Board of Zoning Adjustment - Special Meeting

Good evening. Thank you again for your patience. Um, welcome to the board of zoning adjustment meeting for December 16, 2025. I'll advise everybody that we hear a few different types of cases. We hear applications for zoning adjustment, special permits, as well as appeals. If you think you may uh testify this evening, I will swear you all in as a group. Please stand up now. 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. In hearing applications for zoning adjustment, each applicant will have five minutes to present their case. We'll ask if members of the audience in the community want to make any statements or comments, they'll have three minutes to do so. We ask that if you are doing that and your case or your um your point has been made multiple times, there's no need to reiterate the same thing. Uh simply share that you support the case one way or the other and that will be helpful for us to determine things on a board level. So, we'll get started. I'll ask staff if there are any preliminary matters.

Yes, Mr. Chair, uh three of the cases on tonight's agenda are going to request tableabling. Uh the first item on the appeals agenda uh BZA25-123 uh and then on the BZA agenda itself the ninth item for Galloway Road is BZA25-125. And then I believe the last one on the agenda, item number 17, uh BZA25-128. All three of those are requesting tableabling. What was the first case again? The first one on the appeals agenda, EZA25-123.

Okay. Will the parties in case BZA25-123 step forward?

Thank you. Would you all please indicate your names and confirm that you have all been sworn?

Okay. Uh, please turn on your microphone. Did you just push the button? Good. Mr. Humphre, I noticed you didn't stand when everybody else was being sworn. That's correct. Because I'm an attorney. Correct. I'm counsel for the the appellent. Okay. Go ahead. I'm Greg Hedrickk with City of Columbus Code Enforcement. Thank you. I am Michael Huggin. I am a supervisor for code enforcement. Thank you. Kyle Kirker. I'm a zoning specialist with code enforcement.

Okay. Thank you all. Uh who's requesting the tableabling and why? Uh the appellent's requesting a tableabling for the purpose of exp having some additional discussions with uh representatives of the city and obviously given the nature that this is an appeal from a zoning order and really haven't had the time uh or the opportunity to have those kinds of discussions that we'd like to pursue. Um based on our expectations, we'd like to look at a date in May. Um, so that's what we'd like to have it tabled out to. Okay. Thank you. Is there any comments from city staff here? Uh, we do not object.

Okay. And I don't think there are anybody there's anybody else in the audience that would be privy or party to this u appeal case. So with that being said, I'll look for a motion to table. So moved, second. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the role. Missoff? Yes. Mr. Mika, yes. Mr. Welley, yes. Chair Jones, yes. Case is tabled to the next available opportunity. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Stephen, can you check my

There's a couple others we can replace. He just wasn't up. Next, we'll call BZA25-125 for 100 Galloway Road. Please step forward.

Good evening. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Uh, good evening, Matt Beerline. I have been sworn. Okay. Thank you. And what is your request? Uh, we are requesting to table. Uh we had made a commitment to meet with the Westland Area Commission uh prior to coming to the BZA. With the meeting change and moving up, the Westland Area Commission is actually meeting tomorrow night. Um so it's simply just a matter of timing that would dictate us wanting to table into January. Understood. I don't think there's any We welcome and encourage that. So thank you for making the suggestion. Is there anyone would like to make a um motion to table? So moved and second. Been moved and seconded. Please call the role. Mr. MCO. Yes, Mr. Welley. Yes, Miss Agelhoff. Yes, Chair Jones.

Yes. Successfully tabled. Thank you. Thank you. Telling me I don't see a sign in sheet. Okay, [laughter] we need that. BZA25-128 for 2013 and 2019 East Fifth Avenue. Please step forward. Gary Dunn and I have been sworn in. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Please share your request.

Uh we're requesting to be tabled uh strictly my error. Um, we presented to the U, North Central area commission, but I misunderstood the communication about meeting with the uh, Shephard community. So, we failed to do that before our meeting. So, they failed to vote. So, we're going to hopefully be back here in January. Okay. Sounds reasonable to me. I'd look for a motion to um to table this matter. So, moved and second. It's been moved and seconded. Please call the role. Mr. Wley, yes. Miss Ageloff, yes. Mr. Malika, yes. Chair Jones, yes. Successfully tabled. Thank you.

And now on to our uh additional appeals case BZA25-123. Would the parties please step forward? Uh I think 123 is the one that got tabled. Oh, sorry. 126. 126. Good evening. Would you please share your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? City of Columbus code enforcement. Yes, I've been sworn. Thank you. Matthew Mercer with code enforcement and yes, I've also been sworn in. Thank you. Aaron Glasco, council for the uh appellant and I have been sworn in.

Thank you all. So with this, we typically hear uh of the case from the city uh code enforcement first. So, if you have any testimony that you'd like to provide, the only comment um may want to request tableabling as well. Yes, I wasn't mentioned, but I would like to request tableabling as well. Okay. So, this is a situation where the applicant got a variance a long time ago, but the position is there's no uh zoning clearance. Um I got the case fairly recently, so I'm trying to figure out how that happened. Um we didn't appeal a lot of the other violations, but we did appeal that basically give us time to figure it out. So, I'm still kind of in the process of figuring that out. Understood. Is there any objection from code enforcement? There is no objection. Okay. Seeing none, uh, I'd look for a motion to table. So moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. Please call the role. Uh, Miss Agelhoff. Yes. Mr. Malika. Yes. Mr. Watley. Yes. Chair Jones. Yes. Successfully tabled. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. BZA24-05481 Kings Creek Drive. Please step forward. All right. 1881 Kings Creek Drive is located on the south side of Kings Creek Drive, approximately 250 ft east of Gance Road. It is part of the Southwest Area Commission and the existing zoning is R2 residential district. The 0.14 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses include similar single-unit dwellings to the north, souththeast, and west. The applicant proposes to legitimize an existing deck, shed, above ground pool, and rear edition that was originally constructed without zoning clearance. The applicant is thus requesting variances to reduce the required rear yard from 25% to 6%. Increase the lot coverage from 50% to 69%. Reduce the minimum sideyard from 5 ft to 0 feet on the east side and 22 in on the west side. And to reduce the maximum sideyards from 10 ft to 22 in. Planning staff note that uh additions are placed to the rear and do not interfere with the Kings Creek Drive streetscape and are thus generally supportive of the requested variances. However, to mitigate the loss of rear yard, staff request a street tree be placed along the frontage. The Division of Traffic Management has no comments and the Southwest Area Commission has recommended approval of the requested variances, voting three to two in favor with the condition that a building permit be obtained for the structuring structures in question so as to ensure that they are structurally sound and meet city standards from a construction standpoint. Uh city department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff can

recommend approval as the requested variances would not alter the visual massing from the street. Furthermore, the inclusion of a street tree in the front of the property mitigates the loss of landscaping in the rear of the property. We do also agree with the area commission's recommendation that we are going to add the following condition that the applicant shall obtain a building permit retroactively for theruct structures that were originally altered or constructed without a permit. Chair, thank you so much. Is that even a thing? Get a retroactive permit.

It is a new thing. when I reached out to um building [laughter] I mean it's a fair point. Uh the structures in question are to built to such a degree that the fact that it was built without any sort of building permit. It's something we would want them to go back and check on. I checked with uh the building side of things. That's something that uh they're they're entertaining. So that that seems to be a solid condition we can place there. Okay. Thank you so much. Would you please indicate your names and whether or not you've been sworn? Um, Betty Griffin. I'm the property owner. Yes, I have been. Thank you. Robert Porter Old to do. Yeah, I've been sworn.

Okay. Thank you so much. Um, one quick question for you. You live in a in a area where there's an HOA or homeowners association, correct? Okay. You do? No. No homeowner association. Thank you. You can go ahead and present your case. you have five minutes to tell us why we should do what you're asking.

Um, she she has had this house uh these structures were built back in almost 25 years ago. Uh, the husband built them uh he passed away a couple years ago. Uh, this came up due to a a neighbor who used to be on the commission and uh is friends with the current zoning commission person. Okay. uh didn't like Betty, unfortunately. I think Bettyy's sweet, but uh didn't care much for Betty and decided to cause an issue. Uh this has been going on for almost 5 years. Uh the original complaint was back in 20 uh 20 21 21.

You're referring to code enforcement complaint.

No, from the from the commission and then Yeah, it's a it's a huge story. Uh we were told, and this kind of goes to what we were talking about. We were told over almost a year ago, that the only way that they would approve the letter was if we had a fire marshal from their fire department come in and verify that the place wouldn't burn down. Uh would not have a vote until we did. We tried multiple times in different ways to try to get in there to take, you [clears throat] know, to try to move this along. I've inspected every part of it. I've looked at pictures of the build. It is structurally sound. The the deck is basic as a uh everything is under 30 in. I don't see a problem with it passing inspection or passing uh a building permit occupancy. Uh the the retroactive thing I I went up there and told them, hey, you know, maybe we get a building permit and get it inspected. And they wanted to retroact. They really didn't have any idea about current code or how the process works. It was a it was a nightmare.

Okay.

But we did get it, you know, through so that we could get it through. And thank you so much for helping us. It's it's been quite a an event for her. Um the house itself is kind of like a Margaritaville in the back. It's beautiful. Uh wellmaintained. Uh solid. It's way overbuilt in my opinion, but um you know, it's her it's her little peaceful place and I don't you know, I don't think we'll have a problem getting uh the um occupancy passed. It's just a matter of I'm not sure what the retroactive thing is either. I mean, we could apply for a permit and then uh get an inspection, but the building has been built and it's done. Um, it's a it's a covered deck with a pool.

So, I think I'm seeing this a little differently now.

This is the structure. That is the cover of the deck. It's just just an open awning there. Yeah. The structure is um narrower on to the left of the picture. It was a freestanding deck uh less than 30 in. I I went and measured it. I I think that's why the husband never pulled a permit because he figured if it was under 30 in, you know, it was So for staff, this is a structure for our purposes, right?

Uh correct. This is this is why the um going back for a retroactive building permit is considered for this particular item because this isn't this isn't like a deck, right? This is something that has a roof that ties into the exist existing principal structure. So we did not feel anything affixed to the house requires a building permit. Correct. and we didn't feel comfortable recoming this to potentially go through and get zoning clearance without any sort of condition to go back and get a building permit that they were originally supposed to have gotten.

I'm I'm really trying to reconcile when we have historically approved or disapproved these cases. The lot coverage area is what I'm thinking of at this point. And this looks significant compared to what we have historically done. And we'll just continue on. But thank you for clarifying about the structure. We'll see if there's were you done with your presentation? Yes. Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Okay. Thank you. Anything from our um my colleagues?

I just have a clarification maybe to staff. Are you guys making a condition about the tree in the front yard that planning wanted? Uh, correct. We would actually add that as a condition. My apologies. That seems to have been Are you okay with that condition? I'm okay. I just never really got an answer. Who was supposed to am I supposed to buy the tree and install it myself or? Yeah, you you would reach out to the uh city forester. I can uh give you the I did that and they didn't get back with me. They did not. They did not. I have it in writing. [clears throat]

um go ahead and CC me on on or forward me that email chain and I'll ping them to make sure that they get you an answer because they're supposed to determine uh whether that particular uh tree lot can even uh u contain a tree. Sometimes the tree lots are so small that they wouldn't recommend a tree. So we defer to the city forester to make that recommendation. And so if they haven't made a recommendation, yeah, I will ping them to make sure they get

the question I asked them was that we have our storm drains coming out the sides of the yard. And then my driveway was damaged from a previous tree that I had there. So I had to redo my driveway and we took the tree down. Um, and I asked them if they were going to put it in a place where it was going to damage my storm drain again, which was crushed by that previous tree. And they said they would come out and they would measure it out and I didn't get any response back when they were going to do that. Got it. Gotcha. Well, like I said, please forward me and CC me on that communication so I can ping them. Okay. So, you're willing to work with the forest? Okay. I just want I just want to make it clear. Mr. Chair,

tickled to be here. Mr. Chair, if I could make a a suggestion, I think conditioning the vote upon this item seems problematic given the inactivity from the city forers's office as well as the possibility of some sort of storm water management system in that location. So, my suggestion is to either leave that condition off or condition it um if if uh you know if able or something like that at the recommendation of make best efforts. Yeah. Yep. We have it in the standardized language that the state forester. Okay. Any other comments from um board?

