from city as well as the area commission. But some of these things we might want to unpack. especially around landscaping. This proposal, are you willing to accept the conditions that were presented? You understand there are two different conditions for landscaping on a stamped site plan as well as any proposed landscaping within the right-of-way is subject to the review of the Department of Public Service. Department of Public Service will have zero responsibility of the maintenance of such landscaping and such landscaping may be subject to review. Are you guys accepting of those two conditions? Yes.

And initially, it's part of one of the variances to not have landscape screening. um and then one of the comments was from planning that they they wanted some landscaping there uh the reason it ended up being uh still one of the variances because we don't completely cover all of the screening that would be required in that matter yeah and i don't know if you understood the comment that i made if they don't approve it you know you can't have it and then there's none so what's the plan then Well, I guess the question would be whether or not planning would be okay.

That's not planning. That's a whole different department, right?

But if the board approves the application with the condition that the landscaping is provided and approved by the Department of Public Service, and then the Department of Public Service doesn't approve it, I would think that that would turn into a no vote, a disapproval. If the condition is not satisfied. I see. I got you.

And Mick clarifies the intent of that is to if there are some reason if that area is needed, you know, for a future sidewalk or future, you know, or if there's some type of sight distance concerns that are developed over time, that there gives us the authority to make changes to that. So it's really in the interest of if there is a reason to change that, However, in what we've seen now, we are generally supportive of that layout. It's really just the intention of the condition is to give us the authority in the future if there are changes to the roadway or if there are other site distance obstructions that would need to be taken care of.

For our purposes, there are residents across the street. So I'm trying to contemplate if there's no screening and you say no and we've said yes, and now we've got headlights flashing in people's living rooms. Understood.

This is a used car dealership, so those cars shouldn't have headlights on.

Good point. Good point. So I know where the lot is. And so cars that are facing. livingston avenue are cars for sale not customer parking no okay and i don't want to get in the weeds and make that kind of a thing but if you could just make sure that the front the things that face livingston avenue are not cars that are going in and out that potentially have lights flashing into your neighbors across the street does that make sense yes okay so you're good with the conditions that were presented is there anything additional that you'd like to add

No, other than the only reason we're here is because the previous owner put the addition on and we're just a smidge over 25%. That's why we were required to do a variance.

Okay. Are there any questions from board members? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, I will go to the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance, the answer is yes. Whether the variance is substantial, while there are a number of variances, I don't think that individually they would be considered substantial. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, we just had testimony that that was not the case. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, I would say no. Whether the spirit of the intent, whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say yes. Is there someone that would like to call the question with the conditions as presented?

Call the question with the conditions.

Question's been called. Please call the roll.

Mr. Malecka? I concur with the chair's analysis and vote yes.

Ms. Ageloff?

I likewise concur with the chair and vote yes.

Chair Jones?

yes variances are granted with the conditions as presented all right any if you guys have questions just check with city staff so that they can get you on point all right thank you so much bza26-055 for 786 edgecliff drive

786 Edgecliff Drive is located on the north side of Edgecliff Drive, approximately 350 feet west of Olentangy River Road. It's part of the Far Northwest Coalition of Columbus and existing zoning is our rural district. The approximately 1.67 acre site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding uses include similar undeveloped parcels to the north and east and single unit dwellings to the south and west. The applicant proposes to construct a single unit dwelling. The applicant is requesting variances to allow maneuvering between the parking setback line and the right-of-way line, reduce the parking setback line from 25 feet to zero feet, and reduce the clear vision area from 12 feet to zero feet, all to allow for parking within the driveway. Previous case BZA 24-004 was passed to split a parcel and reduce the minimum lot width from 5 acres to 1 acre on the east parcel and .83 acres on the west parcel, which is the parcel in question in this case, parcel number 610282487. The Division of Planning has no comments. The Division of Traffic Management notes that the Edgecliff Drive right-of-way is under the jurisdiction of Sharon Township along the frontage of this site, and no comments have been forthcoming since then. And the Far Northwest Coalition of Columbus has recommended approval of the requested variances, voting three to zero in favor. City Department's recommendation is that of disapproval. Staff recommends disapproval as there is already a sufficient number of code required and code compliant parking spaces within the attached garage that is proposed without the need for variance to allow further parking spaces in the driveway. That is in line with the precedent that the city has set with our recommendations in such cases where people are proposing parking in front of an existing two-car garage. That being said, this case does have unique circumstances, which I'm sure the applicant will get into in their testimony, which may warrant a closer look in this particular case. That being said, I will continue into the Duncan standards for the city's recommendation, at least. Item 1. Beneficial use without variance. The property can still be developed as proposed with no physical alterations without the requested variances as the variances are being requested to allow additional parking in the driveway above what code requires. Two, is the variance substantial? The variances are substantial as they would constitute a full reduction to zero feet of both the parking setback as well as the vision clearance area. Three, essential character of the neighborhood altered. The variances will not present a physical departure from the surrounding development pattern. However, assuming surrounding properties are obeying the Columbus zoning code as it pertains to parking in a driveway, then the allowance of the driveway parking would be a departure. Four, governmental services affected. The variances would not appear to obstruct the delivery of governmental services. Five, knowledge of the zoning restriction. It is unknown as to whether the applicants had bought the property prior to submitting the building plans that would indicate the need for variance, so we cannot comment on that. Six, predicament feasibility without variance. The applicant's predicament can be obviated without variance as the code required number of parking spaces, two, are already being provided in the proposed site plan in a code compliant attached garage. Finally, seven, spirit intent slash substantial justice. The spirit and intent of the zoning code would not be observed by granting these variances as the proposal does not encounter a true hardship that would prevent development without variance. The variances are being requested to allow for parking above what code requires. Chair.

