Bza Meeting - Regular Meeting

hearing of the board of zoning and building code of appeals is now called to order at 6:30 November 19th, 2025. I ask the recording secretary please call role for attendance of members of the board. Mr. Claude here. Mr. Shel here. Mr. Alfredo present. Mr. Scott, Mr. Fosselman here. Also present pre present from the building. Just hold on one second. Come on in, please.

We're going to do it right now. I would like to ask the recording secretary to call roll call again please. Mr. Pado here. Mr. Shel here. Mr. Harrio present. Mr. Scott present. Mr. Foselman here.

Also present from the building department is zoning inspector Chris Hall and law director Mark Gadetti. All persons in the audience are required to sign in on the registration sheet. If you haven't done so, please do so now if you wish to speak at this hearing. You will be required to be sworn in as a court. Uh, as far as the board, is there any comments on the minutes on the last meeting? No comments. I make a motion we accept the minutes from the last meeting. I'll second that.

Thank you, gentlemen. All persons wishing to speak on the issues will please raise their right hand and affirm to this oath best use. Do you slemly swear that the testimony you would be given this board is the best of your knowledge and accurate and truthful presentation of the facts? If so, say I do. I do. I do. Now in turn, please state your name and relationship to the case for the tape recorder recognition. Brian Smith Kushman in Wakefield. I am the commercial real estate broker helping Dr. Alab body lease. Okay.

And I'm Jeff Snell. I'm Dr. Olabat's um attorney with regard to this map. It's actually in an LLC. I think you know that 1011 East or Road. Okay. But that's it.

This hearing will be conducted in accordance with the provision of the Ohio Sunshine Law. The notice of the hearing was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Macedonia. The notice is available for review upon request at the building department. The rules of the board require affirmative vote of three members in order to pass regardless of the number of members present at the hearing. The hearing is conducted in an informal manner to review the evidence and to respond to questions. However, this is an outline of steps that will be taken in order. The appellet does not have to be present for the board to hear the case as publicized. Each case number and appeal request will be announced as it's turned. The first case number is going to be case 722. And if you gentlemen would like to come up and visit us up here. Chris, has there been any correspondence from the notify adjacent property owners?

No. Is there any unsolicited correspondence regarding this case? No.

Okay. Will the zoning inspector now please state the city's position? The Board of Zoning and Building Code Appeals will hear a request for a variance at 1011 East Aurora Road. The variance is to section 11711 E2A. Parking and access drives shall be set back from the street rightway a minimum of 20 ft. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the setback from the rideway to 10t 8 in, a variance of 9'4 in. Does the board have any questions to the city?

I have one for the law director. So, is this I've read through the the information that was provided us and I just want to find out if this is a case of itself or is this a continuation of the Do you mind if I give just a little bit of Sure. And I'm happy to add summary because it's an unusual Mark shared with me today that he had given you information about where that is and and I could add to that too.

Yeah. Just so just because not all members of the board were here the last time around so to speak, but um this this variance request was submitted to the BCA previously a couple years ago. Now, um, the BCA had not approved the variance. That was appealed to the court of common please, went up to the ninth district, back down to the court of common please, back up to the ninth district where it sits uh, currently. Um, that procedural posture is really context um, only. It doesn't really dictate how you are going to view this case tonight. You're going to view it on its merit um on its merits. Per the city's code, an applicant who is denied a variance request has the ability to come back to the BCA and make that same variance request any point after one year from the nonapproval um of the request. So, that's how um the applicant is before you tonight. And again, um you are going to utilize and review this case um based on the city's codified ordinance which sets forth the area variance factors um and that's in 1135.13 uh specifically subsection D1 talks about the various factors that the BZA utilizes to consider an area variance request. Can I add just to that? So it was actually in 2022 and there were only four members present of this board. Um so the vote was 2 to two. So it failed because it did not have a majority of the four people. I'm very pleased Mr.

Scott showed up tonight because I had visions of that decision which haunted Mark and I because it was a two to two decision. No, no, we're glad you're here. So it was a 2 to2 decision. We came back the following month and asked for reconsideration where a new member who had not been in the vote was present but that failed two to two. So we were not able to do that. We appealed to the court of the common police court who Mark and I have gone back and forth right. So granted this our you know reversed the decision the trial

in favor of us the trial court. Mark appealed that to the court of appeals. We argue this. Mark and I have become very good friends throughout this case. Uh we went to the court of appeals had an oral argument. They reversed the decision sent it back to the judge who sat on it quite a long time and then decided that it should be remanded back to you. And then the city appealed that to the board of appeals. And then we got together with the magistrate at the court of appeals who um asked if we could mediate this. And what we decided to do was come back here. Uh because obviously that's setting on a remand to come back to you anyways. Come back here, explain where we are, what has happened, and see if we can get a full board. Thank goodness we have five of you instead of four. So that all of you could consider that. So that's where we are.

Yeah. in the discussion I guess if you don't mind me sharing with with from mediation was was basically the applicant believes it has uh newer additional evidence that wasn't presented from the first time around. So this is their opportunity to present that to you all to consider in light of that practical difficulty standard. And then we are on with we have a phone call scheduled with the court tomorrow morning to update them on where we are which really isn't pertinent to your review. But yeah, that's correct. So again, just for clarification, this is this is on its own.

This is everything else that occurred previously, correct? is not tied in the decision specifically tonight. That's that's what my clarification is. Okay. You you'll be you'll be weighing the evidence presented tonight or if you believe there's additional evidence needed, the board has the authority to request that from the applicant and come back. Okay. But you'll be reviewing the evidence submitted in this case number. Now you have the context and you're aware of what the board did last time around. You know, obviously there are going to be uh uh duplication of facts to a certain degree,

but you're going to look at all the evidence presented um to you in this case specifically and look at that ev evidence based on the standard. Okay. I appreciate I appreciate the extra time that was taken for that though. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, no problem. That's what we're here for.

All right. The board will now allow a presentation from the appelllet. Please state your presentation on this case. Case 722. Sure. Floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Appreciate all of you being here tonight. We are talking about I think you all know this. The former Huntington Bank building here in Macedonia, right across the street on State Route 82 in front of basically Tractor Supply right next to Bordon Food Service. Um it is a building that has four lanes which are lanes for a drive-thru. Um Dr. Alabati purchased this property in 2017. In 2018 he went to the planning commission and asked to enclose that space with the drawings and plans that you have before you. He was granted it. It's this space here. Yes. And I handed out

enclosed the everything in pink. So, uh, I have an exhibit here, exhibit A. I marked them A1, A2, A3. Um, that shows, uh, where it is right next to Alexandria Trail. And then there's a closeup of it. And then there's a closeup of the front page from the rightway. You have it all here, Rob.

So, so let me give you a quick um kind of a quick history. So, in 2017, he purchased it. In 2018, he went to the planning commission. The planning commission approved the plan that you have a plan to enclose that space where those four drive-thru lanes were built and build a brick facade underneath the roof that exists in the Western Reserve, you know, uh, standard of the city. Um he went through that process and the planning commission approved the plan with no variance that included the parking along State Route 82 as is set forth here tonight.