Okay. We'll go to look at the Duncan factors. The property in question certainly would yield a reasonable return um without the variance. The variance seems to be substantial. It will impact the essential character of the neighborhood while not um directly through visual driving down the street, but certainly by virtue of um lot coverage throughout the neighborhood. The variance would not likely adversely impact the delivery of governmental services the property owner purchased. We can't confirm whether or not the property owner purchased it with the knowledge of the zoning restriction. This cannot be obiated through any other method um than a variance. The spirit and the intent of the zoning requirement I don't think in fact would be observed and substantial justice uh would not be done necessarily by granting all of the variances. With that I'll call the question or would somebody else like to call the question?

I'll call the question. Question's been called again with the condition that the applicant will make reasonable efforts to consult with the city forester and emphatically work to get a retroactive permit for this for the entire deck or this structure because the deck is like I like he said under three feet for any work that was done that would have required a building permit. Okay. Is that clear for you? Yes. Okay, Mr. Malika, I concur with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Wley, I agree with the chair's assessment of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff,

I likewise concur with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mayor Jones, yes. The variances are approved. Please know that this is one approval. You do still have to get approval from the other parties. Thank you. Good luck. Is there a specific time frame we're working with? It's winter time now. Um, I don't know. I The BCA board order is good for a year. Um, but if you can demonstrate that you're making progress, that can be extended. So, what we need to do is get a building permit and yeah, if even if you just submit for the building permit, that would be sufficient. I'll do it tomorrow. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good luck.

Case BZA24-126 for 56 North Oakley Avenue. 56 North Oakley Avenue is located on east side of North Oakley Avenue approximately 350 ft north of West Broad Street. It's owned R4 residential and it's located in the Greater Hilltop Area Commission. The 0.23 acre site is developed with a single unit residence. Surround uses are all single unit homes. The applicant proposes to bring an existing 24 foot by 30 foot accessory structure into compliance and is requesting variance to increase the maximum square footage of garage space from 720 ft to 1,278 ft. [clears throat] C2P2 state the design and character of new development includes including homes, additions and garages should be appropriate and based on the principle nearby structures in terms of height, width, setbacks, lot coverage, roof pitch and other. The proposal is consistent with C2P2 design guidelines does not and does not substantially alter the character of the neighborhood and therefore supported. Division of traffic management has no comments. The Greater Hilltop Area Commission recommends approval of this request by 12 to zero and staff recommends approval of the quested variance because it will bring an existing building into compliance and will allow the property own property owner to store equipment and vehicles from view of the public.

Thank you. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? My my name is Stephen Caner and I have been sworn. Thank you. And when you get a chance, sign your name there. So, this was likely uh from staff. This was likely two parcels previously and they but they have they have been combined. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. You have the recommendation of approval from the city. Um, is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

When I originally had the building constructed, I did my online research and it was 720 additional square feet was the max that I could get. And so 24 by 30, that's 720. And then going back through, uh, come to find out, they didn't include my other garage into that 720 that was already on the the the lot. So, and then I had it constructed. You know, the area has a really high crime rate. So, anything that's not bolted down, locked up, and pretty much be stolen. And, you know, I guess that'd be the hardship is everything really has to be locked up in that area. Okay. Anything else? I

think I can pretty much cover it, man.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, any questions from my colleagues. Okay. Duncan factors the property would would and will yield a reasonable return without the variance. Is the variance substantial? Under some circumstances, yes, but because it is effectively two parcels, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or or other uh properties would suffer substantial detriment, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect delivery of governmental services, I'd say no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, I can say he did not know based on testimony. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than variance, I would say no. whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed based on it being again a double lot. I would say yes. With that, would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Welley, I agree with the chair's assessment of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Mala, I agree with the chair as well and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. Variances are granted. Good luck with your I guess you're done now, but enjoy your new home. Thanks for Thank you. BZ825-058579 Joyce Avenue. And just to note, commissioners, this has a special permit and a couple variances. Thank you.

BZA25-058 for 1579 Joyce Avenue. It's located on the southwest corner of Joyce Avenue and East East 17th Avenue. It's zoned M manufacturing district and it's located in the north central area commission. The 3.6 acre site is developed with an auto repair shop. Surround uses include a medical office building and a park to the north, a market and an auto repair shop to the east, an automo automobile salvage yard to the south, and recycling facility to the west. The applicant proposes to allow the existing car repair facility to also operate as a salvage yard. The applicant is requesting a special permit for an automobile salvage yard and variances to reduce the distance of a salvage yard from a residential parcel from 600 ft to 375 ft to the east and to reduce the distance of a salvage yard from any residential or institutional zoning district from 600 feet to 375 ft to the east and 60 feet to the north. The North Central plan states that landscape buffers uh must be provided between non-residential uses and that service areas must be fully screened by structures and/or landscaping. The applicant has revised the site plan to provide a 100% opaque fence and additional landscape screening between the fence and the rightway. Planning also encourages the salvage area to be set back from Joyce Avenue and East 17th Avenue frontages as much as possible. Therefore, planning is supportive of as the proposal is consistent with the north central plan guidelines. Division of traffic management informed the applicant that a rightaway dedication of 40 feet from center line of East 17th Avenue and 30 feet from the center line of Joyce Avenue would be required and that revisions to the config to the configuration of the fencing and gate at the secondary driveway to Joyce Avenue south of East 17th Avenue uh to ensure vehicles entering vehicles do not obstruct the rightway. These comments

have not yet been resolved but can be resolved during the final site compliance review process. The North Central Area Commission reviewed this application recommended approval of the request, but has presented to them that the special permit was only for a three-year period. Staff has not yet been provided a completed recommendation form for this application. But I did include in your packet uh email correspondence from the Department of Neighborhood confirming that this was heard and explaining the situation a little bit better. [snorts] [clears throat]

On that note, uh staff recommends approval of the request because there are other similar uses to the west and south and the property will be screened by way of a 100% opaque fence and vegetation. There are a couple conditions we are recommending. One, the special permit will be limited to three years from the date of this board order. Two, the applicant will commit to providing 100% opaque screening and a landscape buffer between the fencing and the rightway as requested by planning. And three, fencing and other private elements shall be removed from the area of additional rightaway to be dedicated to achieve 40 feet from the center line of East 17th Avenue.

Thank you so much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Gene Cabell and I have been sworn in. No, and I have been sworn in. Thank you very much. Did you understand the commission, excuse me, the conditions that were just spelled out and do you accept those conditions? Yes. Okay. You have the recommendation of approval from the city with the conditions presented as well as the North Central area commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

No, just only as it's to directly to the west, directly to the south is all salvage and co customers mistake the thing for one giant salvage yard. So, it's really not very good site for almost anything else. But what it what and it's also going to be if you can look at the screen behind the building to the north it's it's just kind of grassy and there's some trees around it. It's kind of blank. Doesn't have that a crosshatch right there. Yep. That's that's the the left side of that is where the salvage is going to start. So that's the 375 foot the closest house is to the east past a market that also sells tires. to the north is a park and there's people aren't hanging out right on the street when they're at the park. I've I've looked before. So,

it's um it's a good use. So, for right now and right now we're just looking for a window of three years and we can revisit that again in three years. Okay. Anything from you? No, I think that covers it. Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal? Please step forward. And would you all please sign your name on the sheet? Yeah. Would somebody make room for this young lady? I'm sure. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn?

Uh, good evening. My name is Asara Williams and I have been sworn in.

Okay. What would you like to say? Um so uh just some background from the hearing at the commission meeting. Um when it was proposed to us again it was submitted as a temporary salvage yard. Um I did reach out to director uh Tony Anthony Cibreezy and he advised us that the state of Ohio actually the city of Columbus does not issue temporary uh salvage permits um and neither does the state of Ohio. Um so this would be out of compliance for both. Um, just to bring that to everyone's attention, um, traffic management says that they do not have the rightway and the area commission did not vote on this. Um, therefore, if this is approved that it must adhere to the city code regarding the rightway. Um, currently they're using aluminum siding um, and not a chain link fence or a privacy fence for this property. Um and this must be something to be considered and must occur as a site plan states that they will need to asphalt the area in which the vehicles are stored. Um planning did not support this plan and this plan does not is not supported by the north central area commission plan. Um most

it was not supported by

the area our community plan. this is not in accordance with our community plan and um several commissioners was actually absent for the vote um when this vote took place. Um it was three in favor, two against, one opposed. Um so again, I wanted to make you aware that planning did not support this and the north central plan states that the landscape buffers must be provided between the non-residential and service areas and they must be fully screened by structures and landscaping. Um such planning has requested updated screening in the form of 100% opaque like what they've mentioned. Um and we want them to use like the existing uh lines on 17th and Joyce. Um but as this is residentially zoned, it's imperative that we keep the 600 ft from the residential and not reduce it to the 300 ft. Um the setback is necessary as a body if the body decides to move forward. Um, I also want to make everyone aware that Mayor Gther has dedicated this community to be a net zero neighborhood and such if this goes forward, this is putting harmful environmental uses within the American edition particularly in our golf park communities. Um,

do you have a role on the area commission? Yeah. What is your role? I'm the vice chair. Okay. Um, and you said they that you said they did vote or did not. So, there was a vote. Um, and when the vote was presented, it was prevented presented as a temporary salvage yard for three years, but upon further research, and I do have the email from Anthony Cabreezy, who I heard you. I'm just trying to clarify. So, you're not saying that there was no vote. Yeah, there was a vote, but on something that you don't agree with. Correct. And also, like I said, there were multiple commissioners that were absent at that particular meeting, but um the vote was called. Okay,

so I do want to make that clear. The vote was called and it was in it was 32 in the favor of the temporary salvage yard, but I want to make the point clear that the city nor the state allows that. Well, this is a special permit to be clear. It's not a permit to necessarily um what did you describe a salvage permit or a salvage? Yeah. Yeah, a temporary salvage permit yard in for this property. That's what they're wanting.

We have the ability to do issue special permits. That's what this body does. And we also have the right to limit how long it exists. And we typically do that in protection of people that are in the community to make sure that the behavior and the conduct is all appropriate so that if they're not, in my opinion, we have the opportunity to not extend or renew a special permit. But we do absolutely have the authority. So perhaps there was some confusion with you and Mr. Celibreezy.

Okay. Um also in regards to this particular uh zoning or permit that is being requested um it was initially presented as it was going to be sold. The property was going to be sold. That's what they came to us as a commission. So if they do sell the property in between, is it going to is it going to transfer or is it going to continue to be that temporary salvage yard is a question that I have for you guys. What we do follows the land. So whatever we approve or disapprove would stay with the property.

Okay. And then um I've also you know they stated like in multiple their site plans that it was going to have an opaque fence so no one can see to report it. Um, so I would like to have like a detailed plan not only for my community but the area commission like is uh code still going to be responsible to make sure that they adhere to uh not being in violation because how can they see it if it's blocked?

Sure. So to address that the purpose of the shielding is to protect like you said the residential and the visual aesthetic around the property not necessarily to shield activity. uh the code enforcement folks will certainly have access to the property to identify any code violations. So I don't think that that will be an obstruction that keeps him from being able to do that. Okay. Um, so another thing that I kind of wanted to address and question, like you said, if the property is sold, then do they, the new property owners, would they have to come for another land use to come back before this board or would they carry out the remainder of the three years?

We could only speak to what we'll approve or disapprove today. And I can't tell you what a new owner would have to do. If they do have a change of use, uh, they would have to come in and make application to change the use. Yes. Okay. But I don't I don't know anything about a sale. Again, that's so far into the I don't even know if that's going to happen. So, let's talk let's be laser focused on these requests if you don't mind.

Yeah. Um, I also kind of wanted to bring to your attention that there was a potent uh a petition that was signed by the residents of American Edition Argal Park that were against it because what the Argal park commissioner voted in support of it and then the ATL two atlarge people voted in support of this particular project. So, the residents of their respective neighborhoods signed a petition stating that they are not for it and I do have that document with me. Thank you so much. If you'd like, you could provide that to staff and they'll give it to us.