Thank you very much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Caleb Smith and yes.

Okay. Help us unpack this a little bit because I don't see any reason for us to say yes to your proposal at this point.

Gotcha. So I guess for the existing property with the ravine in the back and having to have a septic system for this property, It really had to push the house forward as close to the road as we could really get it. So I think the house is only 32 feet in length given the 25-foot building setback. So we just had to squeeze it as much for it. So I think the first thought would be we'll just make the driveway longer and set the house back farther, but we just didn't have that option. Um, the street itself is a borderline multi use trail. I think it's about 12 feet wide. So it's really just a private drive in and of itself. Um, you can't get 2 cars by each other. Most of the properties in this area, like my neighbor across the street, I think he has close to 50 feet connected to the roadway. Obviously his house was built a long time ago. So there's just no on street parking. I think the closest parking spot is probably. Close to half a mile away, so it's not really feasible for anyone to be on the road. Uh, that the township with my driveway design, if you go back to the site plan, they don't want me to have a wider driveway than the road itself entrance. So I don't even get the standard 2 car with to connect to the road. I get pinched down even farther to, like, maybe they wanted 12 or 14 feet. So it's not even a standard 2 car with the whole way. So, given that I, I may be able to get 2 cars in the parking spot, but. I'm just looking for more since I won't really be able to have more than maybe 2 cars in the driveway at the current moment. So.

So how does Sharon Township get to tell him he can't do that and we're here to weigh in on whether or not I don't understand that?

Oh, they're weighing in on really just the throat width. So they control just inside the right-of-way and it's Columbus property, Sharon Township right-of-way. So they can only tell me what I can do to the property line and then you guys kind of get after that point. So that's where I'm kind of asking for the bump out is the additional, which is just your guys' jurisdiction.

Correct. So, yeah, the the right of way itself, the this roadway is within Sharon Township. So they're speaking to the width of like the apron accessing the right of way is limited as per what Sharon Township's requesting.

And again, I don't want to get too much down that road, but I just saw a two car driveway. Of your neighbor. That looks like a pretty wide two-car driveway right there. I'm just wondering, is your argument or discussion with us or is it with them to get that resolved? And that might solve some of your issues because this is difficult to gnaw on. And I don't know if my colleagues want to weigh in on it.

I assume you're looking for visitor parking.

I mean, yeah. I mean, this is, it's not exactly a hardship thing. This is me asking for an additional parking spot because we're in a visitor park.

I get it, but I'm saying if he had a two-car driveway like his neighbor that's already there.

Well, they have an additional like 50 feet touching the roadway if you can zoom in on that. So they have got two additional parking spots right along the road there.

I get it, but if you even – and so, again, that begs the question, why are you pinched down and they have an abundance? And I don't know that it's for us to deal with in here, but I'm just thinking out loud.

It should also be noted that that property is not within the city of Columbus. Are they in Sharon Township? They I would imagine they probably are within Sharon Township, but they were allowed to have, for instance, potentially like parking in front of the driveway, this sort of larger parking area that would be in front of the parking setback line. Probably I'm speculating, but probably because they don't have these same kinds of zoning restrictions that we have in Columbus in terms of. where you park your car in front of your primary structure.

I get it. And we wouldn't allow him legally to do that, but he could. I guess I'm about precedent. And when we say yes to this, even though it's an application that may make a lot of sense, how do we say no to somebody else? Anything from you, Rebecca?