That when you say included the parking they approved that? Yes. A variance? No, no, no. They approved the whole No, they never asked for a

So let's explain. So he went to the planning commission which approved the entire plan including the 18 parking spaces in front of the building without a variance. Dr. Alabati did not start that project within a year. So that and Mr. Hall can correct me or Mark can correct me on this. It expired. Okay. So in 2021, he went back to the planning commission to bring the same plan back. The planning commission approved it, but said, "You must now go to the board of zoning appeals. You're going to need a variance to put in the parking that we approved in 18, but that's now expired." That's how we got to the variance. Okay. We came here for a variance. We had two hearings with regard to the variance here. Um, and that was in 2022. Uh, we are seeking a variance of 9.4 ft. So, let me just run through these exhibits because you're kind of all open to those. So, these A's are the property. Again, it's right in next to Gordon Food Service, the parking lot, and then, you know, Fifth Third is in here. This entire area, as you know, is zoned B2 in the city of Macedonia. So, there's certain standards with regard to it. It actually B2 also goes across Crow Drive to a couple of places. Cassa D'Angelos's and also Howard Hannah. Those buildings, I'm going to kind of refer to them in that way. So, here's the property. We have a building that sits there. There is a restriction on the uh when Dr. after all body bought it from the bank that the that you cannot install another bank on the property when Huntington sold it. You can't

install another bank at the property. So it's yeah deed restriction. So in this area where the lanes are he wants to enclose that. We understand that if you gave us a variance, we still have to go back to the planning commission with this plan because it has now been three years since we were here um uh in order to finalize the plan for the project in front of the building between the rightway and the curved area of the building. There's a curved area that jets out in front of the building. Twothirds of this building is operated um occupied by a dentist. Onethird of the existing building is vacant. There's approximately 4,000 square feet in that portion of the building. And there would be an additional 4,000 square ft of building where the drive-thru is. It would eliminate the drive-thru and fill that in with a building. The access to that space, that commercial space would be from the front, obviously from 82. There's approximately 50 feet from the rightway to the curve of this building. There is a one lane driveway in front of this building because it was built for a drive-thru, meaning you go all the way around the building, you go through the three, four lanes of drive-thru. That was how it was used. And this never operated as a two-way back and forth. So um we are seeking uh on A4 you can see it would make a 10 foot 6 in uh area where the setback would be. The setback would decrease from 20 feet to

10 foot 4 in. That's the

10 foot nine. I apologize. Thank you. It's 9 ft 4 in is what we're seeking. Um, so we're going to talk about the neighboring properties and this whole area of B2 and how all of them, many of them of the eight properties on that side of the road, six of them do not comply with the 12 with the 20 foot setback variance. Some of those or setback some of those have received a variance. Others of those we don't know how they were created and we can go through them with these exhibits. But we thought the new evidence here that we wanted to present is Brian Smith. Brian is a realtor who's been marketing this property for the entire time that Dr. Alroati has owned the property. And during the process of going through this plan last time, there were questions raised about whether you know uh the people who voted against it said the issue was that we don't have a tenant and if you don't have a tenant we don't know if this will be sufficient with regard to parking or how parking will operate. You need to bring us a tenant first. So throughout this process, we've been diligent in working with Mr. Smith to see if we could acquire a tenant. So we could come back with that information related to that tenant and say we need to provide parking for this tenant. The inherent problem with the property is most c uh most people who want to rent this space want to know that their customers can easily gain access. Can I I ask can I interrupt? I'm sorry.

Sure. Just just for clarification. I just when when the 9 foot 6 or 10 foot 9 whatever when you're done you have enough space to have a a traffic lane and parking in the front. Is that correct? I just want to make sure there's not enough space for two-way lane. Yes, there is. There is. There is. And it's on the pl on the plan. So we have 50 ft. Okay. So within that 50 ft we will have 20 ft for the two lanes of traffic and 20 feet approximately for the head in um uh parking. Okay.

In other words, the spaces are about 18 ft in depth. Uh you know the parking spaces you have to show depth of that much and then you need at least 20 ft for the lanes of traffic. Okay. So the plan is to put 18 total spaces in the front. One is a handicap space. You'll see on the plan that's in your materials. Give me just a second here. There is this plan that you will see in your materials. Those pink spaces will be the new spaces. You'll see that in the front. Oh, there

there are parking spaces in front. Those are accommodated because you'll see that our drive-thru lanes are kind of receded from 82. So the standard here tonight is a practical difficulty standard. We wish that we were not here. We would like to take the entire building and move it back 9'4 in

but the problem. But the problem with moving it back is what we all understand. It's practically difficult, right? We are stuck with a building and where it is, which makes it difficult to provide parking without some kind of variance so that we can get that parking accommodated and provide for traffic. So, I'd like to start with Mr. Smith and just kind of talk about what his experience has been with regard to marketing the property. Couple before you start. Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

The uh Oh, there it is. Is this the draw drive? No, that's you're just referencing. This is in the application. I'm happy to give you this to you. Yeah, it's in the application. I will pull my copy. No, you you refer. Okay. To have it, you know, the customers walking far. All right. But I note that you only have one handicap parking spot up there and everything you're asking for. Who are you referring to? A regular person that can walk? There's only one handicap parking spot.

I understand. But all persons. In other words, um, one of the issues that arose at the last hearing was, well, you have parking behind the building, so therefore the customers can get to the building by walking from the back. It's approximately 200 ft to walk from the back of the building to the front of the building to enter it in this area. So, this this building was built in a unique way. The entrance is on the side for the dental office. That's where you used to enter Huntington Bank from the side. And the parking here is along the side for the customers going when it was a bank. What's the entrance in the back of that building? There's an exit for Huntington Bank

customer. You know that there was an exit for the bank itself. So the original entrance is the entrance for the dental office that exists in twothirds of the building. We are we are proposing this addition and the entrance to those would be an entrance from 82, right? You would pull in and you would be able to walk in. If we didn't have parking in the front, not all, we're not saying customers all are handicapped and that's the only way. No, I understand that. But we would like to add more handicap parking. You only have one handicap parking spot. I do have another two existing handicap parking for for the tenant. Now

he has handicap parking on this side and we meet the standard of handicap parking. We would like to accommodate more parking but we literally have 18 spaces, one of which is a handicap if we get the variance and there's no other way to put parking there. One of the issues and you would recall this from three years ago was could you put parking on the west side of the building. The answer is you can't because this side of the building we would violate the setback. In other words, we have you have to drive around. You have to drive around just like just like the other bank right down the street from you. Two doors down to your to your right on your side. They drive it's all drive one way all

because that they are a single tenant and they have a drive-thru and they have a one-lane road that goes around the building. We are simply trying to gain access here from this driveway in Mr. Smith and um we have a few more questions then we'll talk to Mr. Smith. Okay. You'll have all night if you want. What I'm looking at also is is the parking next to to your right on your right side. There's a little grass area and then there's the open parking there. That's also parking for the shopping center, too. Am I correct? The next unit over the next It's not a next unit. It's right here. The parcel next to it has parking.

Yeah. Yes. Yeah. That's all parking, too. And it's for everybody. No, it's not for us. No, that's not for us. It's not for us. That parking goes with the uh with the gym in the back uh the um subway. They had to provide that parking. That's not accessible to us. That is parking that goes with the rear building. Is that correct, Mr. Hall? Yes. It goes to the gym. I I used to remember Sears, but what's there now? What is that gym called? Planet Fitness. Planet Fitness. Thank you very much. I want to say Sears. That's a while ago. Sears. I'm an old person. I don't know who can use that parking.

Shut. But so we're clear. I've actually looked at this the parking if you want to look. Um let's let's go to an exhibit and try to explain that. Um let's go to B1. So, Chair Palato is referring to the parcel mark 3317. That's where I call it Sears Hardware, but it's also Planet Fitness and Subway. And I think there's an auto part store. That parcel, it's right here. Let me point to it. Got it. No, right here.

This one right here. You can see the lines of the parcel include the frontage where the parking area is. And while we never see cars in that parking area, right? I've never seen a I mean, I've seen like two cars there at times, that parking is expressly provided for this portion of the shopping center. It is attached to that and it is exclusively their use. It is not ours. Chris, I'd like to find out for sure. Will you let us know? Chris, we don't own it.

No, I know you don't own it, but it's a shopping center. Okay. Nobody tells people at Walmart that they can't park next. Yeah, I have I have the grass like I'm away from the the the borders 10 ft and he he has 10 ft from the border and there is there's trees fine trees in between. I I will I'm happy that he will look at this, but I will testify that we have no legal right to use those. They're not there. There's no way his uh customers will legally there.

