Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

We're set to go. Okay. Good evening. The June 2025 meeting of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Bowling Green is now in session. Will the secretary please call a role? Jeff Crawford here. Judy Broadwell here. It's Julie. Julie. Jerry Anderson here. Rod Noble here. David Fleer absent. Jay Sachman is absent. Very good. We have a quorum. We' like to first welcome our two new members, Julie Broadwell and Jerry Anderson. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The zoning board of appeals. We look forward to working with you. Um, first order of business is the approval of minutes from the May 2020 2025 meeting that was they were previously circulated. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Second. I'll second. All right. Moved by Mr. Crawford, seconded by Miss Broadwell. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Minutes are approved as circulated. Um, first of all, let me say that, um, we understand that the concept of zoning and city government trying to tell you what you can and can't do with your property sometimes can be of concern. Uh, with with that being said, uh, please keep in mind that we are citizens of Bowling Green and we're generally nice people and we're just here to help hopefully help you do what you'd like to do with your project, with your property that brings you here tonight. Um, our zoning code was recently updated and uh it provides a process where if a certain project does not strictly conform to the rules of the zoning code that this board may grant a variance uh to to allow you to do what you want to do. In order for your variance to be granted, it's up to

you to show us uh that uh a couple of things. one that uh you give us credible evidence to establish that strict enforcement of the code would cause you a particular uh difficulty and you can uh do that through the application materials that you have provided already and also through your testimony uh here tonight. As we proceed, I'll read the requests in the order that they're printed on the agenda. Uh then the city's planning director, if I remember to allow her to do so, will give us an overview of uh the situation and the applicable sections of the zoning code. You'll then be invited to present your case to state the practical difficulty that you would be caused if strict application of the zoning code were required. Um others will be able to testify uh regarding your request either in support or against. Uh at that point the public comment period for your hearing will be closed and the board will discuss uh the case and members may have questions for you and towards the end they may also be given the opportunity to express to you their reasoning for why uh they're viewing your case as they are. The board will then either approve your request, deny your request, approve it with conditions, or potentially table it if we we feel we need additional information. Appeals to decisions by the board may be made to the Wood County Court of Common please. And as such, this is a quasi judicial uh hearing. And we do have a court reporter present who will take a verbatim record of the testimony this evening. And anyone who desires to offer testimony will be required to swear an oath to tell the truth in the matters for which they u plan to testify. So that's basically how we'll proceed. Um, as I said, um, please

feel at ease and as you do offer your testimony, bear in mind that finding of practical difficulty that we have to arrive at wi with what you have to offer to us. So, um, with that, we'll uh move on to the the next item of business, which is election of officers. Anybody have any Mr. Chairperson? Um, it's Mr. Crawford. If assuming that the current officers are willing to uh continue to serve, I would like to nominate the current slate uh to continue to serve as the officers of the zoning board of appeals. All right. It's my understanding that all three of us are willing to serve. So, is there a second to I would second that. All right. Moved by Mr. Crawford, seconded by Mr. Anderson that the current slate of officers uh be reelected. All those in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Can we repeat those names for the record? We didn't really let the public know. Chairman Tim Emer, vice chairman, and Jay Sachman, secretary. Thanks, Heather. Okay, first case for the this evening is Nicholas Bolus. Hope I pronounced that right. 929 Sand Ridge Road has requested a variance to allow the construction of a 25- foot by 35 ft parking pad in the front yard, which would be in a location that does not conform to section 150.72 off streetet parking. A parking pad is allowed in the side or rear yard. Heather, can you enlighten us on that? Two things for the record that I think we missed. Um, Mr. David Flegger is not here tonight along with um the other member already mentioned. Um, in addition to that, I don't think you swore in the people that are going to speak. I was going to do that as we get started. Okay. It will change because I need to be sworn in to give my testimony