The applicant saying it's not a hardship, so then he wants me to find it. Sorry. No, I mean, this might be. I'm struggling with it, honestly, so I don't know if this is 1 that you might want to table and there's more members here because you need 3 votes. And if you don't have solid 3, you can table so that the other 2 potential board members will be present at another meeting. not knowing necessarily where, I think I know where one colleague is, but I'm not.

All you have to have is one dissent vote and that's gone. So, and we did not acknowledge this and I don't feel like I'm off legal standing because this would be the only case that so far has had a question. But anybody in the audience that has a case remaining, we have three people here. You have to have a yes vote from each one of us or the vote would fail or the application would fail. You do have the option to table, as you heard many cases before, taking the option to table so that you would have, as my colleague shared, potentially the entire board i can't guarantee when the entire board will be here but there are two other members you only have to have three vote as a yes again this could also be an opportunity for you to go back to sharon township and say look what my neighbor across the street has

I've talked extensively with them, and they're pretty set in what they want. I don't see them changing personally. So I think today is the day. If you guys disagree, it is what it is. It'll be a good story for a lifetime. My life will be okay. I understand this is a very small issue in the grand scheme of things. I'm sorry I had to get to this level.

I like your attitude. I really do.

I'm also still hoping for the best.

I think the Sharon Township piece is entirely within the right of way. So the reduction, you know, once it's on the property that's zoned within the city of Columbus, it's still zero foot setback for parking is what they're looking for. And so the disapproval recommendation is coming from us, not from Sharon Township. If you were to table and make some changes, we would re-review it. No guarantee that we would change that recommendation, but it is an option to you.

I would tell you that I typically follow the recommendation of staff, unless I hear testimony that weighs media another way. So you can let the numbers do that justice.

That if you'd like to.

Mr. Malaka, how do you feel?

Does staff have ideas to help solve maybe his issue?

It looks like... Yeah, you're welcome if you want to.

So this... For our deliberation, this was a particularly difficult one because we have the precedent that we have to stick to. At the same time, this is a very unique circumstance. We can attest to when we were on field day, it was very difficult to drive our compact SUV down this road. To the applicant's point, there is no street parking to speak of in this neighborhood. The reason we made the recommendation as it is, is because one, we have this precedent that the city at least for BZA's cases, makes in terms of if you can fit code-compliant parking to what's required behind the parking setback line, then anything extra is a want, not a need. However, that does not take into account situations where you might have guests over, as somebody had pointed out. And that is, while it's not necessarily a hardship that... We take into account because we're looking at the zoning code and its requirements. It is potentially a hardship in the sense that if we're thinking about, you know, somebody's experience living in this particular area, that is something that they would be taking into consideration. It's something to weigh. I think personally, while the city has this precedent and the recommendation is what it is in terms of how we look at the zoning code, there are unique circumstances to this case where you could make, I would imagine you could make a case for breaking precedent on this while still pointing to there were unique circumstances with this.

And for what it's worth. board members i think the other cases that have come before you have been in more densely populated zoning districts this is a rural district as far as i can recall it's like the only parking setback case in my three years here of being in a rural district so if you're looking for something to distinguish the other cases that might be something looks like it's a country road from what i can tell in google maps so there is limited availability for street parking but it's entirely It's entirely up to you how you want to analyze it.

I look at this as new construction, so it doesn't even have to happen. And I don't want, that's also a precedent that we have to overcome. I don't want people to say, oh, just build something in the city of Columbus and you can get whatever you want done. I find it remarkable when I turn to my architects here and say, with 1.67 acres, we can't do something?

It's only less than one. The original size is 1.66. Mine's like 0.83.

0.83, and you've got a setback from the creek. There being...

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Okay. So have you been swayed?

I have to be honest, I have not. So I would recommend a

So again, very directly, you will not get an approval tonight with this body. Do you want to take a chance, change your proposal, work with staff, or do you just want to rip the Band-Aid off and move forward?

Or even if you don't make any changes, next month there will potentially be two other people up here, which then the boat is out of five instead of out of three, and you need three boats.

Right. Does that make sense? Yeah.

And I'd say, will I be able to know ahead of time if the five are going to be We thought five were going to be here today. Game time decision.

You can email us, but sometimes we don't know until the day of.

And does the staff feel like there's a way to change this to the better?

I mean, between now and the next month's hearing, we can certainly see if there's a way to massage this more and find a middle ground. Maybe also...

Work on outlining the hardships more, focusing on that on your testimony, and give me some options on that that I can gravitate towards.

So my first thought, and this is not guaranteeing we're going to change the recommendation. So this is the right-of-way line here.