Yeah. But but yeah, it's that that's just out of the question. So, uh, I'm happy to go through these other parcels and talk about the distances they are and their setback, but before we go there, if it's okay with the chair, I'd still like to talk to Mr. Smith. Yeah. Do you have any other questions, guys?

I do. How many uh how many of these parcels were labeled on the on the roadside labeled as two tenant parcels? Um none of the parcels to uh the only two tenant parcel is that what you're talking two tenants on a parcel. Yeah. The only one that I am aware of is Dr. Valathon and St. Monica's credit union. There are uh the credit union has a dental office with an orthodontist and a pediatrist and a dentist

um in that building as their tenants. And then so that's a two tenant building I guess. Uh but none of these others except when we flip to the west side of Crow Drive, the Cassadangelo parcel which is actually multiple parcels and then the Howard Hannah parcel has multiple tenants in it. Yep. That's that's on the other other side of the street. And I can go through these if that is what you want to do now. No, I was just curious about that. Okay. Go ahead. You're up now. Okay.

Okay. So, Mr. Smith, um tell us about um your relationship to the property. First, tell us about your background. How long have you been in commercial real estate? Uh

I've been in commercial real estate since 2006, some for my own purposes. I've been with Fisherman Wakefield since 2017. Um Sam, you and I think a lot alike. Like the first thing I said, you know, to to Dr. was why don't we utilize a parking lot next door and it doesn't I didn't know it belonged to at that time well that answers that question. So you know common sense and what we can actually do were two different things. I think you can understand where we're coming at. But um I I think what he wanted me to convey was on the marketing aspect of this. When we talk to potential tenants and clients that we look at taking this space, you know, what what has been the difficulty? What's been the challenge with backfilling the space? Uh whenever we run into existing buildings and how do we repurpose them? Things like this can be a challenge. parking access, uh, neighboring property, how it's laid out, um, electrical service in the building. You know, there's there's a million different scenarios. U, but one of the bigger challenges with this property has been it's parking. Everybody wants to have parking in front. It creates a sense of we're busy, we're open, people notice because when you park out back, people don't know that there's, you know, something functioning there. So, you know, with an active parking up front, people realize that it's it's functioning. it's an active business and it creates their you know it spurs their curiosity as to why they should utilize that particular business. Some of the different uses that we've seen uh come across interest in this property have been medical related dental uh we had an eyeare professional was interested in going here but they don't feel that there's adequate parking to to satisfy their customers needs. So, in order for them to go through the process of like what we're doing here, this could take years. And at that point, they're just like, "Well, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. We're going to go ahead and and focus our efforts into other communities

or other areas that we think there's opportunity to help." Um, you know, what we're asking you guys for is a little help in how do we repurpose this building, how do we service the community, and what what's the best way for this property to function now that it's in its second tier, in its second cycle, you know, and this is the challenge that we face. So you brought along the closest that you came to finding a tenant over the last three years since we were here last year was a financial services person and can you tell me a little bit about that financial services company and then you brought some papers related to that. So tell me that was around 23. It was yeah later in the year in 23 we had Jones um they wanted to open up an office here. they felt that um that the community needed another financial services financial advisor and one of the the main objections was the parking. We were we were asking them to be patient, you know, that we would work through this process to help one. Um but they ultimately decided that they didn't want to wait and they had a consultant that brought a report. I think you have that correct. I saw it here. There it is. They had a consultant who looked at the property and they're called Chain Links Retail Advisors. And you know, you're familiar with them. Can you tell us? There are many there's there's different you know groups that we're in um as far as commercial real estate brokers whether it be the society of retail advisors or chain which is another retail advisors um the international council of shopping centers there's a bunch of organizations where we all get together we try to figure out how other ways to help each other that's that's another group that that does that and they they do a lot of work with different retailers and they they try to find you know little niches and So it's accurate to say they're consultants for people who are who are looking to occupy spaces and so Dr. Aurati is proposing building a new construction. So this would be new

offices. But the concern with this these people, the financial services people when they kind of pulled out of the deal is they wrote this and we have this from chain links retail advisors dated August 7th, 202023. And you'll see they highlighted the building and they put a little asterisk here where the space was going to be. and they wrote, "We also wanted to confirm parking since if the proposed store will be around the circled area, our clients need would need to walk from the back parking lot all the way to the front and it wouldn't be in the best client experience, especially during the winter months. Meaning the issue with these tenants was their customers, their clients of the financial services uh people could not get to the front door without walking 200 ft and they thought that presented a problem with the space and ultimately did they rent the space and

and this is one client well for the last three but we have had multiple clients and I want to be clear on that. I I realize you you you are not in favor of this. I mean I you weren't true. Well, I don't know where you I don't know where you are, but last time you were not. And so what I want to share that was history. I understand. And we're not discussing that. Yeah. Okay. Well, and I and I and I just want to try to resolve this so he can build out the building and get clients. We we didn't have just one person. Multiple people have looked at this property. Many people have looked at this property. But the inherent problem is we cannot say that there will be parking in front of the building.

Right? And we cannot

like I expressed before and I'll do it again that our Brian France says that there's more spaces than they need for this building in this parking. Just let me add more like actually this is what John like it was a very strong tenant that I lost um when when we received this email from the empire I asked Mr. to call the city to see if we can because they want this place. So he called Mr. product back then. We start asking them please we need the product plan and we need to see how how long your business can run to decide whether whether we're going to get the the then uh I took this back to Mr. Smith and I asked him if he can ask the tenants to provide uh to provide us a plan uh for to give to the city with a letter that we really need the space and once they solve this just because that it's accurate to say the issue is it's not just waiting for a build. It's also not knowing whether you're going to be able to have parking that your customers can easily access the front door. And so if we could get the parking, you know, Dr. already would like to build the building. He would like to build the building today.

And since you said that, why don't you explain to us what the building's going to be? This shows like there's four different areas. No, those are the drive-thru lanes that we're getting rid of. Okay. So, how many how many actual the 4,000 square foot is it? One tenant? Is it going to be two tenants? Is it going to be three? Because the first couple times you came, it might be three and then maybe one. So what what's it going to be? Do you know

the space is 4,000 square ft and that includes part of the other building. It is it is it has two doors on it. It could conceivably if we can get a tenant, it could be one. The the people who were here with the financial service wanted to take the entire space as the financial services space and that's how we would like to rent it. The space that you see here, those are the lanes for the drive-through lanes that would be eliminated. That's why you see those in there because we're getting rid of them. We're enclosing that all. And there's some beautiful pictures and rendering. You can see the brick and all the motif and what it looks like on the outside. The roof would remain the same. It would just enclose that space.

So, we have had Yeah. One last thing. We have had multiple tenants trying to find the, you know, trying to access this property, but it has to be built out and then they don't know whether they'll they don't want to really wait to see if they can get parking in front of the building. And that's why we're here to say we have tried to market the property. We have tried to come with a tenant and a lease to you and say we need a variance to make this parking. And I think everybody on the board said, "We are not against this. We just want to know who's coming here." And we can't get it's the chicken and egg. Brian helped me today. He said, "That's a chicken and egg problem. You have to have the chicken before you can get the egg." We have to have the ability to show we can show parking to be able to get a tenant to want to move forward. Dr. Carlo body would like to build the building but he doesn't want to invest the money in building the building if he cannot show anyone parking spaces in front of the building because no one wants to have a space that they have to walk 200 ft to from the back of the building. That's the that's the problem here. And the problem with a one-way direction going around the building is it's confusing for a customer and it's not easy to get in and out. So, we'd like to take that front area and do that. I can tell you that when you look at these other properties along 82 in the B2 zone, of eight properties along that way, only two comply with the 20oot setback. That's the car wash next to Gordon Food Supply and that's Dr. over body's property because his

property has more than 30 feet of setback. But this is these this is happened when they were built. Okay. They went to the planning commission. They went to the the BCA. Okay.