to Okay. Well, let's go ahead. We can do that now then. I apologize. If you plan to or think that you might want to testify tonight in any of the cases that will be before us, would you please stand and raise your right hand? You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help you. I do. Very good. Sorry about that. All right. Okay. So, I will review the zoning code. Um, article 4, generally applicable standards under section 150.72 off- streetet parking under a. Location of off- streetet parking 1. Off- streetet parking as associated parking structures including garages, parking lots, parking pads, and vehicular accessways may not occur in a front yard. This request is to have a parking pad in the front yard, which is which essentially means in front of the house. That is considered the front yard by our zoning code. Here is figure 26, driveways. That's part of the zoning code. That really helps um visualize what the approved parking pads and driveways where they can be located. So, I included that for your review. Um, also there is article seven which is called the glossery of terms at the back of our zoning code where definitions tend to give a lot of additional information that I think is helpful. So in your packet I gave you a copy of the definition of the parking pad. A ground level parking area of,200 ft or less not including the access driveway. A parking pad is considered a side parking pad if it is in located in the sideyard. A parking pad is considered a rear parking pad if it is located in a rear yard. Here's an aerial view of the property on San Ridge Road highlighted in blue. Using pictometry facing north here, you can see the rear of the home and the existing driveway. Here's the side of the home with north to the left. Here's looking at the front of the house with north there um at the bottom of the screen. And then here's the other side of the

home. So, you can see the existing driveway. Here's a picture of the property. You can see they're undergoing quite a bit of renovation on the property. Again, the existing driveway that they wish to replace and add the parking pad to. More pictures of the driveway from San Ridge. And then here's angled to the west um on San Ridge to see that again that parking area leading to the garage area. Here's a sketch that was part of your packet showing the size of 25 ft by 35 ft. And again, in the front yard, there was another sketch that was included in the application packet, but I didn't put it on here because it really didn't accurately reflect the location of where they wish to put the parking pad. It was an older rendering that they thought helped show the property a little um better with a little more detail. We did not receive any phone calls or letters from any neighboring properties. An advertisement was placed. The newspaper of general circulation is required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notice is required by the administrative code were posted in the proper time and location. A letter was mailed first class mail to the tax mailing address of the owner and adjoining property owners. Therefore, all the procedure requirements for the hearing have been met. Thank you. Mr. Bullis, if you would come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record. Nicholas Bullis, 929 Sandridge Road. Okay. And you affirm for me that you swore your oath to tell the truth. Yes. Very good. tell us about your your project and and what you hope to accomplish there and keep in mind that particular difficulty. Well, as you can see, I've been doing quite a bit of renovations to the home. We hope to have them all finalized by the end of 2025 here. Um uh the reason for the request is for additional parking and a turnaround area which would allow us to then drive out onto the roadway opposed to back out onto the roadway. Um, I don't know if

any of the pictures we can see that there is a blind corner on Sand Ridge Road, approximately 200 to 250 ft from our driveway where when my mom comes over to pick up the kids, she backs out and it always seems like as they're driving away, there's a car right up right up behind her. Um, is that toward the city or or looking west? Which side are you talking about? Is a blind spot? Uh, towards the city. Yep. Okay. Yes. And as we know, and this may right or wrong, um most people aren't going 35 miles an hour down Sandwich Road. They come around that corner at a high rate of speed. Therefore, we're trying to back out, get going. I feel like we're in their way at that. So, I do think that the turnaround would um increase our safety, public safety, being able to drive out on the roadway opposed to backing out onto the roadway. Um um I understand additional parking is allowed next to the garage and in the sidey yard, but there's a hill next to the garage there. I live on Sanders Road. It's on a hill there. Uh it require a lot of excavation, a lot of uh uh masonary work to build it up, build a retaining wall so that we could get parking in next to the garage there. Uh, also to do that, we would have to remove a tree. And this also would not really allow for backing out, any area to back out so that we could then drive out onto the roadway. I spoke with Chase quite a bit trying to come up with a way that I didn't have to come here and ask for variance, but we just really couldn't come up with anything that truly did make make sense. Um, the area where I am asking uh to put this parking pad is spacious. It does not fall within the right of way of the front yard. The neighboring house to the east

does not sit back. It's not like it sits way back so that it would feel like this parking was obnoxiously out in the front. I feel um also in this area there's no on street parking. So, it's not like there's additional parking that I'm just not taking advantage of and asking for a separate parking pad. Um, also we understand that there are specific rules in Bowling Green um and that we are not located on the east side of town. We are on the west side of town and this is a residential setting and it's not a rental unit where we're trying to stick a a parking lot out front of our house. Um we are a family of five. Um and and we're just trying to when we're going to do this work in the driveway planning going forward, you know, uh we have three drivers right now and plan to maybe someday having five drivers there at the house. That's why we're thinking about doing all this. Um, we've invested a lot into the property and we do plan on staying in the property long term, but I think the biggest uh downfall or the biggest impedment for me would be uh it's just going to cost a ton of money to be able to get parking next to the garage and it's also not going to really allow us to do the backout and drive onto the road. I guess that's my two biggest uh points that I want to make to the board. Those are your two practical difficulties. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anything else? Uh, I do not believe so. Any more questions from the board? Uh, a couple. Nick, thank you. First of all, for bringing this here and doing it the right way. Clarification, if I may as I look at the handdrawn sketch from you, this is going to be right out on Sandridge Road to the rightway