This is a wide driveway.

Right. So if you maybe brought this in a bit, the parking setback reduction is still to zero. But the width of this drive would be less uncomfortable for us.

Standard parking spot width.

What I don't want to do is to hash this case out right now. I appreciate that. And so now you know that there's maybe some opportunity for discussion. Are you interested in tabling or do you want to go forward with the vote? Okay. Is there anyone here to speak for or against a tabling? Seeing and hearing none, is there a motion to table?

Motion to table. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes, the matter is tabled. Good luck.

We'll see you perhaps soon. Thank you.

BZA 26-060. Hello.

all right 1065 buckeye park road is located on the south side of buckeye park road approximately 400 feet west of lockbourne road it's part of the columbus south side area commission and the existing zoning is m manufacturing district the approximately 1.32 acre site is currently developed with an industrial office slash warehouse and associated storage lot surrounding uses include similar offices and warehouses to the north south east and west The applicant is seeking to legitimize conditions pertaining to the storage lot on the site. The applicant is thus requesting variances to reduce the storage setback for the side and rear lot lines from 20 feet to zero feet and allow a gravel storage lot and drive lane. Let's see. The Division of Planning is in full support of the proposal. Staff note the applicant's commitment to install fence fabric along the existing northern chain link fence for screening, as well as a sidewalk along the frontage, consistent with Columbus Growth Strategy industrial design guidelines. Staff continue to request supplemental plantings to provide naturalized screening of outdoor storage, but recognize potential stormwater retention considerations based on the outcome of the CC plan as a mitigating factor. Therefore, planning is in full support of the proposal regardless. Division of Traffic Management has indicated that all previous comments... have been resolved with the associated site plan, showing resolution to preliminary site compliance comments regarding sidewalk construction along Buckeye Park Road. The Columbus Southside Area Commission has recommended approval of the requested variances, voting 8-0 in favor, and the City Department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the requested variances to storage setback and surface treatment are mitigated by the inclusion of opaque screening of the storage area, as well as the office slash warehouse uses in the surrounding area, which would not be as negatively impacted as would commercial or residential uses. We do recommend the following conditions, though, that the applicant shall commit to the sidewalk and screening illustrated on the stamped site plan that you see here.

Chair. Thank you so much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Yes, Rebecca Mott, attorney with Plank Law Firm, and I have been sworn.

Okay. You have the recommendation of approval from the city as well as the area commission, right?

Yes, the Civic Association and the Area Commission.

Okay. Just for staff, and maybe, Rebecca, you can answer this, the apron's going to be concrete. Correct. But the drive is not. Okay. That's all I have.

The parking area is fully paved.

Okay. So, again, you have the recommendation of approval from city staff as well as the Area Commissions and Neighborhood Area Group. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? not unless you have questions okay any questions from board members is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented seeing and hearing none we'll review the duncan factors whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance the answer is yes Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, I would say no. whether the property whether the property owner purchased the not property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction we don't know whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance yes but it would likely be costly whether the variance and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance i would say yes um We did not speak to the conditions. The applicant shall commit to the sidewalk and screening illustrated in the stamp site plan. Are you good with that?

Absolutely. We throw the sidewalk and the fabric on the north side of the fence.

Okay. That being said, would someone like to call the question with the conditions?

Call the question with the conditions.

Please call the roll.

Mr. Malucco? I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Ms. Agelhoff?

I likewise agree with the chair and vote yes.

Chair Jones?

Yes. Variances are granted. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Case 6 was tabled, right? And now we're on to 7. BZA 26-078 for 889 East 17th Avenue.

889 East 17th Avenue is located on the South side of E 17th Avenue, approximately 135 feet West of Lexington Avenue. So, in our 3, and in the South London area commission. The 4.76 acre site is developed with a warehouse office and vehicle service center for the Columbus city school district surrounding uses include single unit dwellings to the North East and South with interstate 71 to the West and manufacturing uses further to the West. The applicant proposes to replace the existing parking canopy with a new solar carport over the same parking area. Variances are being requested to reduce the required open rear yard from 25% of the total lot area to 21% and to increase the maximum permitted building lot coverage from 50% to 71%. This property was a subject of CV 96-081, which allows the property to be utilized as school warehousing offices and equipment maintenance within R3 zoned property. Planning is supportive of the requested variances. Staff note the proposed solar carport will replace an existing parking canopy of similar size and location. Columbus growth strategy mixed use design guidelines recommend parking structures should not front primary corridors, but should instead be placed to the rear of development. Staff note the proposed drawings of the site plan are consistent with CGS design guidelines. Therefore, planning is supportive of the requested variances. Division of Traffic Management has no comment. The applicant informed staff that they had received unanimous approval. Right in this report, staff hadn't received the recommendation yet, but I have received it since. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances because the proposed parking canopy will be located in the same location as the existing canopy, but with the added benefit of helping the school district offset their electric demand by generating some onsite.