Should be careful and this came up with the I think district court of appeals or argument. There may be a situation where Route 82 was expanded at some point in time and the the properties existed how they existed. And when 82 got expanded, you may have a situation where the the pro property lines um are different um than the code states but not as a result of getting variances. It was a result of pro you know basically appropriation matter.

Yeah. That means my property was even more toward the street. So they cut from my property too to widen the street. So it affect me too, right? I don't just to be fair the entire rideway of 82 is 60 ft. It's mostly pavement now. It wasn't pavement at one point. Right. The right of way was 60 ft in width, but it only had two lanes on 82. Those lanes had horse and boogies going up 82.

I understand. I have pictures of the horse and buggies that that came through here. That that what it looked like, right? There were two lanes in a 60 ft rightway. That rightway has not changed. That rightway is the same that it has been, but that rightway is now filled with asphalt throughout this whole zone. It's not wider. The pavement is wider, but the road now is five lanes because there's a turn lane in there and it only occupies the same 60 ft. And to be fair, Mark, we don't have any information about the road ever being widened beyond the 60 ft. It is what it was when it was a horse and buggy lane. That's the dedicated rideway.

So, it's called pavement. Yeah, it became pavement and it became encroach on that pavement.

We're not the pavement is exactly We aren't encroaching on it. I guess yeah, I guess my note was just to explain the visual when you look at things from a a map perspective that may explain why it looks how it looks today. And just to clarify that there I don't I don't know but I don't think there's any evidence in this case that variances were granted for each and every one of those but properties. But we can tell you that Gordon Food before they ever built a building came before this very board and we put the decision in there came before this board before they ever had a building or um a practical difficulty. They had a blank piece of property and they said, "We want to build here, but we we need uh at the time they said a 7 foot um variance for the front setback or we won't build a building here and the and this board and I know it wasn't you."

We we don't know that they said that. Well, yes, we do. We can read it. Okay, that's okay. Go ahead.

Well, let me read it. It's under D. And let's read what they say. The applicant is proposing the parking be 13 ft from the rightway, a 7 foot variance. Anna Hjek asked if any part the parking lots in the area were as close to Route 82 as being proposed. John Walsh explained the decision to align the curve for GFS, Gordon Food Supply, with the existing curve of Huntington Bank, Dr. Alabati's property. Um uh because of the alignment and the layout of the site, some parking spaces have to be located along 82, Route 82, making these spaces closer to 82 than the surrounding parking lots. John Walsh said they chose to apply for their variances prior to going to the planning commission because without the variances they would not be able to construct the proposed building on this site. The building department also did not have any issues with granting this variance. After a brief discussion, Sue Metsel made a motion to grant the variance with Mark Farley seconding his motion, his motion. All board members voted yes and the variance was granted. So this is case number 488. Um, so that was in 13. So if you look on I didn't mark it, but it would be the second page of the D. This is the actual plan that came in for them. So before they had a building, before they had planning approval, they received a variance based on practical difficulties. But there was no practical difficulties. They had a blank property. They could have put the

parking wherever to comply, but they received a variance to do that. That is directly next to us. That variance was seven feet according to the public record. But in fact, when you look at the distance, we'll go through it. It's actually 10 feet because what they did is they moved the wall closer to Route 82 and they took additional space and included it where their parking lot is. You also you also have to note look at where the location of their building is. Okay. Compared to where you're talking about. Yes.

So when they came to BCA, we were on the board, but when they came here and they went to the planning commission, this was already set up. I mean, this was in their plans that this is where they wanted their building. Okay? You know, we have no but we can't do anything about let there was no building. When they came for that variance, they didn't. We have a practical difficulty. Here's our problem. We cannot move our building 9 feet 4 in back from State Route 82. We can't move it because it's when you purchased when you purchased the building, you knew that there was some stipulations.

I need to say this. No, you know this is something but but here but here's what I can tell you. Let me answer this please.

In 2017 I have a contract on the building with Hampton bank. So I have three or three months before I either buy it or leave it. My lawyer partner advised me to come to the city to talk to them about my project which is you have now. Uh I came to the ladies in the front there and they asked me if you like to to meet with the mayor. I did I did meet with Mr. and and I present the case to him and he said I don't think have any problem purchasing the property. I didn't know even even when the plan was approved in 2018, nobody even talked about this. They just didn't approve. It was to my surprise only one that all of a sudden Mr. Brian the city planner. Oh no, you need to go you need to go to the planning commission. And he is the same guy who who did bring this various a problem in 2018 with the plan was approved. So I went forward and I purchased the the building because I want to develop it and all of a sudden okay I cannot do it. So I put all this money pushes in the building and now I'm having hard time that I know about this variance which is I never knew nobody ever told me about it. The planning commission Mr. Brian then didn't know about it or he maybe just didn't want to mention it the planet approved in 2018 and here I am now in front of you.

So he did go to the city and talk to them. he did go to the planning commission and get approval for this very thing that we are seeking a variance on now and it was approved and so to his knowledge he didn't need a variance but let me go through the other properties along 82 and just review these because this was um this I think is important. So, can you turn to B the B uh section? What I'm gonna do is just

Can I make one point to go back just just so I I think we could all agree that the use of the building has changed. So, we talked about these will s single tenant building. Now, in this situation, it's a multiple tenant. The number of tenants or who exactly the tenant is, we don't have that information, but it's going to be a multi-tenant building. That's what it seems like. Is is that correct? Yes. Okay. It it I mean I like the analogy of the chicken and the egg, okay? Because that's where we're at,

right? But our inherent problem is we cannot bring the chicken because we cannot bring a tenant who wants to wait to determine if they can have parking that's easily accessible. And that's why we brought the exhibit related to the tenant we were most close to who said my customers can't get in easily. That's a difficulty. So let's go through the other parcels. So exhibit B, those are the properties east of Crow Drive to State Route 82, Alexandria Road. Alexandria Road is on the other side of um St. Monica's Credit Union by uh on that far side. So we want I went in order from uh west to east. So the parcel is actually 3312 329. That's the fifth third parcel. Their front yard and there's a picture you'll be able to see their front yard. Their setback is violate they're violating the front setback by 3 ft. Parcel number 3311077. That's the parking area that you refer to uh Mr. Chairman, the parking area that goes with uh Planet Fitness.

Correct.

They are violating the front setback by 2.5 ft because their parking is too close to 82. Um our applicants property uh is well in access at least 32 feet from 82 as it exists. Gordon Food Supply is violating it by 10 feet. Their variant says seven, but in reality, you'll see the picture too. It's 10 ft. Meaning it's 10 ft from the right away when it should be 20. They had they should be 13. That's with their variance. Next is um and that was parcel number 331297. Next parcel is 3313219. The car wash car wash complies. They're 2.3 feet over, meaning they have 22.3 ft. The St. Monica's Dr. Valathon and Gindi, their front setback is short by 4T. It should be 20 ft. It's only 16 ft from the rightway. The pictures are below that you can look at. B uh five or B1 through B8. Let's go to BC. uh C I should say and let's look at that. These are the parcels that are west of Crow Drive. There are two main buildings there of multi-tenant buildings. They're along the same 60oot rideway of 82. The first parcels are a group of parcels that make up what is Cassa D'Angelo's Plaza. Those are parcel numbers 3301717 3301718 and 330341. Those three parcels make up Casadelos. They are violating the front setback. They are short by 11.5 ft.

Just to be clear when you say violating the setback they're actually violating the 20. They're not in compliance with 20 ft, but they may be a prior legal not for use.

We don't we don't know how it came about. There are no records in the city of Macedonia that I am aware of that explain that. But I'm saying in the B2 district, there is there are properties that have um only an 8.5 foot setback from the rightway and they should have 20. The next one is parcel number 3303364. That's the Howard Hannah building. Another multi-tenant building along Crow Drive. They comply with the 20ft setback. But along 82, they are short by 13 ft.