Is there not yet, maybe in a second. Is there anyone else from the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Okay. Ma'am, would you make sure to sign in on the sign-in sheet if you haven't? Yes, ma'am. Please do respond to the comments. Well, they're not in any particular order. Um, it did have a previous salvage license that expired a while back. So, that's a license for salvage goes to the state of Ohio by the owner of the salvage yard or operator of the salvage yard, which does not connect to the zoning. So, it could still say a salvage yard with the new owner. Right now, the owner who's had it quite a long time is not planning on selling at the previous potential customer dropped out. Okay, that's one thing. Um, it's not so it's not being sold. I mean, code enforcement is allowed to go on to properties if there's complaints. So, and the gates can be, you know, they're going to be able to see it and they do come by and check. The vote was three yes, two no and one abstension. And that did make a quorum. So, at that meeting, they did want to try to change it and table us this month and come back in January, but Shannon Pine said, "No, we go forward with this." Um, special permits, like you had said, can have conditions. I've been here before with other projects and you know there's time limitations. There's you add in things like you need to add a tree, you know, all those kind of things. The asphalt that they're parking on is already there. They're not going to be parking on gravel or dirt. Um and they of course the air commission did vote the fences to be replace it with opaque. And then this is zoned M. So there's a lot of more noxious uses than a salvage yard. It's like everything from animal hus, you know, meat packing, you name it. There are only two houses within 600 foot of this property and they're to the east and there's buildings in between this property and also to the two buildings of this parcel that face uh

Joyce. There's going to be a fence put up between the two buildings and also a gated fence to the south of the south building. So you're it's not going to look any different than it does right now in terms of visibility. And there also are not going to be stacking cars and one on top of each other like some yards do, you know. And we can make that a condition of this as well too. One car stacking. No, no stacking of vehicles, but heightwise. Yes. Are there any existing uh requirements for a salvage yard with height? Is it 10 feet? I know we do with storage piles and different things like that. No. Yeah, that would fall under the outdoor storage uh requirements.

Okay. And and what is our limit? Uh we can look that up. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, but we're not planning on doing there's quite a bit of land there. Um so let's see the rightway. I was told I I was confused that and then Mr. Medley said we can take care of the rightway dedication during the final site compliance which we still have to submit separate from this after this is gone through then I can put the text on the site plan send it in for final site compliance work with the rightway and you know determine what it is that we need to do. So that's I think I covered everything. Okay about it.

Thank you. Um, so I I see a hand go up in the audience and I I had asked if there were additional comments and nobody spoke up. If you really have something that is different than what has already been presented, I will allow you to come forward just to make that known. Is that the case? Yes. What is your name? And please indicate whether or not you've been sworn.

Yes, I have been sworn in. My name is Douglas Fian. I am the property manager slashmanager of the of the dwelling and we have since since we put in this application we've cleaned a lot. This is not aluminum siding fencing. It is heavyduty stainless steel fencing. We have cleaned back away from the fence. We have added additional five to six inches of of uh grindings to the grass areas. I mean, some of the things was just seemed like it was false saying what our property is. Property is very clean. We do not stack cars. Uh, like I said, I've been there for almost 20 years. We keep it up with the city coordinates. Uh, all our city coordinates, every time they come in, I welcome them. We have, you know, just we had a our salvage license three years ago from Ohio. We're just trying to get it back.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is that it? Okay. Uh I don't know if we should take the special permits separately.

And with that being said, I will read the statement. Board of zoning adjustment shall have the power to grant special permits for uses listed in chapter 3389 where it's shown that special use that the special use can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without substantial impairment of general 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. And I would say um that that is the case. Additionally, to grant special permits for the relocation or expansion of non-conforming uses where it can be shown that the relocation or expansion of the non-conforming use can be granted without substantial impairment of the general purpose and the intent of the underlying zoning district and without significant incompatibility with the general character of the neighborhood. No expansion of a non-conforming use shall exceed 50% of the total floor area the of the non of the original non-conforming use occupied. Next, to impose such such requirements and conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of the zoning code and otherwise safeguard the public safety and welfare, which would be, I'd say, our limitation of three-year permit. Upon application, the city attorney, excuse me, upon application by the city attorney to revoke any special permit whose condition has been violated after and the opportunity to conform have been given. With that being said, I'd look for somebody to call the question.

Question or the special permit, sorry, with the conditions as outlined. Call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Real quick before I do that, uh just to answer your previous question, uh materials shall not be piled higher than 10 feet except that metals that are being processed or reprocessed on site may be piled to a height necessary for the effective functioning of the processing or reprocessing processing equipment. So 10 feet in height. Thank you. So that is the standard. Mr. Chair, if I could, just for the record to be clean, since we're only addressing the special permit, I believe the only condition of the special permit is that it's limited to three years. Correct. Thank you.

Uh, Miss Agelhoff. Um, yes, I find based on the testimony um and as read by the chair that the special permit is appropriate in this case. Mr. Malco, I uh to concur with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Wedley. Yes. Chair Jones.

Yes. The special permit is granted with the limitation of three years. Additionally, the additional um two variance requests 3389.07 sorry 3363.41 and 3392.12. Um I'll address the Duncan factors for this. Where are they? Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable turn um without the bene beneficial use of the variance. I would say unlikely based on the current surroundings and the existing u historical use. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Considering um what the proximity is to the residential area and the barriers between them. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered uh or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, I'd say no. whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. I would say I can't assert that they um had knowledge prior to their purchase, but based on the testimony from council that they have owned the property and are well aware of the restrictions for zoning. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obiated through some method other than variance, I would say no. whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and sub substantial justice done. I would say yes. With that, would someone like to call the question with the condition presented?

I'll call the question with the conditions. Please call the role. Mr. Malika, concur with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Welley, I agree with the chair and vote yes. Missoff, I agree with the chair's analysis of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Jones, yes. Your variances are granted. Good luck with your continued business. Thank you all. Stay here because I got the next one. Okay. BZA25-086 for 421 South Glenwood Avenue. Parties, please step forward.

It's quite nice of you to schedule them right in a row. You're welcome. Merry Christmas. Happy holidays. Nice. I appreciate it. You're welcome, Jean.

EZA25-086 located at 421 South Glennwood Avenue. It's located on the southwest corner of South Glenwood Avenue and Campbell Avenue. Zoned R4 residential and is within the boundaries of the Franklin Area Commission. The 0.07 acre site is developed with a single unit dwelling. surrounding uses are primarily single-unit dwellings on similarly sized residential lots. The applicant proposes to construct a rear room addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Variances are requested to reduce the parking setback from 10 ft to 3 ft to reduce the clear vision triangle on the northeast corner from 30x30 to 12 ft x 12 feet and to reduce the clear vision triangle on the northwest corner from 10 x 10 to 4t x 4t. Planning has reviewed the updated files and is now fully supportive of the request. Division of Traffic Management has no comment and the Franklin Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of 10 to zero. Staff can recommend approval of the requested variances as the requested variances are modest and will not substantially alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed rear addition is compatible with the surrounding residential context and is consistent with Columbus citywide planning policies residential design guidelines which support additions that align with the height, width, setbacks, lot coverage, and overall form of the nearby homes. Therefore, city department's recommendation is for approval.

Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Jean Cabrell and I've been sworn in. Timothy Valentine. I've been sworn in. Okay. Thank you. You have the recommendation of the city staff as well as the area commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? No, I'd like to get building. Okay.

It's just a really skinny lot. It's 19 foot in the back width and 26 in the front and um the vision triangle is only because the existing house is already there and it would encroach in the 30 by 30 since it's on a corner. And the other was we need some parking and a little corner of the parking. It's just going to be a parking pad um in the back is going to be little clip there, you know, but it's still there's still a lot of room between the property the property line and the edge of the roadway. So people will be able to see coming out of the alley.

Okay. Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Okay. Okay, seeing and hearing none. Anything from my colleagues? Mr. Chair, one of the things that the area commission did suggest in its 100 votes uh was that no permanent structure, temporary or permanent structure be built on the parking pad. Do we want to make that a condition of approval of the variances? You could still put a onecar garage and not encroach in the vision triangle. So just so it wouldn't encro you could say so it does not encroach in the vision triangle that'd be a good condition

beyond what we're approving. You mean I I don't Can you clarify? They just didn't want people if they built on on top of in the record the vote for the um area commission in the 100 approval on September 9th included that uh the list basis for recommendation was conditional approval only approved with condition that no temporary or permanent structures be built on the parking pad. We're okay with that. It seems a bit restrictive to me and I appreciate that you're willing to do that but again because what we do follows the land. I'm a little concerned about that.

What if we just say it just can't encroach any permanent? We weren't going to build a foundation underneath that parking pad. He was we're just going to thicken the edge so it wouldn't somebody'd have to rip it up and go in for a permit later if somebody else down the road owned it. Mr. Chair, I would suggest adding the condition. Um, reason being, usually the way we treat area commission recommendations is if if they make a conditional vote and then the applicant doesn't satisfy those conditions, the vote becomes a a disapproval. Oh, okay.

Um, in this scenario, I get that it's restrictive not to build on top of that. But if that's the condition the area commission placed on it, um, you know, it's your discretion, but I I would add that condition. the uh I I think that I appreciate the um the comments from the area commission and respect them tremendously, but because it is so self-limiting, I'll defer to you all, but I'm I don't think I'm on board with that because if it can be built and still have the same uh limitations that we're approving here today, we're approving it. if if you guys are going to make a decision to approve it based on nothing being there, but I think that we should be approving it based on potentially something being there. And with that in mind, Mr. Blechmidt, would that change your opinion of this or your staff's opinion if there were a structure built there?

Um, I mean, perhaps slightly, but you still a parking of a vehicle parking in that area can obstruct visibility just like a building. Uh so there there's not that much difference in between um um a building and and and a parking both is at a low height and could obstruct sight lines similarly. Okay. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, I'm not advocating one way or the other. I was worried more that it would uh create their approval to a disapproval as staff had indicated. So I am I'm kind of with you on that. That seems very aggressive, but I wanted to note it because the record had it noted. No, I appreciate it. Are there comments from my colleagues, other colleagues that you have an opinion that you'd like to see that added as a restriction or a limitation? Okay. Condition.

Okay. Yeah. I think that again, just to speak generally to it, we do welcome and encourage and respect the area commission's uh comments and their vote, but our vote is our vote and our conditions are our conditions. And I feel like that's since it follows the property, it's it's far too limiting. And we have testimony from um our staff of traffic management, director of traffic management, who's indicated that he would not likely be swayed by a structure being there that an existing car parked in that same area would provide a similar restriction and they have already approved that. So that being said, um I think I've already read these Duncan factors. Did I already read them for this property? I know you're here. You're what's confusing me like if I've read these already. So, [laughter] have we and we I've asked people in the audience. Nobody.

I think you did. So, how did we get on this far already? We did two already. The other ones

you shared. Okay. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, are there any additional comments from colleagues? Okay. So Duncan factors, whether the property will yield a reasonable return, whether the variances can be beneficial or excuse me, whether there can be beneficial use without the variance, I would say yes. Whether the variance is substantial, I'd say no, considering that they are somewhat existing limitations and conditions. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with a knowledge of the zoning restriction, I cannot say. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than variance, I would say only by tearing the property down. Whether the spirit and intent of the behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done, I would say yes. That being said, would anyone like to call the question?

Questions been called. Please call the role. Mr. Wley, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Malcoa, I concur with the chair and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. Variances are granted. Good luck. Thank you very much.