You have the recommendation of approval from I'm sorry, would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn David Hodge attorney for the applicant and I have been sworn.

You have the recommendation of approval from the city staff as well as unanimous approval from the area commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

Nothing to add, but happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from board members? No. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll address the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance, the answer is yes. Whether the variance is substantial, I would argue no. whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance i would say no whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services no whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction i would say Probably not, but we don't know for a fact. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance? I don't think so. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance? I would say yes. Would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question.

The question's been called.

Please call the roll.

Ms. Egelhoff?

I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Molucca?

I too agree with the chair and vote yes. Chair Jones?

Yes.

Variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

I just want to keep him on his toes. BZA 26-069 for 437 to 439 South 22nd. That was tabled. That was tabled? Okay, I'm sorry.

And so is the next 70?

Yep, I got that. I'm on 10.

We're on to Indianola.

BZA26-076 for 2626 Indianola. Well, hello there. Take your time. Would you please write your name on that sheet? Thank you so much.

PCA 26-076 for 2626. There's a lot of sixes in there. Indianola Avenue, located on the east side of Indianola Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of Arcadia Avenue, zoned AR1, and it's located in the University Area Commission. A 0.1-acre site is developed with a four-unit dwelling. Surround uses are primarily residential with a mix of single and multi-unit dwellings and an eating and drinking establishment to the northwest. The applicant proposes to replace the existing four-car detached carport with a new four-car detached garage. Experiences are being requested to reduce the size of a parking space from 8 feet by 18 feet to 8 feet by 17 feet 4 inches. To reduce the rear landscaped area from 5%, 224 square feet of the lot area to 3.6%, which is 163 square feet of the lot. And to reduce the number of required parking spaces from seven to four. Planning has no comments on this request. Division of Traffic Management has no comment. And the applicant was scheduled for the August 19th. I did receive their recommendation. Sorry, I'm trying to get the vote of that. They were approved.

Okay.

Staff recommends approval of this request since the new detached garage will be similar in size and location as the existing carport.

Okay. And so the trigger for the parking space is just because of code requirements, but they're not losing anything. It's the same amount.

Yeah, because it's new construction. It has to be brought into compliance. There aren't existing variances for the carport as it exists. Okay.

Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening.

Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

My name is Nancy Sofer, and I have not been sworn.

Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. Thank you so much. You have the recommendation of approval from the city staff as well.

I don't hear very well. Understood.

You have the recommendation of approval from the city staff as well as the University Area Commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to share with us? No. Thank you. Is there anything from staff? I'm sorry, from my colleagues? No. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? seeing and hearing none i'll review the duncan factors whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance the answer is yes whether the variance is substantial i would say no whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or very or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance i'd say no whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services i would say no Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, arguably no. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, not likely. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say yes. Would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question.

The question's been called. Please call the roll.

Mr. Malucka? Yes. Concur with the chair's analysis and vote yes.

Ms. Agelhoff?

I likewise concur with the chair's analysis and vote yes.

Chair Jones?

Yes. The variances are granted. Thank you so much. Good luck. BZA 26-080. I was going to say, that sounds familiar, too.

We're on to 12. Okay.

BZA 26-081. And just a note, Chair, this is a special permit. Okay, thank you.

BZA 26-081 for 5744 North Hamilton Road is located on the southeast side of North Hamilton Road, approximately 130 feet north of Tetland Field Drive. It's within the Northland Community Council and zoned LARO Limited Department Office District. The 10.6-acre site is developed with a religious facility. Surrounding uses include mixed commercial to the north and west, multi-unit residential to the east, and single-unit residential to the south. The applicant proposes to establish a portable building for coffee sales. This property was subject to CV10-021, which allows limited retail uses in the LARO Limited Apartment Office District. Planning has no comment as the Columbus growth strategy does not address requests for special permits. And with the walk up only service, all division of traffic management comments are resolved. The Northland Community Council recommends approval by a vote of 12 to five with the condition that the special permit is limited to two years. Staff can recommend approval as the special permit will not have an adverse impact on the subject site or the surrounding area. And we did not attach a condition.

Thank you very much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

My name is Jared Jacobus and I have been sworn.