I guess I guess this is this is all this is all great, but does it

really imply to what we're looking to do here? It does because the standards that you're to apply are the practical difficulty standards. And the practical difficulty standards say whether the essential character of the neighborhood, the B2 district, would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment as a result of Dr. Albat's variance. And our position is all of those properties do not comply with the setback that is required. The car wash does and Dr. Alraati does. But would the standard that you have to apply the essential character of the neighborhood would it be substantially altered uh or whether ver uh adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment? Um, I agree with your argument there. That would be harmonious with the neighborhood. I mean, it's clear. I mean, that is not, you know, you know, the opposite of, you know, that's what, you know, I got a check mark next to D because of just that,

you know. I'm sure you guys citizen

there was like I said I asked Chris that and there was an objection in the last version of this either like no other neighboring properties came in to raise objection. So just a real quick question to I know you want to build a building the way you want to build it. I guess that's all frontage on Route 82 with the two doors. Okay. There's not going to be no back entrances at all to this to this. Yeah, there going to be emergency by law. I have to have that.

Absolutely. I understand that. But I'm talking about entrances, exits for the property, for the store, the retail or the financial company or whoever you bring in. There's not going to be entrances or exits back there. Just emergency. There will be an exit in the back as emergency. I have to provide an exit. Yes,

the emergency. I'm asking if there's going to be an entrance exit. I need to bring one more thing like um I have all my utilities and and and in the back. Uh so there is three loud AC units next to the back. It's very loud and all my power lines and everything back. Yeah. In the back. It's actually behind the existing building. That's the addition right there. Yeah. So, one of the issues that came up last time was could you have an access for customers from the front? And I think that's what you're going to have all of our utilities servicing this building from the back.

We also have all the air conditioning units in the back. We have all that infrastructure there. So, we would have to figure out how to navigate that. That's that's where the back is three unit with with five five behind this building now right here. Yes. Yes. Not behind behind the new this is not building

but behind the new building there's really not a space to put an entrance. Does that make sense? It's very difficult to put an entrance there. Um and so you would be walking by the air conditioning units to get there. We have always felt, you know, we have tried to look at this. You've you've opened our eyes, right? One of the issues was move the entrance off of Alexandria Drive, right? Move the alignment of the driveway coming in. We can't move the alignment of the driveway coming in because it aligns with Gordon and it creates a safety issue. Close off one of the entrances. We can't because the entrances are important for the fire department. The fire department wants two ways in

and two ways out. So, we cannot do that. And also, you're getting traffic from the back of the buildings coming off a crow driving in that way and coming in. So, you have to have those exits and entrances coming in. Yeah, understandable. Okay.

We wish we could move the building physically back because if we could move the existing building physically back, we would not be here. But the practical difficulty standard that you have to apply says, is there something else we could do? Is this caused by us? No. It's caused by the fact we have a very narrow area in relationship to a two-way traffic and parking to be able to get parking in the front of this building to make this, as Mr. Smith as a viable space, a space that can't a tenant will want. Dr. Already wants to get rid of four lanes of unused drive-throughs. We cannot do that without knowing that we can have parking in the front for a potential tenant and make this a marketing uh marketable property. Let me talk about the standards because I'm glad you went through those. This is the standard of your resolution. Whether the special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structure involved which are not applicable generally to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Examples include circumstances are exceptional irregularity, narrowness, shallowess, steepness of the lot or proximity to non-conforming or inharmonious use structure conditions. The adjoining properties violate the the 20 foot setback.

I wish you wouldn't use that word violate. Okay. Well, I try something different. Sorry. Okay. I don't They don't comply. That's better. Thank you.

Sorry. They don't comply with the 20 foot setback, right? So is this the reason we can't comply with that is we cannot physically move the building and put this in the front of the building without some consideration and variance. That's why we're here now. And that's caused by where the building's located, right? Because when it was built, it wasn't intended. It was intended as a bank with four drive-throughs. That's where most of the customers were driving through, not coming in. whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. We have a third of the building that we currently cannot rent because we cannot show that you can gain access to that property from the front of the building. We have nowhere to park and next to it are drive-thru lanes. We want to improve that and be able to park in front of the building so that that space can be usable in the city. Whether the variance is substantial and is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land and structure. And so this is the minimal because we want to keep the integrity of 82. We have a landscaping plan. We presented that. We have fencing that goes along 82, very similar to what Gordon does. Our property is below the grade of 82, which means that there will be a 30in wall um before 82. So all the cars will actually be hidden as you drive down 82 because they will be below the grade of 82. Their headlights, they'll be below that grade. 30 inch wall, 2 and 1/2 ft.

Yeah, that's what's that's what's provided on the plan. Very similar to Gordon. Gordon's is probably a little bit more because of their grade. Um whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether they're joining properties would suffer. We talked about D. um whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services, water, trash, it won't um whether special conditions or circumstances exist as a result of actions of the owner. Actually, none of those conditions exist. Dr. Allotti met with the mayor, met with the planning commission, got approval for this plan, all thinking this was fine until the second time around. whether the property owner's uh predicated feasibility can be achieved through some other method other than a variance. We're open. We've tried to put parking to the west. We've tried to figure out if there's another way to do it. That turret on the outside of the building that goes into the space and that limits our footprint because that little turret is out about six feet and we have to accommodate that to get our driveway in. Could we try to steal a little bit out of the flower bed in front of there? We could, but then we'd run out of alignment to the driveway to Alexandria. Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by Granting the Verz. I think it would. The spirit of the zoning is to allow some buffer along 82 to landscape that buffer and our neighbors have done various something has happened with regard to our neighbors and and compliance with the 20 foot setback. This would enhance that

area, put some fencing, put some landscaping along there and enhance certainly the property as it exists. whether granting the variance requested will confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this regulation to other land structures buildings in the same district. We don't think anybody else has denied anything by granting this to us because many of them do not comply. And whether a literal interpretation of the provision of this code would deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same districts under the under this district in under the terms of this code. And we think that all of those front setbacks do not comply. And I say with exception, the car wash complies, right? But none of them are here to complain either. So we hope you will apply this standard and allow Dr. Balati Balarati to put in 18 spaces, one of which is handicapped, 17 of which are along this area so we can put this property into productive use. Brian, do you want to add to that because you're the expert on what's viable for purposes of tenants.

Parking is a major concern. It really is. When I when I look at the overhead map, you know, it just doesn't I don't see how it kind of creates a harmonious curve line, you know, if if we do get that variance. It keeps it in in sync with everybody else. Um, and and I guess I would ask you, Sam, is there any hardship that would be felt on the city side that maybe we should address by by this variance? Would it would it cause any problem with the city that maybe we haven't thought about? I really don't don't think What do you say, Mark? Is there any hardship on the city end?

Well, that's not really one of the factors to be considered. I mean, if you have I guess a practical suggestion as a way like what for instance what you were getting at earlier, I think you know, can you put the entrance in the back would be a maybe a practical suggestion to fix this. Can you um close off the parking on Alexandria and get a second access point through the Planet Fitness parking lot? Have you explored a easement with Planet Fitness for parking? You know, that would be I guess maybe an answer to those kind of questions, but it's not really a Duncan factor for you to consider. We had that problem with one of the businesses that wanted to put that coffee shop in and they went

it will benefit the city when I bring more more tenants that means more viable business in the city and this will improve like all of us pay tax you know I'm bringing more businesses to your area and I'm going to make it hopefully I will make it the most standing building in the whole street. You understand? That's what we want. Yeah. Okay. That's why we're here. I'm here to I'm I'm developing the space for my benefit and for the city benefit. So, it's a combined benefit for both both of us.