BZA25-071 for 6252 Sawmill Road. Would the parties please come forward? All right. 6252 Sawmill Road is located on the east side of Sawmill Road, approximately 400 ft south of Martin Road. It's part of the Northwest Civic Association and the existing zoning uh CAC, Community Activity Center District, one of the new Title 34 districts. The 21.94 acre site is developed with two commercial strip centers and a standalone eating and drinking establishment. To the north, south, east, and west are similar commercial strip centers and eating and drinking establishments. The applicant proposes to construct a drive-through coffee shop and request variances to increase the maximum setback of a side street from 25 ft to 400 ft to reduce the minimum required facade zone from 60% to 4% along the front street uh which would be Sawmill Road and from 50% to 1.8% 8% along the side street which would be Martin Road to reduce the front streets facade transparency requirement from 60% to 18% to allow an accessory walk-in cooler to be placed in front of the principal building. increase the shop frontage type maximum base bulkhead from 32 in to 36 in and to reduce the required percentage of landscaping along a front or side street outside of the seven brew lease area from 70% to 0%. The Northwest plan notes that drive-through uh pickup windows and coverings should be located to the rear or side of the principal building and that buffering of adjacent uses should use elements such as existing and new

vegetation, fencing, masonry walls, and mounting. Uh the plan also states that street trees should be provided as part of new developments per the city forers's recommendation. As such, planning notes that the proposed design of the building is consistent with the plan recommendations, but requests that street trees be provided if recommended by the city forester. Staff note the proposal is located within a title 34 district. Accordingly, to maintain alignment with the policy direction established by city council to promote walkable and mixeduse development, staff applies a higher level of scrutiny to variance and reszoning requests in these areas. In addition to adopted land use plan and design guidelines, the Division of Traffic Management has indicated that a ride-of-way dedication of 80 ft from the center line of Sawmill Road will be required per city code section 4309.17. The site plan appears to demonstrate this area of additional ride-of-way dedication which will need to be completed prior to approval of the final site compliance plan. The Northwest Civic Association has recommended approval of the requested variances voting unanimously. Uh city department's recommendation however is of disapproval. Uh staff recommends disapproval based on the following Duncan standards. Uh one for beneficial use without the variance. Uh city stances that yes the site is uh not of a particular shape, size or condition that would preclude a code compliant beneficial development. So there would be beneficial use without set variance. Uh two, is the variance substantial? City also says yes. While the variances to shopfront and general requirements are slight, the other variances being requested to building placement, facade, and landscaping all require a minimum requirement by or increase a maximum requirement by more than uh half. That's

uh three. essential character of the neighborhood altered. As the neighborhood exists currently, the character would not be altered. However, the goal of bringing the site into the community activity center is to evolve the character of the area into a mixeduse and walkable environment. New development should reinforce pedestrian and transit access. Uh four, governmental services affected. No. Five, knowledge of zoning restriction. Uh it is unknown whether the uh requirements were known. Uh six predicament uh can be feasibly obiated without a variance. Yes, the variances are necessitated by the proposed site layout and building design not by site conditions that would preclude development without set variance. And finally, seven, spirit and intent uh/substantial justice. Uh the city's position is no. The spirit and intent of the newly adopted code, which is to encourage a mixeduse and walkable environment that reinforces pedestrian and transit access, would not be observed to the predominantly autooriented design of this proposal. Chair,

thank you so much. Uh, would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Excuse [clears throat] me. Alan Wy, yes, been sworn. Matthew Amoth, yes, been sworn. Jack Reynolds, I've been sworn.

Thank you. So, you do not have recommendation of approval from the city of Columbus, and you've heard obviously why. They have the same Duncan factors that I have. You're going to basically have to let us know why we should think differently than they do. Um, so that being said, please appreciate your time. Uh first we'd like to start out and introduce um ourselves and who we are as as a company. Um so we're Seven Brew Coffee. It is a um coffee and drink. There's no food. It's a double drive-thru in a 510 foot building. Um again, we serve um coffee, drinks, teas, uh shakes, smoothies. Uh we currently have uh about 22 locations open in Ohio uh and 42 locations open nationally. uh opening another 40 next year. Uh this has got us very um familiar and consistent with um our operations um and and getting these um projects and sites to run um in a very systematic um approach. We pride ourselves on speed um on your the experience and the quality of our product. Uh most of the time you get two out of the three, but our niche is having all three. Uh we've been working on this project with the property owners for two and a half years now. Uh we're working with the city uh for a little bit over a year at this point. Uh we've had multiple meetings with uh different variations uh and boards within the city to try to make sure we put our best foot forward um with with the project. We understand um the difficulty in nature with the the new code uh in in the standards uh that's put in front of you today. Uh but we believe that um we are

going to bring um uh not just a a product in the area that's needed uh would be a beneficial to the area but also would help improve um the line of sight um the the curb appeal. Um we did a extensive landscaping plan. Um there is walkability here. We've connected to the sidewalk, added a picnic table um underneath um our canopy uh to allow for the connectivity with the community. Um we've also incorporated and I'm sure we'll get to this later as well, but uh we've incorporated the West Case um sheep farm

euro on the side of our side of our building. Uh we got this when we met with the area commission um and understood that it was um a a called a sensitive topic for people in the area and wanted to give ode um to that um based off of our meeting with the commission. Sorry, I don't understand that at all. The there we go. Uh what the uh seven brew folks have done is they have committed to uh paint this mural on the side of the cooler building as an homage. Okay. To the OSU uh sheep farm.

And and again they went through again what this will look like along the uh SE sawmill corridor vision truck, you know, drive vision. And so the the area commission thought this would be a nice nod to I understand now. I'm sorry. Thank you. Sorry I didn't describe it well enough. My apologies. Um but yes, thank you for that. Yes. Is that it?

Uh I'm happy to answer any questions that that anybody has um for the board. But we uh again we want to come into the community. We are already a member in this community. We live in this community. Um, we we want to be um like you put our best foot forward. We always pick a local charity when we open um open a business. I know people come in front of you all the time and tell you that they're going to be a member of your community, especially from, you know, the retailer world. Um, but we've walked that walk and we have we've talked that talk, but we've also walked that walk and we'll continue to do so. Thank you.

Thank you. What I' I'd like to do is I would like to uh disagree with the uh the comments that the city made in terms of the Duncan standard. Uh what what we found as these folks went through uh the chapter 34 application to this site, the site is actually 21 acres in size. The frontage is 812 feet in length. So when you look at the application of the chapter 34 development standards on this size of a building in a 21 acre uh property that already has four buildings with approximately 170,000 square feet. uh what you're trying to do is to uh overlay or or place those chapter 34 standards on this little building within a larger context. And so what what what we're finding is is that when you overlay or we try to build a building uh within the the parameters of the the chapter 34, we get these huge variances. And that's that's what you're seeing in terms of uh their uh application to the Dun Duncan standards to this site.

I question for you. Yes, sir. So, this is um a separate parcel. It is not. Well, that's why they do that. That's right. And so, who's the owner of this parcel? FB Filillmore LLC. And these gentlemen are leasing the property from the owner. And so therefore it's it the problem being is that it is not a standalone parcel. So the the problem becomes you're placing this very small building within a larger context.

Agreed. But if we don't, that means when we apply this this condition or these standards, whatever we vote on tonight to the parcel, we're we're gifting somebody to do that additional frontage that you're describing all of those freedoms, if I'm not mistaken. Can staff clarify that for me? No, it it's only particular to this application. The variance is only for this parcel, not to wave it for the entire area along the sawmill corridor. Well, I'm I'm not speaking to the entire corridor. I'm speaking to the parcel. Yeah. That includes this entire blue area. Is that correct? Correct.

That Yes, that would. And so, if I'm not mistaken, Cherry, you're just talking about the smaller blue inlet, right? I realize the what they're referring to their their project what I'm speaking to is our approval and to the point that the city's making is it refers to that entire parcel. So if we were to say yes for example that entire frontage while it's not your intention would be granted to the owner of this parcel. Is that not correct? What is what is the application state staff? Is it just to this inlet parcel? Well, we were just discussing it's not a separate parcel.

I get tax ID purposes. It's all one parcel, but what does the application stay say? Is it carving out this little inlet? I don't know how you could. No, the application is for one parcel. It's 590-158966. And the area the acreage for the site is it's 21.94 acres. So that would suggest to me that this is it is the entire parcel here.

Was there confusion on the application part that this was only to apply to the blue inlet? Because I agree with staff if the tax ID parcel is referred to then there is a concern there. So I mean I basically you're saying don't count this count us responsible for this entire parcel and make these numbers so dramatic and drastic but it affects the entire parcel and what I would I mean the the intention is and and what staff has looked at is not the entire parcel basically what the staff has done is they have looked at the lo the building itself and as it is located there along Sawmill Road. They have not gone out and and applied the variances to the entire parcel. It's just to the building itself.

You're saying that, but I'm saying that when we say yes, it's going to apply to the parcel. Well, I mean, what we could do is is have you stamp the site plan with the building as it's located on the parcel and the variance only applies to the building as requested. And again, I don't want to belabor this, but to staff, we've had these cases and they are in part why you feel the way that you do and why these numbers, in my opinion, are so drastic. We need to figure that out. You know what I Because if to me if we say yes if we say yes and we approve it based on this sliver y

what happens to the rest of that what happens to the rest of this entire frontage around Martin and sawmill it to me has a free pass it becomes a lot of litigation that you have to untangle but we need to figure out how we can apply things to say you know whether it's 50% of this section and then when the next person comes in and designs their building next to that we hold them to that same standard so that you can more easily say yes and it doesn't look silly when we say something different from this body. So I would ask that we figure that out but in this short term what am I going to do here? What can we do legally? Can we stamp the site plan and say that it's applicable exclusively for this section?

Yeah, I think you can make it a condition with the site plan site plan. I'd also just like to I appreciate the conversation, but also like to mention when we went through this, we did try to adhere to as much as we could the the the larger holding us to the larger portion and we did get the property owner to agree for the taking on the front edge all the way up to Martin Road um that goes um well past um our site. So, there will be a a frontage taking that we've gotten the property owner to agree to to that portion as well. Well, I [laughter] well that

let me go back and simply say the the the from the get-go staff has done the variances based on the location of the building as it as it has been designed on Sawmill Road. So if the concern is what are we granting the variances to, we can simply ask that you all stamp the the site plan that's presented this evening because staff has worked with the uh seven brew people based on its location along Sawmill Road within the context of the larger uh property. And your client just indicated that now they have all the way up to Martin.

No, we we don't we don't have that, sir. Our our defined premise is is what you see there outline. What did you just say then? I'm sorry. We're dedicating right away. As a part of the the the ask from the city. They wanted us to dedicate right away. Yeah, we're doing that. What I my purpose in just saying that was that we got the property owner outside of our premise to agree to give that taking as a part of the condition of of this. Okay. So again, we're here asking for variances based on the location of the building presented to you all this evening, not to the overall u heck of a lot more variance as I

and I understand that and as long as we can denote that on the site plan and we're protected from our standpoint, I think that's fine. Is there anything additional right now?

I I just would like to I agree. You know what I would say is, you know, when you look at the Duncan standards, I don't think that the variances are are substantial. I mean, we again, we're being placed within the context of chapter 34. And if you were to build a building based on the 812 linear feet of Sawmill Road, uh you would have a gigantic building. uh you know when when you know we look at chapter 34 we are working through some of the new elements in in involved in that new chapter and this property was placed on in that CAC category and what you know we're struggling with is uh the application of those standards to this small building is all and so you know obviously Obviously, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be check altered by the granting of the variance. Uh government uh services would not be altered. Uh the the seven brew folks have come in and worked. They they weren't aware of it when they started the project. It started two years ago and it was started under the old elements uh under the old chapter 33 and with the adoption in 2024 all of a sudden they had new uh new uh standards to work with and so um they cannot move forward without the variance. It's it's just not feasible.

Understood. And so uh would sub would justice be served? I would say yes. Okay, thank you. Are there any folks from the audience who would like to step forward? Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Good or good evening. My name is Monica Tuttle. I have been sworn. Okay.

Um I am the zoning chair for Northwest Civic and um I know that you've seen me before. I'm typically not in support of autooriented um proposals. In this case, we are absolutely in support. This is the type of infill that we are looking for. Unfortunately, um to get infill on these parcels is very difficult given chapter 34 and the new requirements that are on there. We have not been able to find many people who are interested in redeveloping the entire site, especially because most of the CAC properties within our district have at least one large anchor tenant who exists there and they're looking for outbuilding infill, which is not possible, unfortunately, under the way that Chapter 34 is is currently written. Um, when the applicant first came to us, it was primarily a drive-thru facility. We worked with them extensively. I don't know if you've looked at the site plan in detail, but we work with them extensively. They added a walkup window. They added substantial um uh windows on the sawmill frontage to increase the transparency. They can't meet the requirement just based on the fact that there are bathrooms in a cooler. And I don't really think that we want full height windows in a bathroom and a cooler. There isn't really anything in there. But they added um they moved outside of their typical plan and they added substantial windows. They added a walk up counter. They added outdoor seating and actually a covered seating area as well as they added um they committed to a sidewalk that connects to the closest parking spaces. So although there is an audio oriented use, we feel very strongly that they are doing as much as possible to tie it into the community and we're really hoping that this is as opposed to the straw that breaks the camel's back. We're hoping that this is the the first straw that brings the other camels to eat or something along those lines that if we get something closer to sawmill, we can

increase the interest and we can get more infill. And the hope is we won't need additional variances along SAMO because other other smaller parcels or they're not parcels but other smaller infill will be developed that we can meet that those requirements. Um I will note that the enormous setback is because they are at the corner of two intersections and so we're looking at a 400 foot setback not from Sawmill but from Martin. They are very close up to Sawmill. closer up to Sawmill than anything else in that area. They are close to some of the proposed stops on the link. One of the larger um stops that's been proposed is just south of here. So, we really do feel that this is something that would add to the community. Um in additional uh or in addition to that addressing the Duncan factors, these small outlying areas can't otherwise be utilized. They can only be utilized as a parking lot or developed in full. And so the only way that there can be a reasonable return on any of these outlining areas based on chapter 434 and this is one of our big oppositions to the way that the chapter 34 was written and adopted is that we won't bring development to this area. And so we really don't feel that this property, the entire parcel can be developed um can yield a reasonable return without allowing these variances for these smaller portioned out. The variance while it seems substantial is not substantial given the uphill battle that the applicant is working against where the numbers are for that entire sawmill um uh sawmill frontage and the numbers that they first came to us with were substantially they were even greater variances and they've worked very hard to reduce their variances I believe twofold with regard to the transparency. Um, there were a couple of other things that they worked.