Okay. Mr. Jacobus, you have the recommendation of approval from the city as well as the Northland Community Council partially. They did say two years. Do you have an intent behind how long you expect this building to be there?

Yeah, the goal is to create a customer base with the mobile trailer, lower cost entry into the market, and then find a retail location nearby that we can then move the cafe to permanently within about a two-year period.

So you would be applying for two years. You would like this to be two years?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Is there any thought from my colleagues as to whether or not two years is sufficient, or do we say three so he doesn't come back? preference either way okay i would feel more comfortable conditioning it not because northland community council did but because it's a special permit just like to see how things are are see how things are going i understand uh sorry is there an option if i needed one additional year to come back and apply for one more year I think that that's on the table. You could do that. All right.

Thank you. Reach out to your planner before the two years is up and let us know. And we would get you in front of the board in the preliminary matters in the beginning and do an extension. Okay. Thank you.

And again, I'm inclined to decide three years. Do you have that option if you want to just go ahead and approve it for three years? Yeah. What do you all think? I'm fine with that, sure. Okay. So we would put a time limit on it, a condition of three years.

That's totally acceptable.

OK. Well, I'm going to just read something here. Excuse me. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal for a special permit? OK. To grant special permits for uses listed in Chapter 3389, where it's shown that the special use can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, without substantial impairment of the general purpose and intent of the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and without significant incompatibility with the general character of the neighborhood. With that being said, would someone like to call the question with the two-year condition?

Three-year. Three-year, I'm sorry. Yes, I'll call the question with the three-year.

Question's been called. Please call the roll.

I concur with the chair and vote yes.

I likewise believe the applicant has satisfied the conditions for a special permit and vote yes.

Yes, special permit is granted for three years. Thank you. Good luck with your project.

BZA 26-083.

Um, twenty six dash zero eight three twenty one forty seven summit view road is located on the South side of summit view road approximately two hundred feet East of sawmill road Boulevard. Is zone residential and part of the far Northwest coalition of Columbus. The site is built with a single-unit dwelling and a detached garage. Surrounding uses are primary single-unit dwellings. The applicant proposes to construct an attached garage on the east side of the existing single-unit dwelling. The property also contains an existing detached garage approximately 65 feet behind the dwelling. The proposed attached garage and the existing detached garage will provide a combined garage area of 1,950 square feet. Variance is being requested to increase the maximum permitted garage area from 720 square feet to 1,950 square feet. Division of Traffic Management had no comments. The Division of Planning had no comments. And the Far Northwest Coalition of Columbus recommended approval with a vote of four to zero. Staff has also recommended approval as the property is sufficiently sized to accommodate the proposed attached garage. The garage will be compatible with the surrounding area and will not negatively impact the surrounding residential properties.

Chair. Thank you. And what's the square footage of the house?

I mean, it obviously looks big enough, but I just want it on the record here.

It's up for that reason.

That's the total you can say it's okay.

Well, would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

My name is Eric car off with J. Cale architects and I have been sworn and I can let, you know, that the existing house is currently 1588 square feet. We have a proposed addition that's going on. That's 280 square feet. Plus then the garage that we're hoping to be built onto it.

What's the size of the garage?

The new garage currently that we're wanting is 711 square feet.

I must be reading something wrong.

you want to create a garage that's 1950 square feet as well here it is well the problem is we have an existing garage that's back behind the house 65 feet that's the whole thing that triggered all this the new owners wanted a garage attached to the house currently it's like i say there's somebody in the past non-conforming had built a garage structure back there that's like 60 70 feet behind it they're wanting a new garage attached with the electric car charger and things put in it so they don't have to walk out in the rain to get into the house. That's attached. That's the proposal is to have an attached garage.

That'll be $1950.

No, that'll be $711.

The garage that's attached to the house will be $711. Yes. And you want a detached garage, which is $1950.

It's existing. We don't want it. It's there. When they purchased the property, it was already back there.

The existing detached garage is 1225, according to the auditor's website.

With the lean-to, yeah.

So that 1950 number is the combined total.

Of the structure. The detached garage and the attached garage. The proposed attached garage.

All garage space total.

Okay.

I think it's okay. Okay.

Do the numbers just sound high? And what I'm trying to reconcile in my mind is a house, you know, that's 1500 square feet and a 1900 square foot detached garage, which we would not allow under normal circumstances. And the fact that it's existing, what does my architect say?

I'm okay. It's going to be, again, it's a 1200 square foot garage. Detached.

with a lean-to, which makes it a structure.

They have a huge property, too. It's like two to three times the size of anybody around them. It's a very deep and wide lot.