basically. Yes. Okay. The other drawing, is this from a contractor that showed a future turnout and it was right up close to the garage? Is that now not going to exist? Well, no. That that isn't going to exist. His his I I don't think his rendering was right. Okay. Um I need to be I put that this parking pad slash turnaround will be 30 ft from the front of the garage. that would allow a car to be parked in front of the garage and be able to back out of that parking pad or turn around because if I stick it up too close to the garage there, anybody that parks in front of the garage, you really can't you can't can't maneuver the vehicle out to get it. So, this area that says by the star new drive turnout future that doesn't is not going to exist because if that is going to exist and then we add this to it now, now we are putting a a parking lot in there. No, no, no, no. Okay, that's not going to exist. The total area to the side there will be 25 ft to the it would be to the east and 35 ft to the south. And as I observed your property, I thought, would they have space to do this where they wouldn't have to come up here if they did it just to the garage? You've explained you have Yeah. And me and Chase went round and round on that trying to figure out how to not have to come here and ask for variance because we didn't want to have, you know, I didn't want to have to pay the money, come to the board, do all that. But we really couldn't come up with a good solution to be able to get over there and park and then back out and head out to the roadway. Do we know why we have something in zoning that we don't want people to park in the front yards? The purpose behind it is this largely just an aesthetic thing. Yeah, that's a big part of what our community wanted when we updated our future land use plan, our action plan, and then we translated it to our zoning code update. To me, this would be an aesthetic issue, but we asked neighbors and we got no negative response from any of them. Is that a correct statement? Correct. We had no

phone calls or letters. Yeah. And and the the rightway center of road uh is I believe 30 foot in that area. So from the white line 20 ft towards my house, there will there will be green grass there. Okay. Okay. And the neighbor to the east, his house, uh it was built in 1951, about the same time mine was. I do not believe he has the 30 foot right ofway and 25 foot offset before his house starts. So it kind of makes my my parking pad not seem like it's out as close to the road as maybe one would be thinking from the pictures. You have three drivers on your way to five. You have my you have three drivers on our way to five. have my prayers in in five. Yeah. In in in another five years, we'll have four and then 18 months after that, we'll have a total of five. And if Kenna ends up staying home, going to BGSU, then that's when we run into our problem of having five drivers at the house. Gotcha. Thank you for your answers. Where the If you look at the picture up here, your pad's going to go roughly where that white truck is right now. Yes. But the the stretch of that van is approximately 20 ft. And I bet I'm 5 foot off the road. So that pad would start basically at the back tire of that van and head head that way. Okay, if that makes sense. And then the pad would end before we got to that little tree that's right there. Yeah. How many cars do you hope to park on that pit? Two. Okay. Yes. And I understand with the size of it that it's 35t wide. You're going to ask why. Two cars. And then when my wife backs out of the garage, she can then back around those two cars. She still has an open spot to back in and then drive out onto the roadway.

That's why I'm asking for a 35x 25. A normal twocar garage is about 25 by 25 where you park two cars. And so that's why I'm asking for that additional spot there so that that spot always stays open for a visitor or anyone that would come as a turnaround spot. Here's my concern. Two things. Um, one is, as was mentioned, when the zoning code was updated, it's my understanding that one of the priorities of the uh the new code was to try to keep parking out of front yards. So, that's that's one thing. Um, you kind of made my second point, which is general development standards, parking spaces considered to be 180 square feet, not counting drives and aisles and that sort of thing. Um, even if you had three parking spaces, we're still, if my math is right, only at uh 540 square ft. And you're saying that those spots are 20 by 10, 10 by 20, uh, 10 x 20 or n 19 by 20 or 10 x 18 rather. And my only argument back to that would be is we we still have a spacious area that would still I believe be aesthetically pleasing. And uh we all know when you go to Walmart in those small spots, you get out and you're constantly holding your car door or whatnot to be able to I just thought if I'm building it, we might as well make it so that people can pull in, open up car doors, and get out of a vehicle without squeezing out of a vehicle. That's the only reason I really put it to that size. How many square feet is the house, if I may ask? Uh well, first floor and we finished out the basement there. We're at about the first floor uh 1100 ft² because your parking pad is 875 ft you're asking for. So it's a decent footprint for a ranch or a Yeah. a two-story home. Okay. Yeah.