So, let me say this. I feel like maybe my words have been a hindrance here and I don't want my words to hurt my client. He wants to improve this property. He wants to get rid of four ugly uh bank planes during the course of this litigation which has been going on for three years up and down. We could have come back here in a year to say we can't resolve this problem. But we didn't. And the reason we didn't is because I knew we would raise skepticism. Why haven't you got a tenant? Why haven't you worked harder to get a tenant? Mr. Smith has been working hard to get a tenant. The inherent problem with those tenants is the parking issue. If we can't show that you can park in front of the building where you access the space, they're reluctant. Just like that report shows, they don't want to invest because they don't want their financial services people to walk 200 feet from the back in winter or bad weather. So instead of running back here and presenting this over and over and over at Nauseium, which we could have done, we waited and we tried to get a tenant. We work through this litigation, but frankly, I have tried to talk to you and keep you calm because you felt like you talked to the city and you got approval and I don't understand this. And I think that some of those messages have been lost. The standard you're to apply here is practical difficulties. Our practical difficulties are we cannot pick up this building and move it back 9 feet 4 in.

If we could, I guarantee you I would rather do that than be before you. But I cannot move it. And that turret is our biggest problem. That thing sticks out too far and creates inherent problems in that front. We can't change it. We're stuck with it. So that's why we need the variance. Let me ask one question. I don't want to get too far and I'm going to ask the real man. We have 4,000 square feet to work with. You're looking at one tenant, two tenants. I've heard as many as three tenants. We've never said three. There are two spaces.

Well, I can tell you from my end of things, I would prefer one. And the space that But are we shopping two?

We're shopping one, maybe two. We tell people that we can give you 2,000 to 5,000 total square feet. Okay. Um just it it's too expensive to put up demising walls, put in mechanical services like air conditioning, water tanks, and their own electrical service to do three units in that small of a space. So no, I don't think I I thought I did the first the first meeting. It was one to three. We didn't know. Go ahead. You're right. It'll be no more than two, but we don't want two. We want one. So, we want the financial services. If we get two, we're going to have to look at different entrances and exits.

The same entrance. It's in this front of the building. There are two entrances in the front of the building. There are two doors. They're on the plan. If you look at the plan here, there's a door here and a door here. But in all practicality, it would be better to have one tenant here because there are only 18 spaces in the front of this building. There are not very many spaces in the front of this building under this plan. One tenant will likely need those spaces depending on what tenant you have in there. I mean, spaces if it's a restaurant, it's a whole different

but it will not be a restaurant. And I want Mr. Smith to talk about that cuz that came up last time. What if it's a restaurant? And the practicality is there are no restaurants in this area except Subway. That's that's the one restaurant that's in this area. The restaurants are all in a different section of town. I had actually marketed that space towards different restaurants, thinking a restaurant would fit there nicely, but wasn't considering parking at the time. Um, and they brought it to my attention. They said, "We don't have enough parking. There's no way we can't service our clients or we're going to be and we're not in the right district anyway." They said they would rather be on the other side of uh lower by messaging accounts. That's where you know that that synergy from all the other

all the restaurants are there and their reason is they attract each other, right? You go to one and you might go to the other but there are no restaurants here and we don't foresee that. We see uses as attorneys, not that we're trying to promote that, lawyers, accountants, dentists, uh orthodontists, a medical type user. at orthodontist. I actually had a an emergency care center that looked at it. Um the financial services, you know, there there were certain things that we didn't want in there. We as we had talked about like one one guy like marijuana doesn't want.

That's my belly. My parent is a dentist. I don't like that's that's doesn't

no long Dr. Berati has an office in Broadview Heights. He's a dentist. He lives in that direction too. He lives in Independence, right? And so he has a vested interest here. Honestly, if I was him and I went through this process and I'm six or seven years later, I don't know if I'd still be here because I would have been frustrated. We think there are practical difficulties in being able to access this area. And you know, we aren't a user who has a blank slate like Gordon did. They had a blank slate. They could have put the building wherever they wanted. They could have shrunk the building. They could have they didn't have something that hindered their ability to put something where it needs to be. We have a building that's close to 82. We cannot accommodate all this without a variance.

So I guess let's let's let's let's kind of wrap it up and tell us what is new compared to before. Our realtor and three years of experience

trying to find a tenant to occupy this property to bring you back a lease and say here is a tenant. We we were so close on the financial services person. We were very close to securing that tenant. The problem was the parking. And so what we had to say was you have to wait for a buildout, but you also have to wait to see if we can get a variance to put parking here in the first place. And that tenant believes that's too much time. You know what was easier to go to a different location and secure that location. Dr. Baroni knows we need to build a building. We need to show somebody the space and we need to show them the parking. And he's willing to risk his investment to do that in order to attract a tenant. We now know if we don't move forward, we might lose the ability to do this. So, he's prepared to build it so we can secure a tenant here and put this into productive use. And I hope given the other the the evidence that we put forward, the parcel numbers, what we've gone through, he wants to be a good neighbor here. We we aren't into trying to litigate this case and we didn't come back here in a year and we could have come back here two other times before this time. We could have been here three times already. We didn't do that. We waited till we tried to market it as hard as we could to secure the

marketing was also during the pandmic. So that had to be kind of a tough situation, but that was when we actually got our tenant for that's when he got the tenant. He got he got early on the dentist to move in there during the pandemic and be occupied. That was a relatively easy proposition. was good. The problem is here we can't we don't want he doesn't want to put the money into putting in a building if we don't know we have parking because all of these tenants are hung up on the parking issue. They don't want to rent a space to walk to have customers walk from 200 ft away from a parking.

Okay. Question. If you get the okay the variance we say yes will you put how long do you have to put those parking spaces in before you get a chance I'm going to I'm going to build the whole thing at the same time he wants to build the whole thing at the same time but so you're so we're clear we have to go back to the planning commission because their permit expired so the first thing we're going to do is go back there because it's all conditioned on them approving it

actually uh like when I talked to Mr. wrote it back then. I told him uh because the plan was approved in 2018 and and I need to to to have been approved again. He don't know it's just a matter of so in order to save time which apparently didn't save time at all I as the whole thing the drone is ready the construction is ready in order to save time to build it in that summer your plans have been approved by the planning committ hopefully

even I already have the construction documents everything is ready I just I I need to go back to the the planning committee again. Hopefully we will not have an issue with them and then within less than a month they will have everything in their table for the city to adjust to us what what

to put the parking spaces in alone to do that just that part of it is $80 to $100,000 because you know the question was well build the building and then we can decide whether you can get a variance to put that in just to mobilize just to do that was8 to $100,000. three years ago. So the plan for him, so you understand, we are going to go back to the planning commission to get approval plan, which we hope and believe that they've approved twice, hopefully third time, and then he can build the whole thing all at once and put in the parking spaces and the construct the building. And Mr. Smith believes once the building is there, it is attractive to a tenant because a tenant can figure out how to use it and how their customers can use it and then it can be built out custom to the tenant. That's the plan. So, we hope you will

have any other questions. Well, go ahead.

Yeah, you've been talking you've been talking a while. So, I I want to go back to this. So, um, single occupancy, uh, A, I'm good with, B, reasonable return. What the heck is that? I'm good with that. Uh, C, uh, are parking variances legal in the city of Macedonia? And did you guys pursue a parking variance with the, uh, neighboring property uh, that goes back to Sears Hardware, whatever that is? And do you have proof that you did pursue a parking variance with that? D, I'm good with that. E, did you provide, please, no, please.

Uh, you know, we're going back and forth way too much. I have way too many questions. E, did you provide a topo or civil survey? And is there any uh manholes or uh uh uh fire check valves or anything in the property where you're proposing an easement? have. Uh, sir, thank you. I appreciate. Uh, what's your line of work? You're a dentist that came out. So, how many of these properties do you own here? Uh, I I just own this. Actually, I was planning to open my dental office here. Uh, but this and the car wash? No, he doesn't. Oh, I thought you said you did own the car wash. So, this is your only property you own in this comp.

Okay, great.