Um, okay. So, and and the fact that they purchased this before chapter 34. So, they didn't purchase anything. I'm sorry. I'm uh the property owner did purchase the Oh, I thought you were talking about No, no, no. This parcel was purchased, the overall parcel, the 21 acres was purchased prior to chapter 34 adoption. And so, you know, whatever they had hoped to develop at that time, the the current um the current rules wouldn't apply to that. So, any infill that they had contemplated at that time wouldn't have applied.

Okay. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Okay. Seeing and hearing none, um there were no comments made for you to refute. Any questions or comments from colleagues? Good morning. You guys [laughter] ready? Mr. Chair, I would just um I would suggest that we do stamp the site plan if we decide to move forward. Yes, definitely. Um so,

Mr. Chair, can I ask a clarifying question? This is for you as well as the applicants team as as well as the city attorney. I'm casting a wide net here. Our standard practice is to have a BZA variance apply to the whole lot, the whole parcel. Could we limit the requested BZA such that it only covers the area of disturbance? That's what I thought you guys said was okay. That was the purpose of the site plan. So I think that tackles both issues though. The stamp site plan as well as the variances applying to the whole parcel. Okay. I believe you can.

So Jack have to give us a legal description and we would have to apply the BCA only to that area. It would just simply be a legal description that describes the the area that we're discussing and that could come as a condition and we would give it to you post premises. Yeah. Yeah. Premises and it would match the site plan. So this all it would be fine. We we can we can agree with a legal description that describes the area that they're leasing which would be Is that a chair? Is that okay with you? Yes, that is preferred. Thank you.

Very comfortable. And if I might add chair before the discussion happens on the Duncan factors, of course the the variance numbers here look substantial. So there are other factors at play of course as you well know. If you could just give some more discussion to what weight you're giving each particular factor in light of the the numbers that you're facing, I'd appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you to staff and attorney. whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Absolutely there has been for quite some time. Whether the variance is substantial, I do not believe that it is considering the limited space in comparison to the entire parcel. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, I would say no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, I would say they were unaware because the zoning restrictions have changed. whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance. I would say yes, but perhaps not to build a retail or a um any establishment that would take take customers. Uh it's simply a smaller section that is more challenging to develop effectively. whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed. I would say yes and substantial justice would be done by granting this variance. Would someone like to call the question with the condition presented?

I'll call the question with that condition. Please call the role.

Missoff. Um, I agree with the chair's analysis, the Duncan factors, and I find that while the variances might seem substantial, the fact that we're applying the limiting language and limiting it to lease premises, I think, um, deals with that issue. I appreciate the application or the applicant's willingness to add windows, outdoor seating to try to get towards more of the spirit intent of this new zoning code. Um, normally I tend to find um when you have uh franchises that come in that are not willing to change what it looks like um that's where my issue usually rubs. I think you guys really heard the community's comments and we're willing to work with coun with staff um and the community. So I appreciate that and taking it all in consideration. I vote in favor.

Mr. Wobbly. Yeah, I agree with the chair's assessment and with my colleague Miss Anglehoff's assessment. I think the area of disturbance is small. I think that the uh conditions and the uh stamping of the site plan um caused me to uh vote yes for this project as well. Mr. Malika. Yeah, I concur with uh what the whole committee has said on this and especially because we have a stamp site plan. I think uh I'm okay with this. So voting yes. Chair Jones. Yes, the variances are granted. Good luck. Thanks very much. Thank you.

BZA25-0841462 Brighten Road. Would the parties please step forward? Thank you for your very very thoughtful consideration as always.

Thank you for your comments. [clears throat and cough] BZA25-084 for 1462 Brideen Road is located on the northwest corner of Brighten Road and Miller Avenue is zoned to R3 residential and located in the near east area commission. The 0.13 acre site is developed with a single unit dwelling and a carriage house with an additional dwelling unit which is currently unoccupied due to unsafe conditions. Surround uses are all residential with a mixture of single and multi-unit dwellings. The applicant proposes to replace the existing concrete stoop with a wraparound porch and is requesting variances to reduce the 30x30 foot vision clearance triangle to 10 ft by 10 ft for the new porch and to reduce the building setback along Miller Avenue from 4.3 feet to 10 in. CV93-049 was passed in 1993 to allow the prior conversion of the building from a single unit to a two-unit dwelling and received variance to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required. Planning has no comment as the proposal is located with in within the bride road historic district. The historic resources commission recommends approval of the requested variances. The applicant was asked to revise the site plan to remove private elements that have been approved to be located in the rightway and to provide an intersection site distance exhibit. The applicant updated the site plan to remove the private elements and has addressed the comment regarding an intersection site distance exhibit. The nearest area commission recommends approval with a vote of 7 to zero and staff recommends approval of the requested variances because they will allow the existing concrete porch to be replaced with a wraparound porch returning it to its original historic character. The setback variance will return the porch to the existing foundation footprint of the historic porch and the reduction in the vision vision triangle has been reviewed to

ensure the proposal will not impact vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety. Thank you so much. Would you please indicate your name and whether or not you were sworn? Bert Overly and yes, I've been sworn. Thank you, Mr. Overly. Question for staff. Am I looking at what is or what's proposed? What is and that concrete l um limestone is the obstruction or what's what's what's in the vision clearance? It's being demolished. Um the new porch would be within the vision clearance. Okay. I'm sorry. I was looking further up. So

where the 30 by 30 triangle would be. Okay. This is the reduced triple. Okay. So, that concrete stoop is being demolished and we're making a wraparound porch which is the historic condition of this house.

Understood. And so, question for Mr. Blechmmet with the that new little thing that you have there that seems to alter things and improve the opportunity for a vision clearance triangle. No, I mean with cars it just seems like it would be greater than what I see, but maybe not. I mean, it seems like a very adequate it seems very adequate to me.

Well, currently it's a it's a stoop without any roof. So the the new porch would would be an obstruction to the 30x30 foot vision clearance because we're on a corner lot. However, part of the house is also in that vision clearance, which is why we've requested the the 10-foot and we've done the other vision triangles from both Miller and Brighton Road to show that the the new porch falls outside of those vision clearances. But and isn't there even a stop sign for Miller traffic?

Correct. Yes. And so we had looked at that bit both on the existing traffic control and if there were to be traffic control changes changing what directionality the street there was no concerns with uh potential site obstructions uh at the intersection. Okay. Thank you. You have the recommendation of approval from the city as well as unanimous approval from the area commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? Nope.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak for against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, is there any comments or questions from my colleagues? 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. Absolutely. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. While it does appear going from 30 to 10 could be considered substantial based on the mitigating factors of the traffic control at the intersection, I feel that it is not as substantial as it may appear. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, 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, I cannot say. whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance. I would say not to remain in compliance in um continuity with the character of the neighborhood. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed. I would say yes. Would someone like to call the question?

Call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Mico, I'll concur with the chair and vote yes. Mr. Welley, I agree with the chair and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff. Likewise. Concur with the chair and vote yes. Jerry Jones. Yes. Variance is granted. Good luck. Thank you. BZA25-117 for 1668 GE Avenue. Parties, please step forward.

1668 GE Avenue is located on the north side of Jese Avenue, approximately 270 ft west of Cleveland Avenue. It's zoned R3 residential and located in the North London Area Commission. The 0.11 acre site is developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses are primarily single unit dwellings with a few two-unit dwellings, a parking lot uh directly to the east and mixeduse commercial further to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage and is requesting variance to increase the maximum permitted height of a detached garage from 15 ft to 20 ft. Uh C2P2 states that new additions should be designed appropriately based on the principle of nearby structures. Therefore, planning is supportive as proposal is consistent with North London neighborhood plan amendment and C2P2 design guidelines. Division of traffic management requested that the garage be cited between 2 feet and 10 ft from the alley to ensure proper maneuverability is provided but not enough to allow a vehicle to be parked in front of the garage and encroach into the alley rightway. The site plan was updated to address this comment. The North London Area Commission recommends approval of a vote of 8 to zero and staff recommends approval of the requested variance because the garage this garage would likely be be permitted by the recently passed code change regarding how the height of a detached garage is measured. Furthermore, the proposed garage will allow the property owner to provide adequate parking on site and the proposed garage is similar in size and setback to other garages in the surrounding area. I would like to clarify the comment about uh recently passed code change uh as part of uh city council approving um carriage houses. Uh the height of a garage is now uh measured the same as any other structure. It's not to the peak. It's to the midpoint in the roof now. So this

or a pitched roof, not a flat roof. So this is showing uh 20 ft to the peak. This was submitted well in advance of that code change. Thank you very much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Yeah, I have been sworn. Okay. Would you sign your name on the sheet, please?

Okay. Thank you. You also sign your name. So question for city staff. I know that ADUs have been approved to some degree or to every degree. ADUs are permissible. I want to make sure from the applicant standpoint you understand what an ADU is, how this garage can be used, etc. What is your intention for the upper part of the garage?

Our our intention for the upper part of the garage is solely for storage. Um, we were pre-building it. we failed to um get out permits, but as you can see um we don't have parking. We have street parking and since our crime rate is kind of high, we have had a lot of um breakage to our cars. So that's why we decided to make a garage so we can put in our cars inside and just um for the top of it, it's just for like storage just to have like boxes like um Christmas decorations stuff like that just stored there. So historically when I've said yes to cases like this, we have said that it shall not be used for habitable rehabitable purposes. I don't want to say that because ADUs are obviously permissible. I just want to make sure that during your construction, you contemplate that fully and decide what you want it for. If you say you don't want it, it's okay, but don't think that you can do it later. It has to be built to a certain standard to be habitable. Does that make sense? Their plans did show attic on there and no bathrooms or uh cooking spaces which would constitute a livable space.

I agree, but I just don't want us to say yes. They see adus are permissible and then they say okay, you know, here we are. I just want to because they have the opportunity to do it at the right level. They can get a building permit. Yes. So if we wanted to be habitable um we would let you know now. No, you just would have to get that share that with the building permit folks and they will give you the standards to which you need to build that and it would be acceptable like if

I can't speak to how they accept it. We're approving or disapproving as the case may be. Your ability to do this. How you construct it will determine whether or not it can be habitable or not and that's not within our purview. Yeah. Well, he said um if he wants he wants to talk to them so like if it is habitable so we can find a way to Yeah, that's what I kind of was thinking. So again, not for us. I just wanted to make sure that if you heard us say yes, that didn't mean that was okay.

Okay. Just trying to avoid confusion in the future. So, I'm glad we got that out. Okay.

You have the recommendation of the city and the approval recommendation from the area commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none, are there any questions from my colleagues or comments? Okay. Referring to the Duncan standards, whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance. Um, I would say potentially whether the variance is substantial, no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, 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, I cannot say. whether the whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance. I would say um build a smaller garage, but it would not likely be in um in alignment with the property itself. Whether the property owner's predicament already answered that whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done. I think yes. With that, would someone like to call the question? Call the question.

Questions been called. Please call the role. Mr. Wedley, I concur with the chair's assessment of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff, I likewise concur with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Mica, I concur as well and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. Variance is granted. Good luck. Thank you so much.

You're welcome. BZA25-118 for 844 North Cassidy Avenue. Parties, please step forward. Absolutely. We're going to take a few minute break, but please feel free to sit down, sign your name on the sheet, and we'll resume shortly. Has a charger up here. Yes. Yeah,

you're not pushing up right. Right.