I you remember the seven criteria that you saw in your application when you applied for the variance. the things that we need to look at in order to determine based on your credible evidence that you have okay a particular difficulty. Um, a couple of those things are is the variance substantial and in my view based on what I said and I hear what you say and about about 18 by by 10 or 20 by 19 not you know I don't really go along with that uh given that you may want the third spot so you can have a turnaround in case two cars are occupying the pad. I still think that is the variance substantial to me yes it's substantial. Um, and will it will it affect the uh essential character of the neighborhood is another one of those criteria. And again, to me, I and I hear what you say, but that much concrete in a front yard when it's my understanding that the goal of the city is to try to keep parking out of front yards for aesthetics. Those are my two issues. I'm not telling you right now how I'm going to vote. I haven't heard from anybody else or, you know, others who may choose to testify, but that's where I'm kind of going with with my thoughts on it. Okay. Anybody else? Well, I I tend to agree with you. We're definitely want to discourage people from the parking, but I think uh issues of safety deserve special consideration, but so like I think I think turning around is uh legitimate or backing out into the road is legitimate safety concern. If there's a way to achieve both of these objectives, perhaps there's, you know, like a compromise that could, you know, be laid out. I I could I could support a compromise of going down to 540 ft rather than 875, I think, based on what what your

rationale is, Tim. And 540 is is how big? 180 times three. So that's up to you how to the dimensions of it. All right. So 25 by 20 gets you to 500. So a little bit more that. So you're saying you you said 25 by 25. 25 by 20 gets you to 500. I'm just doing the math here. The area you said 540. Mhm. Yeah. So gives you a basic idea. All right. So you're saying you you could go along more with the 540 square feet. We could look at Okay. When I look at that, I think, are we making a big aesthetic difference by chopping off 300 feet? He wants to park a couple cars and there's a safety concern, which I agree with when I see that curve there. I I feel like this is a very reasonable request. There are other driveways in the area that are non-compliant to our current zoning standards. I don't think it's going to make a difference in the aesthetics of the area and I would support it as is. I would I would tend to agree that I don't think this would be a catastrophic uh change to the neighborhood. I don't think it would really affect the character of the neighborhood uh very much. Anything else, Mr. Bullets, right now? Well, I mean, I'm open to to compromise. It's not like I'm uh you know, but I I drew it because that's ultimately how I did want it. But if we have to compromise, I mean, we we have to compromise because I mean, I I do think it's very important to be able to drive out onto the roadway and also have this additional parking. The safety factor to me is a big issue with young people in and and they do kind of burn around that corner. You know, it would be one thing too if it was a slower moving area and less traffic, but Sand Ridge is a lot of

traffic and pretty pretty pretty fast traffic and zero opportunity for on street parking, right? Anyone from the lobby have a comment one way or the other on this case? All right. Any final thoughts, Tim? that to me to me safety is the most important part of this uh issue. Jerry, I think aesthetics would be my big question. Uh I love what you're doing with the house. I can't wait till we get to take a look at it. Get it done. Yeah, you can invite us over. Um and if if the neighbors weren't complaining about it, if I were the neighbor, I'd complain. I'm not the neighbor and your neighbor didn't complain. That says something to me. Jeff, I I feel the same. Safety, lack of on street parking, Julie, not to put you under the gun because No, it's okay. I still think it looks like a parking lot, so I would be voting no. Okay. All right. Anyone care to make a motion for the disposition of this case? I would move that we uh approve the request as presented. Is there a second? I'm going to go ahead and second that so we can put it to a vote. All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Secretary, please call the role. Jeff Crawford, yes. Julie Broadwell, no. Jerry Anderson, yes. Rod Noble, no. Tim Emer. Yes. That everybody that's everyone. All right. Your ranch request has been approved as submitted. Okay. Please see the planning department and get your final paperwork. Okay. Do you need