Um, C, uh, grade H. Once again, did is parking variances uh did we look into a parking variance with the neighboring property? Um, you know, sometimes that takes a special relationship between the two property owners. Uh, and did you reach out to the uh neighboring property owner to see if you could work something out? Uh, I good to go. J, good to go. K, good to go. Did you guys consider uh one-way traffic through with diagonal parking spots? If you look at this drawing here, don't mind the science uh sweatshirt, but I am in construction. Did you consider diagonal? You do lose a lot with diagonal, but you can pick up four additional spots next to here. Uh do you have any drawings where you showed any different parking variations other than the one that you've shown here in the time prior?

Sure. So, let me try to answer some of these questions. First of all, the parking variance, and I want to ask this to Mr. Hall. The parking of the neighbor is committed to the neighbor's property and is required by the city, correct, to serve that and not us. Correct. I have a parking variance on my building in Cleveland where I have a relationship with the owner, Fred G. Yes, I do. Okay. So,

so we have two different two different owner owner groups there. Both Fred G. I work for Fred and we I can park my tenants in both parking spots legally. Uh, and my tenants, the people who work for my company can park in that neighboring property due to that parking variance in easement. and our uh insurance uh is aware of that so that our tenants can't my tenants, my people can't park in both of those parking areas which are two separate parcels. There is a way around that and it is difficult and you do typically need to have good relationships with the neighboring property owners. So I'm not certain if you guys have pursued that. We we have not because we understand those spaces are committed to that

um to that owner and cannot be multiused and counted towards the use of our property. Am I correct? I don't know if that's the case. You you explained to me whether that's possible. Yeah. Just because the situation and I mean just for the record I guess attorney Snow is asking I think me a question.

Yes. Um, so I I think anytime you have a single property owner who has parking spaces on the property, the default rule, so to speak, would be that's their spaces. Does that mean that they can't have an easement agreement agreeing to share spaces with the neighboring property? No. I mean, that's the whole point for easements. Would that require planning commission review and approval? Likely. Um, so is it possible? Possible. But as you mentioned, it kind of depends on the relationship between it's not a realistic situation either. You're you're talking about a grass rise there that you're going to have to have both. It's an avenue that hasn't been pursued.

Well, because it's on other property outside bars. So, let me let me try to answer some of these other questions. On the side, the parking on the side. um we have to put we have to be a setback from the side of the property and there is a onelane drive that goes next to the building. We cannot violate that by adding parking to the side of the building.

Okay? So you lose those. But the the one thing about the uh the angled parking is you can push your parking back that way a little bit more because you're not heading in. So the easement uh what you're asking for could be minimized. Okay. So the one item on here that says uh whether the variance is substantial and is the minimum necessary to make the possible the reasonable use of the land or structures. That's where I have a difficulty with and that's why I think the angle parking will kind of minimize

would make that the minimum necessary. He's having angle parking. He's having angle parking everywhere. Redoing all the parking and making everything angled. So let let's say this those standards he is saying he is doing that. No, you are. No, I'm saying even there's one or two options. If you just do the angled at the road, uh, forget the rest of the angles. Forget any of the other crap I talked about. Soon as you go on the angle, you get to push that way. Okay. Okay. You get to take your 7, 8, 9, I don't know what page it was, B1, B2, or B3, and that gets to be a smaller number. You're asking the city. Okay. But nonetheless, a variance.

So, minimum necessary. Here is my understanding with regard to the variance of the city. I'll try to these other questions. We only get one shot once a year in order to be here. So this decision you make, we have to live with for at least a year before we could ever come back. So we're clear. This you ask about manholes or easements for manholes or manholes around the property. There are no manholes on the property of any kind of for, you know, there are utilities or sewage, but I don't know what other manholes you're talking about. Uh, is it a sprinkler building?

Uh, do you do you have a water shut off? Do you Well, there was a sprinkler system. I I shut it off because the bank took the ground. Fire suppression system. A fire suppression system. I no I don't have um you know it doesn't we would need that in the new space. Yeah just just reading the one whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water sewer or trash pickup. I'm looking at water and sewer. Uh, and if there if you're moving into the right of way, you should make sure that you have a a a civil survey provided to make sure that you don't have

we are not going to affect any of the sewer, water or utilities for anyone else or ourselves. None of this improvement. We are taking 30 in of dirt in a small section in front of the building and we are moving that to be put a parking space. E is dependent on another uh E is dependent on another U if it's my responsibility to make sure that whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water, sewer, trash pickup, I think I would want that site civil survey to prove that and I understand what you're saying.

We will prove that to the planning commission. Is there anyone in the city that thinks we will affect any of the utility services serving any of that area? Can either one of you speak to that? They would just be assuming at that point that there's Well, there are there are no the sewer is much deeper and our utilities are served from the rear. In other words, we get our utilities not from 82. We get our utilities from the rear private drive. So, we aren't affecting any utilities on 82 because we don't get them from there. Do we have vaults on our property to provide certain utilities coming in? The answer is yes. They're in the rear. That's why we want to avoid

Yeah, I sorry I didn't show you the picture. I can't show you what my utility is rollout drawing that you had actual

and I don't remember the other issues you had but these these these standards and and Mr. together can uh uh talk about this. These these items, these are just items you can review, but they're not they don't all have to be met. They don't all apply. The question is, will substantial justice be done by virtue of the barriers? The surrounding properties have similar var uh similar non-compliance with the 20 foot setback. I'm trying to talk in those terms. We are consistent with those. We want to be able to gain access. Your proposal, Mr. Scott, your proposal about the head in parking, the the angle parking, um it will still require some variance because we do not have enough physical space.

Yes, it would to meet the 20. I'm glad we agree on that. That would be the minimum required variance. And that's the point I'm trying to prove is, you know, there could be a a compromise here. Okay? There could be uh you're getting some of those parking spaces, but you're shifting them this way, and you're going to lose one or two on the end. Uh just because we're trying to put that tangent back into a rectangle, right? But the compromise is you're going to get parking, but you will take the minimum.

Yeah. So, I have another idea. I have another idea for you with regard to a compromise as it relates to what happened at Gordon. Gordon has a 7 foot, right? But what they actually did is they put the curb and they put their wall in the landscaped area and they put a small piece of grass about 2 and 1/2 ft. So when your car pulls in, your wheels sit here and actually sit on the grassy null. And that actually is 10 ft, right? So when I measure it, I say, well, that barrier should be 10 ft. But they actually got 3 ft by by moving the wall and allowing the car to hang over the landscaping. We don't allow that.

Okay. So So here's what I want you to understand. So we wanted to be truthful. We wanted to say our parking space requires that 18 ft. We didn't want to come in and say only seven, but one of them will hang over the over the grassy null. Right? That's what that's what they did to get three more feet. We looked at it tonight. Again, we want to be straightforward. If we could accommodate this like we are not trying to um ask for something that others don't have in the same neighborhood, right? the same zoning district just as the standard says. We still have to go to the planning commission who still has to review our landscaping plan and they can put any standards they want with regard to it. We if we can somehow try to finagle these at another angle or angle in the front of part of the spaces we can share that. If you grant us a variance, then we can start to realign our plan to comply.

Well, I guess what Mr. Scott is saying, if I'm not wrong, that all of those parking spots that you have up front, if you did angle, okay, it's going to be less of a variance. All right, you might lose one or two spots, but you still have parking out front, right? Okay. Is that reasonable for use or not reasonable? Well, you're the arbiters of that. Is this a practical difficulty for us? And I think we're at least coming to the conclusion it's a practical difficulty to not be able to, you know, we we can't move the building. We all agree on that. We're asking for 9'4 in

for not to be able to park in front of the building when everybody else can. It It seems absurd to me. It is. But I understand where you're coming from. Okay. So, even if you lose one spot, you don't get 17. Okay. You only get 15 or 16. I mean, you still have parking in front. Plus, it's going to give you a little bit more room. All right. You talked about your little circle here that you can't move it, can't do anything with it. So, you're going to have actually more room for your

I think Sam and Robert both have a very good point with the angle parking. I think it the es and flows of the way that people enter the property will I think it's going to function much better in one rotation versus two-way traffic. I don't disagree with it. That's just my feeling, but two-way traffic is certainly, you know, better than one way. So, so we're we're we're going out here.