It definitely looks like

there's definitely areas in the right Street building. You know, okay. 100%.

Yeah. It's clear traffic say You have probably situations. Yeah.

This is why exist.

Yeah. Thank you, Charlie. We are going to resume. Thank you so much. It was on. Okay. Excuse me. Okay. BZA25-118 for 844 North Cassidy Avenue. It's located on the east side of Cassidy Avenue approximately 255 ft north of East 7th. Site is owned M manufacturing is within the boundaries of the East Columbus Civic Association. Site is developed with an auto repair garage and salvage yard. Surrounding uses include manufacturing uses to the northwest and south was with a residential zoning district to the east. The applicant proposes to expand and legitimize the existing salvage yard salvage yard use and requests a special permit for a junken salvage yard. A variance to reduce the storage setback from 20 ft to 3 ft and a variance to reduce the required separation from a residential zoning district from 600 feet to 100 ft. site has been used as a contractor's yard for an electrician for most of its history uh dating back to at least 1995 which is when our aerial photography dates back to. More recently has been used for an auto repair facility. Now the applicant requests permission to maintain a junken salvage facility for vehicles from which parts are taken and used in association with the auto repair shop. Stripped vehicles will be removed and hauled to another site for final disposal. The Division of Traffic Management has no comment and the East Columbus Civic Association recommends approval with a vote of 7 to zero. Staff recommends approval of the special permit and variances as the proposed expansion of the salvage yard is consistent with the established industrial character of the area and formalizes an existing long-term use of the site. Therefore, city department's recommendation is for approval.

Thank you very much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Yes, President. Yes, I have been sold. You've been sworn? Yes. And I've been sworn in. Okay. Yes. Yeah, we did.

So, you have the recommendation of approval for your special permit and the variances from city staff as well as the area commission. There are no conditions recommended. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? You do understand the rules and laws surrounding the special permit height requirements for storage etc. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented seeing and hearing none any questions or comments from my colleagues about the special permit or the variances? Okay. We'll start with the special permit. As I read it, it appears as though this is an expansion. So to grant special permits for the relocation or expansion of non-conforming uses, whether it can be shown that the relocation or expansion of the non-conforming use can be granted without substantial impairment of the general purpose and intent of the underlying zoning district and without significant incompatibility with the general character of the neighborhood. No expansion of a non-conforming use shall exceed 50% of the total floor area of their original non-conforming use occupied. I think that is the one that applies to this. Is that correct?

Well, do we have evidence that this was a non-conforming use or are they simply asking for a special permit to expand? Are they currently They're asking to expand under 3389.07. Do they currently have a special permit to operate as a salvage yard? I'm unsure.

Yes, on that that the bottom side or close to 7 avenue. Yes. But on the upper portion just just a little bit there. It it was before as a trailer storage. Still, it had a special permit for it, but it wasn't for salvage yard. Basically, we want to convert that into a salvage yard. So, I would treat this under a I I would just treat this as a new permit for a salvage yard request.

Okay. So to grant permits for uses listed under 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 pro proposed to be located and without significant incompatibility with the general character of the neighborhood. I would say that you have met that burden. And I guess it is a little relevant to know if it's an existing permit or not because why are we not imposing a three-year term on this like we did the other.

So I'm looking at the special permit section right now and I believe that ordinance was created in um 2005. Okay. So, it's possible that this existed prior to that requirement since the aerial photography shows a very similar use dating back to at least 1995. I can't say with certainty, but given the information that I have, I would think that this use existed prior to that requirement.

And I would think I would agree with you the use, but the actual special permit that he's alleging is in place or asserts is in place. I guess if I'm going to treat this as a new application for a special permit, I would wonder why you're not saying let's put a three-year limit on it like we did the last one. That's all. So, if I can step in for the other one that was the applicant is the one who brought came to us saying they would be fine doing the three-year uh time limit on their application because of that messy situation with the area commission since it was presented the area commission said it was presented to them as a three-year temporary permit. Jean told us responded saying instead of going back, she would be fine with putting a three-year time limit on that specific special permit.

So, generally, I'm in favor of a time limit. So, again, that we can monitor behavior and activity, but I don't know if I say yes to that and they have an existing permit. Am I saying yes to just this additional area? Yeah, that's how I would interpret it. It'll just be the time limit on the expansion area. So, we'll start with that. It's a little messy. What is your What are my colleagues thoughts on that? Improvement. One moment, please. Yeah, we've always done time limits, so let's let's hold to it. Okay, I'm good with it.

Let me explain what what is the past experience on that area. The whole site was considered at the salvage yard when Mr. Parvin purchased the property. He went to the city of Columbus and explicitly asked for whether this is the whole area is a salvage yard. He has been told yes. At the same time he has been paying for licensing for the whole site. Recently we have been found out that only portion of the corner it was like a salvage yard but it was for a storage of of the large trailer or large equipment area. So in some sense the whole space was supposed to be based on his understanding when he purchased the property by going to the city and asking was salvage yard for the entire place.

Okay. So do you understand what we're proposing as a condition? It's a time limit. Yes.

Like the idea. I don't know why you would want to put a time limit on it. we it's because it's what we do. It doesn't mean that you can't come in and apply for it back in three years. It doesn't preclude you or prohibit you from doing it. Doesn't change anything other than say it has a timeline on it for three years and you can apply for it again if you want in the future. You don't have to accept the condition, but that's what we would propose. And if you don't, we're going to vote accordingly. It's no different than what we've done to people. We've treated everybody equally in this situation. I understand. I I've sat here for two hours and I saw it. It was fine. But uh you're basing your uh three years

the microphone. Sorry. You're basing your three years on somebody else's choice choice of you know because it may appear that way but in my opinion I would say one year. So if if I had not heard that case today, I would be proposing one year. Can staff, I've got a question. Do we have any record of there being a special permit or are we feeling fairly confident that this property pre-existed the 2005 special permit ordinance? I'm reasonably confident that it did, but if there is an existing special permit, I don't have the ability to access it right now.

Yeah. Whether it existed, did it exist with the special permit? I've heard countless cases for over a decade now of people operating without the special permit but in fact a salvage yard or other activity. So I want to know with certainty that there and even if there is we're voting on an expansion um and we've looked at it from both standpoints. I don't disagree. I don't believe that the limitation of the time does anything more even if they have an existing permit special permit on the expansion and I'm okay with that. How about if you extend it more than three years but maybe five years? I'm not I'm not inclined to do that you all.

If if you guys want to do it, I'm I'm just here. Okay. Okay. So, the body says that they would do it for five years. That's fine. We will come back five years. Okay. What do you do? So you understand the condition? Yes. Okay. So I'll go over the Duncan factors. Sorry. We do need to vote on the special permit. I have reviewed the Duncan factors and we'll ask if someone would like to call the question with the condition. I'll call the question with the condition. Five years.

Question has been called. Please call the role. Miss Agelhoff. Um I find based on the testimony and uh count chair's analysis and the special permit um is appropriate and vote yes. Mr. Malipo, I vote yes on the special permit as well. Mr. Wley, yes. Chair Jones,

yes. The special permit is granted on the variance request 3363.41 and 3392.12. I believe that the property in question will yield a reasonable return uh and that there can be beneficial or excuse me maybe there cannot be beneficial use of the property without the variance. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, uh that too I would say no as this is is potentially an expansion of an existing use or a similar use. 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 can't say with certainty. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance, not likely. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done. By granting the variance, I would say yes. With that, um, would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question. Question has been called. Please call the role. Mr. Mucka, I concur with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Mr. Wley, I agree with the chair's assessment and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff, I likewise concur with the Chair Jones. Yes, the variances variances are granted. Good luck with your continued business. Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome. BZA25-129 for 1457 Meadow Bank Drive. Please come forward. 1457 Meadow Bankank Drive is located at the northwest corner of Oak Meadows Drive and Meadow Bankank Drive. Is part of the 4-hour North Columbus Communities Coalition and existing zoning LR2 residential district. The 2 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses include similar single unit dwellings to the north, south, east, and west. The applicant proposes to construct a 6-ft tall privacy fence and is requesting a variance to allow said fence to be located 15 feet into a required yard abuing driveway access. Uh planning division has no comments and the division of traffic management can support the variance if a stop sign is installed at the intersection of Oaks Drive and Metobrank Drive. Uh if a sign is not installed, however, traffic requests that the easternmost edge of the proposed fence be shifted to the west by a minimum of 12 feet. Uh the far north Columbus community's coalition has recommended approval of the variance, voting unanimously. Uh city department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the proposed fence does not appear to cause any safety concerns if a stop sign is placed at the intersection of Oak Meadows Drive and Meadow Bank Drive. However, we do recommend the following condition as per traffic. Um, and since it is a for is not a foregone conclusion that a stop sign will be placed at that intersection, uh, the condition reads as follows. The eastern most edge of the fence shall be set back at least 62 feet from the Meadow Bank Drive rightway, which is 12 ft west of where it is currently proposed. That is the condition that traffic is requesting. Chair,

thank you so much. Is the applicant expected to apply for a stop sign? Uh, I guess to speak to that, we have reviewed that in traffic management and it's not anticipated that a stop sign would be placed at that intersection. So, there should not be an expectation at this point that a stop sign would be placed there. Thank you so much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Adam. Adam. Um, yes, I have been sworn. Thank you, Adam. Do you understand the conditions that are uh being proposed?

I do, but I have some questions about it. Okay. So, um the when I was speaking with Elijah from the traffic management, he said that they were using case C2 and part of the vision triangle that is outputed from that case um includes a part of my house. So, I'm just kind of confused how if my house is already breaking that kind of vision triangle, how it um the fence, the proposed fence, um would decrease any more visibility because the house is already causing problems. Um the engineering company that I went with to get the exhibit for traffic, they also prepared one for case A which was for noncontrolled intersections without stop signs or yields or whatever that is. And um the vision triangle is out the proposed fence and house are completely outside of that vision triangle. So, I'm just trying to understand if the approval can be or the condition be approved based off that other case and not necessarily the C2 case that includes part of my house already.

I can't speak to that. I'll defer to Dan.

So, uh and looking at that, so we had um since there is not any type of traffic control at that intersection, the the sight line would go through your your house. So what we had determined was we were okay with with the fence if it did not encroach any further than the house. So basically drawing a line. So like guess where the um if you can imagine a line going through um that would hit the corner of the house. So that that actually shaves off a portion of fence I presume is red the red line there. So that that's where that 12 ft had come from as far as we're okay with the fencing just it it it's not as long as it's not making it any worse than what the existing house does.

Gotcha. Okay. If I have um like obviously I'm asking for like a sixoot fence, right? If the top portion of the fence is maybe like you know not completely whole, does that change anything? or if it's like completely not look rude, whatever you want to call that.

I mean, generally the the height would be approximately 2 and 1/2 ft usually. That's that's what we usually have for something that would not block sight lines as far as that a driver's eye would be able to see over that. So, if if there's an altered proposal other than a sixoot fence, maybe that would be something to consider. But as far as if it's a six foot fence or anything above two and a half feet, um, that would likely not be supportable. Gotcha. Is there like an additional process? I know you said with this you were it wasn't determined that it was like able to have it installed, but is there a separate process that I can go through to request that again? Like specially?

I think they they evaluated it based on you already. It sounds like I mean we it's I would say it's unlikely there will be a different result. I mean, we we reviewed this with the staff that that review typical 311 requests and and similar to that. Um, it's it it would change the consistency of what's been done, how the neighborhood was built. So, it it's I would say it's unlikely that would be um uh have a different result. Gotcha. You good? Yep.

All right. out of order, but Dan, does opacity make a difference if it's a six foot fence but only like 50% opaque? Does that impact the vision triangle analysis? It could. I mean, it would it would probably factor into a variance request if it was mostly or mostly uh not opaque. Okay. I think that might have been one of the questions,

but he's saying at the top, and I think that you'd have to understand that if you anything over two and a half feet would have to be with greater opacity than a traditional privacy fence. So, you'd almost be taking that whole corner, you know, at least more than a little less than half the corner and making it with more opacity. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. And that would probably I don't know that that would even make sense. Yeah. So, um, if are you good with the answer? You may not accept it, but do you understand it? Yeah. Okay. So, you understand the condition fully, it sounds like since we've gone over that, is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

The goal of the project was literally just to try to get as much space as possible. We're just um the the patio in the back, we just recently had it redone with a stamped patio. So, just trying to make living conditions better. And then also we're starting thinking about planning families. So having space that's like enclosed for children to play. That's yeah basically it

looks like it'll be a nice project. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none. Any additional questions from my colleagues or comments? Okay. Whether the property in question would yield a reasonable return? Yes. Whether the variance is substantial? No. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment. No. Whether the variance would adversely affect delivery of government services. No. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Can't say with certainty. Whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obiated through some method other than a variance based on their intention. I would say no. whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done. I would say yes. With that, would someone like to call the question?