Okay. All right. Any other questions? You have the recommendation of approval from city staff as well as the area commission. Is that a commission?

Yes, far north.

Far north coalition. Far northwest coalition. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

Not unless there's any other questions.

Okay. Any questions from board members? No. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, we'll review the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance, the answer is yes. Whether the variance is substantial, it does appear to be substantial, but considering the size and size how the site is developed and laid out, it is not. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether an adjoining property would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance, I would say no. Whether the variance would have adversely affected the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, not likely based on testimony. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, not likely. whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance i would say yes would someone like to call the question i will call the question question's been called please call the roll i agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes in favor of the variance i concur with the chair as well and vote yes chair jones I vote yes. It is approved. Good luck. Thank you. BZA 26-090 for 7439 Worthington, Galena.

7349 Worthington Galena Road is located at the northeast corner of Sankis Boulevard and Worthington Galena Road. It's part of the Far North Columbus Communities Coalition and existing zoning is M2 Manufacturing District. The approximately 4.36 acre site is currently developed with a religious facility. Surrounding uses include industrial warehouses and offices to the south and east and offices to the north and west. The applicant proposes to expand an existing religious facility use. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce the parking and circulation setback from 50 feet to 5 feet along Sankis Boulevard and Worthington Galena Road and to reduce the building setback from 50 feet to 14 feet along Sankis Boulevard. Previous case CV16-061 was passed by city council in 2016 to allow religious facility use in the M2 district, allow maneuvering across parcel lines, to allow specific parking spaces to span across parking lines, and to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces from 200 to 137. The Division of Planning is supportive of the requested variances. Columbus Growth Strategy Industrial Design Guidelines recommend parking should be located to the side of the building. When not feasible, these areas may be located between the building entrance and the public sidewalk, with landscaping and screening. Staff note the proposed landscape buffer between the car parking and Worthington Galena Road right-of-way. Additionally, staff notes proposed tree plantings throughout the existing parking lot. Therefore, planning is supportive of the requested variances. Staff notes that the land use recommendation was recently updated to industrial and warehouse as a result of the passage of Columbus growth strategy. That legislation took effect on Wednesday, February 25th, 2026. Staff note corresponding zoning as part of zone in economic and housing opportunity is still under consideration. The Division of Traffic Management has indicated that a right-of-way dedication of 50 feet from the center line along Sankis Boulevard and 50 feet from the center line along Worthington-Galena Road will be required per Columbus City Code 4309.17. The Far North Columbus Communities Coalition has recommended approval of the requested variances, voting 8-0 in favor. city department's recommendation is likewise that of approval staff recommends approval of the requested variances as the variances would result in a parking layout that is similar to surrounding office parks in the area the reduced setbacks for the expanded parking area are also mitigated by the inclusion of landscape screening and the inclusion of an ample number of parking lots shade trees on the site we do recommend the following condition however the that the applicant shall commit to the landscaping illustrated in the stamped site plan, which I will circulate here now.

Chair. Thank you very much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Kyle Campbell, I'm the architect of the applicant, and I have been sworn in.

Chris Passarge, I'm the owner of Crossroads Church, and I have been sworn in.

Okay, thank you. If you guys could take the time to sign in there. You have the recommendation of approval from city staff, as well as the Far North Columbus Communities Coalition. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? And again, want to probably get your consent for acceptance of the condition that was requested? You're good with that? Yes, sir. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

Nope, just happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you. Any questions from board members? There's nobody in the audience to speak about this case. Looking at the Duncan factors, whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance, I would say yes. Whether the variance is substantial, um, While the numbers are far ranging, I don't think it's substantial in the grand scheme of things. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, we can't say. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance, not likely. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance, I would say yes. Would someone like to call the question with the condition?

I will call the question with the conditions.

Question's been called. Please call the roll.

Clicker with the chair's analysis and vote yes.

I likewise concur with the chair and vote yes. Chair Jones?

I vote yes. Variances are granted. Good luck with your continued church. Thank you so much. Thank you. BZA 26-045 1401 Sullivan Avenue.

We still have Crosswick.

Oh. What?

Number 15?

I didn't see that. Hold on a second.

Is that you? Okay.

Is that you? Let's see. I thought I was at the end here. Oh, we had one more too. Okay, there it is. I think it's this right here, right? Okay. BZA 26-065-2247 Crestwick Street. Thank you.