I don't Can Can we put something together? Would you be comfortable we put something together that that said um the variance would be granted at at such and such with with the knowledge that the um that the doctor's going to go and try and find the best way to make that work and minimize that the square the footage that is taken away. I mean what's the out what could we get is is there a possibil can we reconvene and have this drawn and reconvene to make sure it meet your needs

possible at the outset I had mentioned that one of the options the BCA has is to request additional information from the applicant continue the case and you can come back and as you say reconvene the case let's see that if my argument that or what I'm stating does work and let's see if that works. It's all common sense. Rob, you

I we we Let's, you know, I deal with drawings every day and I make strong arguments every day about stuff like this. Sometimes I lick my wounds at the end of the day, too. So, it it's it's better to back it up uh with the thoughts with a drawing and a drawing with your thought. Like, let's just bring it full circle. This has been going on long enough. You guys have put a lot of energy into this and if we can come to a compromise and if you look at the rotate just the arrows on that drawing will show you how your businesses will flow better. Okay, you put that dumpster at an angle back and you add another parking lot, a parking spot where you currently have your dumpster. You put the dumpster in with the landscaping. You massage those landscaping. Trust me, you don't want to get those curved out there for nothing. It's not cheap, but I think you have to massage your landscaping beds and kind of take a different look at it. Really get that side uh set back dialed in to make sure you're using every foot of space that you have there. If you have to put your curb over a foot, put it over a foot. You know, if you don't want to tear down the front circle thing, then fine. Tear down something else. you know, you bought the property,

you know, the circle area is in I know it's a lot of work for everything else. The tenant occupies the space. We can't I I think I think if you draw this up, it might work out. And I'm more than willing I see the point you're going for, but if we're g if we're going to gain a foot or two, does it really make a difference? That's that's I'm I'm with you. When when the angle

when it says minimum necessary, yeah, that that's I'm hung up on words. I work in a FDA regulated environment. When something says minimum necessary, like do we need to define that? Because if if if you say you want 9 ft and I could prove to you you can take eight, that's min less than what he was proposing. I could see the flow with these on an angle a lot better, okay, than pulling in. I don't really think that you're going to get two-way traffic. Come in here to pull in. They're going to still go around this building and come around especially you have an angle like this. So I'll go back. Would you be helpful?

And I'm not an expert but the problem is when you do an angled space you still have the rectangle now going you know one side of the rectangle going closer to 82. Right. So you do, you know, we might be able to compromise and gain a little bit of footage and we can have an expert try to look at that, but but ultimately like it at least we're recognizing I mean I'm happy that we're recognizing we need to do something with regard to it. So So we need to draw these drawings should come back to scale to uh with measurements on those parking spots just

but that's more for planning commission than it is for processes to decide. We're not here to decide I think our area of variance. One second. Go ahead. That's what I'm trying to say. If if we were to tweak the variance request to say that we would grant so much but that CL they that on the authority of the planning commission to to make sure that it was the minimum impact. Would you be more comfortable with that because we're

Say it again. what what you would need or I guess the not what you would need but the process I think you're outlining is you would you would approve so let's say you submitted an alternate proposal for the parking with the diagonal spaces the BCA voted and let's say you approved a variance based on that new proposal you would make that conditioned upon the planning commission's review and approval of a different traffic flow as part of their review process. Yeah. I mean, I'm saying going back to plan, that's planning commission's responsibility to figure out exactly what you're and and you have great points. And I told as presented, it's a no for me.

Well, if it's presented in a different way, then yes, that we have the ability to to make adjustments to it is what I'm saying. So if if we if we make a motion that the parking lot is angled to the minimum reviewed by the planning commission and then either approved or disapproved. Would we be able to do that or would

Can I make another suggestion? Is it possible that you could grant the variance with this condition that we go back to the planning commission and revisit the parking to determine the minimal impact to the frontage of Mark? You tell me the minimal whether that parking is head in or angled and give that responsibility. Yes. To the planning commission. That's a DCA's responsibility. Well, wait a minute here. Your responsibility is to determine if we get a variance, right?

And the responsibility of the planning commission is to build to to allow the building. So, you condition your approval on us having a parking plan that reviews head in parking, angle parking to have the minimum impact on the setback. So, we're at 9.4T. Okay. We're not, you know, if we can save a few feet, we'll save a few feet. We don't know how that's going to work, but we'll put that, we'll ask you, can you put that in the planning planning commission? I haven't talked to him. I been there with Mr. Balati, but let's um Alraati, I'm sorry. That we put that to them that that they look at that to minimize it on your condition. What what is minimized? One inch.

So that your but your answer is it has to be a minimum based on this standard. So if I can save an inch, then I save an inch, right? But that will be the planning commission's responsibility with us to show all these plants. I think I would rather you come back with drawings. Same. Okay. Is what I'd rather you do. That's my opinion. the angle you take to the approach of the parking spot versus how many parking spots and let's see where we're at at that point. This way it gives us a different perspective of what you have. Okay. Do we have to vote on that though? Does there be a motion? Can I make a motion?

You make a motion to request the applicant to submit the information. They're under no obligations provided and then you would move forward. We want the variance. So we're going to accommodate whatever those requests are. Yeah. I make a motion for the applicant to uh present further documentation uh showing angled parking spots versus straight parking spots dimensioned into scale. I second it. Okay. So basically we are tabled then. Correct. So our intent will be to put that together. When is the next time? Yeah, I was going to say you're not necessarily table, but it'll be continued until next meeting if you want. Next month.

Okay. When do we have to submit by? Because we have to talk to our Chris designer. I believe Friday. When? Friday. So, what you can do, I mean, you've already sub you've already submitted your application. So, you can just continue it to the next meeting. You can provide a deadline for the applicant to provide you uh with that updated information by you know it doesn't have to necessarily be the submittal date. That's more for applications to seven days be okay. Don't wait three years. Well, we we did we wanted to make sure you knew we were driving. So you can have a separate motion. So what's the date for the next meeting? So the next meeting

the next meeting will be December 17th. So, you could make a motion to continue this case until uh to the next meeting of December 17th with a requirement that the applicant submit the additional requested information a week prior, which would be December 10th, if that's enough time for good enough. It should be like the motion. How busy is my We're going to we're going to put as much pressure as we can to get it done. Does that make sense? We're going to work as hard as we can. It's Thanksgiving next week, so I think that's a fair I appreciate. So, Mr. Chairman, you could say so moved. So moved. And then somebody else could second that and then you can vote

which is to move it to continue it to the 17th with the requirement that the I I so move somebody asked to second the motion that we're going to move it. Did you already so move? Yes. I'll second that motion. Thank you. And you'll need a vote. So Okay, Chris, Mr. Potato. Yes, Mr. Shel. Yes, Mr. Alfredo. Yes, Mr. Scott. Yes,

Mr. I think once you Yeah, that's all that we're concerned about. But I think if you start playing with that scheme around there, uh, you may be able to benefit from it. Thanks. The goal is to to make it to minimize to minimize the impact on We'll see you next time. We do accept. No, you don't. That's a That's a jail proposition when I represent public. You can't do that. Thank you.

Thanks very much. We'll see you. Have a good Thanksgiving everybody. Thank you. And then like over here,

gentlemen. All right. Will somebody make a motion to close the meeting? Make a motion we close the meeting. I'll second. Thank you very much. And one other thing, I want to thank Rachel for all her time and help that she did here and helped us and me a lot. Okay. Uh and the service and the recck department for the Christmas lights and the trees and leaves. Thank you very much. You can shut up. Happy Thanksgiving. You're not leaving, are you? No.