Call the question. The question's been called. Please call the role with the call the question with the condition. Correct. The question's been called with the condition. Please call the role. Mr. Welley, I agree with the chair's analysis of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff, I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Malcoa. I concur with the chair and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. The variance is granted. Good luck with your fence. Thanks.

BZA25-132 for 4255 North High Street. 4255 North High Street is located on the west side of North High Street, approximately 140 ft south of West Cook Avenue. It's zoned UGN1 Urban General District and it's located in the Clintville Area Commission. The 0.26 acres acre site is developed with a vacant building with a drive-through and associated parking lot as well as a billboard which sits on top of the existing building. Uh surrounding uses include mixeduse commercial to the north, east, and south and single unit residential to the west. The applicant proposes to construct a 1531q foot addition to the front of an existing building for the relocation of a pediat pediatric dentist and is requesting variances to reduce the first floor ceiling height from 12 ft to 8t 10 in to reduce the ground floor facade transparency from 60% to 43% and to not provide a building entrance on the front street facade. Staff note the proposal is located within a title 34 district. Accordingly, to maintain alignment with the policy direction established by city council to promote walkable and mixeduse development, staff applies a higher level scrutiny to variances and reasonzoning requests in this area in these areas in addition to adopt a land use plan and design guidelines. Staff note that the requested variances are not consistent with the Clintville neighborhood plans development principles. The plan states building facades facing public streets should incorporate an ent an entrance door. Although the entrance is not provided on the North High Street elevation in the updated submission, planning is amanable to our previous comments and would be supportive of the structure not including an entrance along High Street if the applicants can commit to fully removing the existing cur curb cut on High Street. In this case, vehicle access would strictly be from the rear alley. This would also allow for a

sidewalk approach leading to the entrance door on the west elevation. Staff note that an entrance along High Street may be difficult due to the layout of the addition's interior. The Division of Traffic Management has no comments. The Clintville Area Commission recommends approval of this quest from 5 to one and staff recommends disapproval as a proposal does not meet the standards and intent of the title 34 UGN1 district. The applicant has not addressed the planning division's comments about making the site more pedestrian friendly by providing a front entrance or by removing the existing curb cut on a high street conflicting both the title 34 standards and Clintonville neighborhood plans development principles. And going through the Duncan standards uh beneficial use without the variance. Yes, the property can yield a reasonable return without variances. Is it substantial? The first floor ceiling height and facade transparency variances are not substantial, but the variance to not provide a building entrance on the front street facade is a substantial change from what is required. Central character of the neighborhood altered. Yes, the variances requested would substantially alter the character of the neighborhood since most of the businesses in the media area have many windows that provide front facade transparency and have entrances on the front providing a walkable feel to the neighborhood. Uh government governmental services affected. No governmental services will be will not be uh adversely affected. Knowledge of zoning restriction unsure. It cannot be determined as whether the owner was aware of the zoning restriction when they purchased the property. Predicament feasibility without variances. Yes, there are ways to meet code requirements that are being varied. Spirit intent. No, the spirit intent of the UGN1 zoning district is is to promote a predominantly walkable district. Thank you so much. You have the recommendation. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether you were sworn?

Ross. Ross Namp and I have been sworn. Okay. Who's Troy Reynolds? Uh I did confirm they're with the same firm. Okay. Yeah, I represent the firm. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So you have the recommendation, not unanimous, but a recommendation of approval from the city or from Clintonville area commission. You do not have however city approval, city department's approval. So you have a bit of an up and you're building something new, frankly. Yeah.

In a pedestrian friendly area that does certainly suggest that some of this could be done differently. So share with us why we should approve this. So, this is uh this application is in reference to a pediatric dentist office that's currently in the community, out of space, needs to add more treatment rooms, more parking. Uh she's actually less than a mile north of this particular parcel. Purchased this uh parcel. It's in a great location to meet her business growth needs. Uh the idea is to add an addition onto the front of the existing building. So, we are building a new structure a little over 1500 square feet onto the front to accommodate everything that she needs for her healthcare practice to to to continue to grow. But we are keeping the existing structure on and tying it into. So, the idea is we're going to, you know, people are going to come off High Street, come into the back and park, and then we're proposing an entryway into the the back kind of western part of the addition there coming around the side. Um yeah uh where there'll be a sidewalk from the parking into the into the into the back side of that addition. Uh the main reasons for the request in terms of the entryway in the front which seems to be the most uh scrutinized piece of this is she's actually run into situations in her current practice. She sees a fair number of special needs children and her current practice faces high street as well currently and she's had instances where they will run out of the practice to towards the street. uh one of which being very dangerous situation that uh luckily nothing bad happened but she's really trying to avoid that situation and I think

the fact that we are expanding so close to High Street you know it's all within compliance and it works well for what she's trying to do but that really is the reasoning behind the entryway in the front and even the windows uh coverage because the way that we have if you could see the the floor plan. The way that we had to kind of make this work, tying into the existing building, uh really that the window where we're excluding a front window is really looking straight into the back of house, if you will, where medical records and things are being shared and discussed and it's really more of a private setting. Um, and again, if it were to the point where we didn't have to add as much onto the front to take full advantage of the property, maybe we would think a little differently, but it is very close to High Street. Um, where in this walkable district, the intent is for folks to be walking there and um, you know, looking into that space, if you will. Uh so that's kind of our argument on the windows and then of course the safety of the children that she sees on a day-to-day basis uh is taken into account on the on the front entry. And we do think we can add to, you know, we do have some front facade coverage or some from some front window coverage and we have a uh kind of a logo wall there is the intent and we and we do think that that still benefits the area and what they're trying to achieve certainly in in difference to what's there currently. Um and we do think that side entryway is going to uh maintain a little more safety particularly as folks come off um you know would come out of the front towards High Street or or folks coming in by car on the the front curb cut.

I'm not persuaded. Um I mean you're building something new and I think you have an opportunity to be much much more compliant. your argument that it's on High Street. All of these things are on High Street and many of them that do support and promote pedestrian access um have front entry doors. So, I I find that a the safety I appreciate, but the inability to control a door seems a bit weak to me. So, I'm one person.

Um that's my opinion. I will ask if you're done if there's anyone from the audience that would like to speak for or against this proposal as presented. Seeing and hearing none any questions or comments from my colleagues. I do. Um so I appreciate uh the concern about the kids running out and kind of explains the front entrance. What's the issue with getting rid of the curb cut on High Street? Um, I think there's just a more of a interest from the business owner to have access from both sides to the to the parcel.

To follow that logic, then if you have the entrance way through the door, aren't isn't that potential? The kids running out the door and a car's coming in from High Street? Well, we when we thought of this, we thought putting the entryway on the side and having the sidewalk come along the pack so you really do not have to go around the building. in the in the jog out as cars are coming in creates the the safest environment to enter into the front portion of the of the area. Unless there's a argument against that, I

No, I'm just I'm I'm more inclined to um find in favor of the variance on the front edge of the high street with the curb cut. I don't know if my colleagues are similar. Again, I'm I'm one vote. Um, and what and just some context on that. What would be the reasoning that that would help you get to more? That's when this recognition you got staff is disapproval and one of their conditions was requesting that. And so I'm more in favor to to I defer to staff. Yeah, you got disapproval. So trying to fight that. I'm trying to find ways that I can balance the Duncan factors and

still hear staff on disapproval, but you as the applicant making considerations based on the new zoning context and walk making it walkable and I think taking that curb cut off a high street definitely makes it more walkable. Okay. From a traffic standpoint, I mean, you're redeveloping the front of the site. Is that curb cut allowed?

I mean, it could be permissible. Uh, but it could be removed. And I guess something to consider here is at least from a uh pedestrian access, even if there is no door to High Street directly from the building. Someone accessing the building from the sidewalk on High Street will have to walk along the narrow driveway. So, they're forced to do that. So that I mean that in in a sense is a certain pedestrian concern. Generally we want to have at least a pedestrian connection to buildings. Um you know we don't really get into where the doors are but we we want to make sure that someone can walk from the sidewalk to to the building and that does not appear to be present unless they're walking up the the narrow 13t wide driveway that's proposed.

I guess I got so I do have two concerns. I do have concern with the curb cut as well as the door entry. I think the site could well do without that curb cut, meaning you that could be sidewalk green space along that edge. Um, it just be a better site. So, having the rear entrance is I think much better. Having the rear entrance is better. Having the rear parking entrance is much better. Yep. Yep. Any comments from you, Mr. Waly?

Okay. Anything else you'd like to address based on these comments before we vote or would you you always have the option to table and reconsider and come back? You have options here. Okay. But once we voted, we voted. Yep. So, any other comments or I don't think I have anything else to add. Um, and three of us have to vote yes for you to get this. Yeah.

You good? Okay. Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return. Yes. It's an existing um viable commercial space. whether the variance is substantial substantial I would not say that it's necessarily substantial but it has um impact on the design of the neighborhood so from that standpoint um there is some a substantial nature to it whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered not based on the existing neighborhood um but certainly with how the neighborhood neighborhood is being redeveloped? Yes. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction, I can't say with certainty, but I can say that they're intending to build with full knowledge of the zoning restriction. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance, uh they could simply use the property in its existing condition. whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done. I would argue no. With that being said, would someone like to call the question?

I will call a question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Miss Agelhoff. I'm taking the analysis by the chair of the Duncan factors. Um I find in favor of his analysis and vote no in granting the variance. Mr. Malco. Yeah, as I stated earlier, I have an issue with the curb cut as well as where the entrances for this and agree with the chair's analysis. So, voting no. Mr. Wley,

I actually taking a little bit different approach and agree with staff's analysis of the Duncan factors and the fact that the project does not meet the title 34 standards and vote no. Chair Jones. No, the variances are not granted. Um, so does that is that all three of the variances or how does is it independent of Well, we did not vote on them separately while that was your option. You may not have understood that to be the case. I don't know what our legal position would be on that under those circumstances, but we were voting no based on the comprehensive u construction of everything that you're planning to design there. I

mean, would it have changed any board members vote to not mine to take? So, let's just let's get that on the record. Would it have changed a board member's vote to take these individually? Hoff? No. My vote stays um whether individually or collectively. No, Mr. Malaka. I I agree as well. I voted no on all three. Mr. Waldley. Yeah. I again found it against the title 34. So I vote no. My vote remain the same. Sure. Yeah. Universally I'm a no. Okay. Because we did we have we had staff approval on everything except the front facade. Correct.

Sir, you can talk to staff separately. We're going to give the respect to these other folks. We have voted. Those are questions you could have asked earlier. Thank you so much. BZA25-133 1466 Clear Street, please step forward. 1466 Clara Street is located on the east side of Clara Street, approximately 175 ft north of East 11th Avenue. It is not part of any area commission and the existing zoning is M manufacturing district. The 0.09 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses include warehouses to the north, south, east, and west. The applicant proposes to raise the existing dwelling and construct a warehouse. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 3 to two. Planning has no comment as there is no applicable plan associated at the site. Uh staff note that this area is under consideration for an updated land use recommendation and corresponding zoning as part of zoning economic and housing opportunity. The draft generalized land use recommendation w is mixed to mixed use too staff recommend contacting zoning update at columbus.gov for additional information. uh with the revised site plan and zoning commentary, uh the Division of Traffic Management's comments um that they previously had are now resolved as well. So, no comments from traffic and as previously stated, the proposed development does not fall within the jurisdiction of any area commission or neighborhood group. Uh state department's recommendation is that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the variance is slight, only a single space reduction. chair.

Thank you so much. Um, would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Gary Dunn and yes, I was sworn. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Have we looked at this site before? I do not believe we have. This one it's uh near, let's see, what's the zip code? 43211. Okay. No. Yeah, it's like right near the uh next door state fairgrounds. It's just south of fairgrounds. Just next door to Adino.