These a 26 to 0, 6, 5, 4, 2, 2, 4, 7, Crestwick street is located on the West side of Crestwick street, approximately 185 feet East of South Hamilton road. It's part of the greater Southeast area commission and his own community activity center. The 4.7-acre site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding uses include mixed commercial and medical uses to the west, north, and south, manufacturing to the east, and multi-unit residential to the southeast. The applicant proposes to construct a four-story, 155-unit apartment building Variances are being requested to increase the maximum facade zone building setback from 25 feet to 65 feet, to reduce the required facade zone percentage from 60% to 37%, and to reduce the required ground floor transparency from 40% to 39%. Planning is fully supportive of the requested variances. Columbus Growth Strategy mixed-use design guidelines recommend buffering and screening should be provided between residential and non-residential uses. Staff continue to encourage preservation of the existing vegetation and mature trees along the eastern parcel line for additional naturalized screening from adjacent manufacturing, but do not condition support on this request. Staff note the proposed elevations are consistent with Columbus Growth Strategy design guidelines, and therefore planning is supportive of the requested variances. The Division of Traffic Management has no comments and the Greater Southeast Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of four to zero. Staff can recommend approval as the proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the Title 34 zoning district and will allow for appropriate infill development. The proposal is also consistent with the city's objective of creating more housing in all areas of the city.

I hate to do this, but can you share who the owners are and who's TWG?

TWG is an out-of-state affordable housing developer.

Okay. I'm only asking so I don't have any conflicts. I'm just trying to understand. Yeah.

And as far as the principles behind Plaza East Inc., I don't know who the individuals are. We've had no contact whatsoever with this particular property owner. We're working strictly for the applicant.

Chair, did you confirm David was sworn?

David Hodge, attorney for the applicant, and I have been sworn.

Thank you. I'm going to just go with it and say I don't have any conflicts. I mean, you can't articulate who it is, so I can't say with certainty that I would. So you have been sworn. You have the recommendation of approval from city staff as well as the area commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

Nothing additional to add. I might just say, and it's probably obvious from the exhibits that you saw, it's a super unusual set of circumstances here, essentially a landlocked parcel. This is a great use of the property and supported across the board. I would also add that it's a zoning attorney's happiest day when there's no one sitting in the audience behind him when he's presenting a case. as is the case tonight. So I'll stop there, Chair Jones, and answer any questions that any board member has.

Okay. Any questions from board members?

No.

Okay. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance? Perhaps. Whether the variance is substantial? I would say in the grand scheme of things, no. Whether the central character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance, no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction? Can't say with certainty. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance? Not likely. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance? I would say yes. That being said, there are no conditions. Would someone like to call the question?

I will call the question.

The question's been called. Please call the roll.

I agree with the chair's analysis of the Duncan factors and vote in favor of the variances.

I too agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes.

I vote yes. Variances are granted. Thank you. Thank you very much. Question for staff. I know that routinely you are calling these cases and if they don't come up, you table it. Is that correct?

That's what we have done.

Is there a consequence for the applicant, financial or otherwise, if they abandon it? If they say, we don't know if this person has decided to walk away. Is there a financial consequence by tabling it? Does it add it to their bill and do they get that?

Oh, no. It just becomes like they have to pay. You mean the tabling fee?

The tabling fee is added because we go through this exercise and they'd be penalized if they said we don't want it all together.

No, they would just have to pay. As far as I understand, they would just have to pay that fee in order to be heard again. So if they abandon it and walk away, it's not like they get a lien on their property or something. That being said.

The only other thing I could think of is if they have ongoing code things or something like that, there could be financial. But we wouldn't.

We wouldn't do anything extra. Okay. Well, that being said, we'll call the case. No one here to, you're not this case, right? Okay. No one else here to object to a tabling. Would someone like to make a motion to table?

So moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. Please call the roll.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Matter is tabled. Did you want something?

Say something, especially with Mr. Carty here that, I think is something that the city ought to consider and that the board ought to consider your, your process is a legal process. It's as we know, it's the, the Duncan factors. I have, it's always been somewhat of a mystery to me why we go to area commissions to have the area commission weigh in on something that is strictly a legal issue and. In the midst of the process, we're going through in the city with the zoning code rewrite. I'd love for the city attorney's office to do some analysis as to whether or not it's necessary that area commissions are a prerequisite to a hearing before the on a legal issue. I think I'm right about that. Maybe the, maybe that's not a popular thing from a policy perspective, but I think from a legal perspective, that's.

Just on the money well, this is casual conversation. Let me tell you, I'm opposed to it. Yeah. I weigh in. We have three to five minutes to hear this whole thing. There are people that have the opportunity to hear, take a much deeper dive into questions that are in the Duncan Factors.