Okay. Thank you. We have not. So, you have the recommendation of approval from the city staff. Um this area does not fall under the jurisdiction of any area commission. So, you don't need approval there. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

No, I just I mean uh the owner is uh the owner of the varsity club and and [clears throat] they've they purchased this site many years ago with the intention of doing something eventually and they they finally are getting around to it. They just need storage for their business. Uh there's not going to be any retail traffic. Uh there's not going to be an employee here. It's strictly for storage. So uh we uh we felt like uh you know our our parking issue was was fairly minor in scope in requesting that. Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for against this proposal was presented? Seeing and hearing none, is there any questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay. Based on the Duncan factors, would the property in question 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, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, whether or whether the joining properties would suffer a substantial detriment, I can't say with certainty. Um as this is a residential street generally isn't it? No

there this is the only residence that and it's been I think condemned by the city so it hasn't been occupied for years. So okay thank you. There's no residential traffic at all on the street. Okay. Thank you. A mini warehouse behind us. So, okay. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction, we can't say with certainty. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance, not likely based on their intended use. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed. I would say yes. That being said, would anyone like to call the question?

I'll call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Mala, I concur with the chair and vote yes. Mr. Waldley, I agree and vote yes. Miss Ahoff, I likewise concur with the chair and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. The variance is granted. Good luck. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. BZA25-136 for 3042 Midgard Road. Please come forward. 3042 Midgard Road is located on the east side of Midgard Road, approximately 40 feet south of Mimring Avenue, I believe it is, as is part of the Clintonville Area Commission and existing zoning is R3 residential district. The 0.16 acre site is currently developed with single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses include similar single unit dwellings to the north, south, east, and west. The applicant proposes to construct an extension to an existing uh detached garage to provide storage space. The applicant is requesting variances to increase the allowable height for detached garage from 15 ft to 18 ft and to increase the allowable area dedicated to garage space from 748 ft to 768 square ft. Planning division has no comments and the division of traffic management likewise has no comments. The Clintonville Area Commission has recommended approval of the requested variances, voting 6 to zero. And city department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the variances are slight and would result in a secondary building that does not exceed the footprint of the primary building. Chair,

thank you so much. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Jessica Steiner. Yes, I've been sworn in. and you're affiliated I'm a representative of Prime Construction. Okay. So, you have the recommendation of approval from the city as well as unanimous approval from the area commission, Clintville area commission. Um, I would just simply add that we are approving the height etc. If there is an intention to have this as habitable space, it would need to be built according to specific standards. I just want to make sure that you understand that going into this. But is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

No. Okay. Would anyone like anyone in the audience like to speak for against this proposal as presented?

Seeing and hearing none, is there any questions or comments from my colleagues? Seeing and hearing none, we'll continue with the Duncan factors. Whether the property in question would yield a reasonable return or whether there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance. Yes. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, I would say no. Whether the property owners purchase the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, we cannot say with certainty. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance, I would say no. whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be met. I would say yes. That being said, would someone like to call the question?

I'll call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Waldley, I agree with the chair analysis of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Missoff, I likewise agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. I agree with chair's analysis and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. Variances are granted. Good luck. Thank you.

You're welcome. BZA25-138 for 180 Reinhardt Avenue. Excuse me. In the back of the room, would you please step out if you're going to have conversation? Thank you. 25-138 for 180 Reinhardt Avenue is located on the north side of Reinhardt Avenue, approximately 120 ft east of Mohawk Street. It's zoned R2F residential and is located within the boundaries of the German Village Commission. The 0.05 acre site is developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounded uses are primarily single-use dwellings with Sheller Park located to the south across Reinhardt Avenue. The applicant proposes to raise the existing singlecar garage and construct a one-story rear addition with a balcony above. Variances are requested to increase the building lot coverage from 50% to 53% to reduce the required rear yard area from 25% to 19%. to reduce the maximum sideyard required from 6.25 feet to two feet to reduce the minimum sideyard on the northeast side from 3 feet to two feet and to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 2 to one. Planning division has no comments. Division of traffic management likewise has no comments and the German village commission recommends approval with a vote of 4 to zero. Staff can recommend approval as the requested variances are modest and reflect typical development patterns in Durban Village where lots are small and reduced yards are common. The proposal is also consistent with Columbus citywide planning policies residential design guidelines. Additionally, a certificate appropriateness has been issued by the German Village Commission. Therefore, city department's recommendation is for approval. That it.

Okay. Would you please provide your name and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Sure. My name is Jesse Garner and yes, I've been sworn in. Okay. You have the recommendation of approval from the city staff as well as unanimous approval from the German Village Commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? Um, just that this is a really small lot and as it was already indicated that, you know, it's really typical for German village. So we feel like our asks are minimal for variances and uh also the two bottom variances are existing conditions so we aren't changing those. So that's it.

Understood. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for the for or against this proposal as presented? Seeing and hearing none any questions or comments from colleagues and again none. Duncan factors whether the property in question would yield a reasonable return. I would argue yes. Whether the variance is substantial, I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect delivery of government services, no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, I can't say. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance. Um, half of these, no, because they're existing conditions. The other half would need to be no construction. Whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed. I would say yes. That being said, would anyone like to call the question?

Question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Miss Egeloff, I agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. MCA, concur with the chair and vote yes. Mr. Welderly, I agree as well and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. The variances are granted. Good luck with your project. Thank you. If you want to apply for a permit, am I able to do so now that we've been approved? I can't speak to that. Perhaps staff can help you over there. Okay, I can email. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Send it. Thank you. BZA25-141 for 2725 West Broad Street. Please come forward. Hurry, Jack. Hurry. It's wrong. What' you say?

Oh, I'm sorry. Should be Hollow Run Road or 15. I don't think that was in my pile. Jack, which one are you? I am BZA25-139. Okay, I apologize. This wasn't in my pile. [laughter] Yeah, I don't make me wait any longer. I highlighted BZA255-139 1813 Hollow Run Drive. Please come forward.

They're here. 1813 Hollow Run Drive is located on the west side of Hollow Run Drive, approximately 60 feet south of Rock Ledge Drive. It is part of the Greater Hilltop Area Commission and existing zoning as R2 residential district. The 0.15 acre site is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. Surrounding uses include similar single unit dwellings to the north, south, east, and west. The applicant proposes to legitimize an existing detached garage. Excuse me. Uh the applicant is requesting a variance to increase the allowable area for a garage from 720 ft² to 800 square ft and to reduce the maneuvering area in front of a garage from 20 ft to 12 ft. The planning division has no comments and the division of traffic management likewise has no comments. The greater hilltop area commission has recommended approval of the requested variances. voting unanimously 11 to zero and city department's recommendation is likewise that of approval. Staff recommends approval as the variances are slight and would result in a secondary building that does not exceed the footprint of the primary building. Chair,

thank you so much. Would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Jack Reynolds. I have been sworn. You all agree. And you've been sworn. Sign your We got him. Okay. Yeah. So, you have the recommendation of approval from city staff and unanimous approval from the Greater Hilltop Area Commission. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add?

Unless you all have questions that I can answer. Uh it it was an interesting story. Uh the uh city granted the owner the ability to add a little bit of concrete to the front of his property and he used it to park a truck and code enforcement came out and said you can't do that. and he agreed. And at the same time, code enforcement said, "I see the the the permit to add the concrete, but I don't see a permit for the garage." And so the gentleman uh came in and asked for a building permit for the garage. And they were told, "You can't have a uh 800 square foot." So they were on my door. They simply walked down the street and we filed the application. And we're here before you all today.

Understood. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this proposal was presented? Seeing and hearing none, any questions or comments from colleagues? Okay. Duncan factors. Where' my Duncan factors go? [snorts] Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return. Yes. Whether the variance is substantial. No. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered. 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 cannot say. Whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance, yes, a smaller garage. Uh whether the spirit and the intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed. Yes. So, I just want to say I want to make sure that they're clear.

They still cannot park a car. Oh, absolutely. I I made that absolutely clear. That That is a big time no. Okay. Thank you so much. I said the board would even would not I I would they couldn't pay me enough to come down and ask. [laughter] Understood. Thank you. Yes. Would someone like to call the question? Call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Malepa, I concur with chair's analysis and vote yes. Mr. Waldley, I also agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Miss Agelhoff, I likewise agree with the chair's analysis and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes. The variances are granted. Good luck. Thank you.

Thank you. So, case 16. BZA25-141, please come forward. Finally, feel the same.

Eza 25-141, 2725 West Broad Street is located at the southwest corner of West Broad Street and South Harris Avenue. Zoned UCT Urban Center and is located within the boundaries of the Greater Hilltop Area Commission. The 0.37 acre site is developed with a fueling station. Surrounding uses include an educational facility to the north, a religious facility to the west, funeral parlor to the east, and residential uses to the south. The applicant proposes to legitimize an existing fueling station. Varianc is requested to increase the setback along West Broad Street from 15 ft to 89 ft. To increase the setback along South Harris Avenue from 15t to 62 feet, to reduce the required landscape area from 50% to 6.4% 4% along South Harris Avenue and from 50% to 2% along West Broad Street and to reduce the required side street facade transparency from 25% to 0% and to remove facade zone coverage requirements for both the West Broad Street and South Harris Avenue building facade. Staff note the proposal is located within the title 34 district accordingly to maintain alignment with the policy direction established by city council to promote walkable and mixeduse development. Staff applies a higher level of scrutiny to variances and reasonzoning requests in these areas in addition to the adopted land use plan and design guidelines. Staff note the requested variances are not consistent with the Hilltop land use plans recommendation that buffering and landscaping should be provided to minimize impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods. Planning recommends that additional landscaping be provided at the site where possible in order to be consistent with the plan's recommendations. Division of traffic management has stated that rideofide dedication of 50 feet from the center line of West Broad Street will be required. The Greater Hilltop Area Commission recommends approval with a vote of 11 to zero. Staff can recommend approval as the request is minor in nature and legitimizes an existing fueling station. The proposal is compatible with surrounding commercial and institutional uses and will not negatively impact the area. City department's recommendation

is for approval. So, I have to ask I thought you might to legitimize. How long has this been here? Good question. I thought you were going to ask about the title 34. [laughter] I'm like, why is it in front of us? That's Yeah. Did someone complain about Yeah. So, there was there was work done on the site that didn't uh include permits, which is why the the proposal is here. Uh development on the site on the sort of southwest corner was done without permits. And so since the title 34 district took effect, that's why we're here. Okay. Thank you. So would you please provide your names and indicate whether or not you've been sworn? Uh my name is Vikova. I haven't been sworn.

Okay. My name is Muhammad. Muhammad what? Yes. Uh Muhammadb. Okay. Have you been sworn? I'm honorable, please. Okay. Both please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you'll provide is the truth to best of your knowledge and belief? If so, say I do. I do. I do. Thank you. And be sure to sign your name on the sheet. You have the recommendation of approval from the city of Columbus as well as unanimous approval from the Greater Hilltop Association. Is there anything additional that you'd like to add? Not really. Okay. Are there any questions from colleagues, questions or comments?

Just a question. What triggers looking at the number of curb cuts on a parcel like this? So uh we have we actually did have a discussion on this and since when this proposal was a little larger in scope. So whenever there's a change in use or expansion of a use we generally look at the curb cuts and see um if anything's changing you know to substantiate looking at the accesses. So what was reviewed on this the the changes were uh very minor uh you know there was not an additional retail space being added or were not additional fuel pumps being added or anything like that. So um in this instance it there was not not a substantial change that was um triggering any changes to access on the property.

Okay. Okay. Duncan factors whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or there can be beneficial use of the property without the variance. Clearly there there could be whether the variance is substantial. I would say no. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered. I would say no. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, I would say no. Whether the property owner purchased the property with a knowledge of the zoning restriction, I would say I can't say whether the property owner's predicament can feasibly be obiated through some method other than a variance. Probably not. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed. I think by um by everything we can see the answer is yes. With that being said, would someone like to call the question?

I will call the question. Question's been called. Please call the role. Mr. Waldley, I agree with the chair's analysis of the Duncan factors and vote yes. Yes, Agelhoff. I agree with the chair's analysis and the fact that this is legitimizing an existing station and vote yes. Uh, Mr. Malpa, I agree with the chair as well and vote yes. Chair Jones, yes, the variances are granted. Good luck. Thank you. Take care. Thank you. I feel like I'm free right now.