anything else from me now or am I free to go? You're free to go. Awesome. Thanks guys. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Second request. Laura Trenler of McBride Clarion on behalf of 7-Eleven Speedway has requested the following variances to allow new construction at 1650 East Worster Street. First, to exceed the 60% maximum total lot coverage allowed in the Interstate Commerce District by 16%. 76% of the parcels would be covered by imperous services. And second, to exceed the maximum outdoor lighting level by five foot candles under the proposed auto fuel canopy, which would allow the use of 43 foot candles maximum with an average of 35.86 ft candles to be used, and third to allow the construction of four wall size signs. Sizes would be one sign at 45.86 86 square ft. Two signs at 49.1 square ft. One sign at 61 square ft and one canopy sign 24.55 square ft which would exceed the maximum number of three signs allowed per business by four signs proposing seven total signs. The existing legal non-conforming pylon signs are approximately 100 square feet and 200 square feet in size. And finally, to allow the total sum of all signs to exceed the 336 square ft maximum in the interstate commerce district by 214 square ft, proposing 550 total square feet of all signs. Deep breath. Yeah. So under article 2 district and zone regulations of the zoning code this property is zone interstate commerce

district IC which is within section 150.36 and um the intent the interstate commerce district intends for a mix of lodging, commercial and retail establishments. The um IC district standards are in table 13 and that is where I've highlighted the lot coverage and you'll see the maximum of 60% where that comes from for this zoning. Um, also under article 2, district and zone regulations section 150.16 defining lot area and lot coverage. Under B, lot coverage is defined as the percentage of the total lot area that is covered by man-made surfaces such as principal structures, accessory structures over 100 square feet such as patios, decks, garages, carports, and pools and other surfaces such as driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, and areas of gravel, pavers, or pavement, but excluding service walks. Um it also is in the definitions glossery of terms article 7 the same exact definition for lot coverage and then we have outdoor lighting under article 4 which is section 150.81 81. And essentially, this is the new one of the newer section of our zoning code that's also new for us to enforce, which is why we work closely with our electric division to um review phototric plans for some of these commercial industrial projects and then get their feedback on these requests. So, basically, this section is for outdoor lighting intensity to be limited to reduce nuisances to neighboring uses and protect the night sky from light pollution. under table 27 outdoor lighting regulations same section 150.81 81. You'll see this table here where the first um section is location or use and this is for under canopies. So, a fuel canopy would fall under that. You'll see the luminance is a maximum of 5ft candles and then there are additional standards listed 1 through five that I

won't read through, but um according to the applicant, the site plan will comply, the lighting will comply with all of those additional standards. So, it's just exceeding the 5-ft candles maximum. And then under article 4, section 150.84, sign regulations table. Again, this is zoned interstate commerce IC. So, the sign regulations table uh actually lays out the sign types permitted. And um in this case the number of signs per business allowed is three maximum and the total sign area allowed which is all the signs added together is a maximum of 336 square ft. And this is table 28. Um I gave you a history of those variances because it's a you know it's an it's an older area of town where it's had a lot of variances over the years be being different fueling stations. Here's an aerial view of the property. Um, so as mentioned in the memo that I will read here in a bit, um, formerly the BP gas station was to the east of the Speedway and it was addresses 1670 East Wooster. They Speedway did purchase that property in parcel and actually consolidated both those parcels and you'll kind of see that weird shaped piece that goes along I75 where BP used to have a pretty large pylon sign that was torn down. So I just want to give you a little background on that. Uh using pictometry, you'll see a rear view of the existing property along with again that um adjacent parcel that used to have the BP gas station. Here is a side view of the property. You'll see that private Shannon Drive there um that goes out onto Worster. Here's a view of the front of the property from Worooster and then the other side of the property. And here is the memo I gave you since we've been working for a long time with Speedway. Um, and I want to give you that history because it ended up being also owned by 7-Eleven. So, again, we've

been working them with them for a while. So, I have um wrote this memo for you for the history. It's the variance request for 1650 East Booster Street dated May 30th, 2025 to the zoning board of appeals. The city of Bowling Green has been working with the property owner and their representatives McBride Dale Clarion since 2019 on the proposed construction of a new gas station to replace the existing speedway at 1650 East Worster Street. They purchased the adjacent BP gas station at 1670 Worster Street in 2020 to enlarge their building envelope. They later demolished the building 2022 and combine the parcels as you can see below. In preparation of the plans to rebuild the speedway, a variance for signage was applied for and granted on August 12th of 2020. C exhibit A for all prior variances approved for 1650 East Wooster for their proposed signage packages. After review of the traffic impact study and site plans required, the city issued the permit for the new construction on February 18th, 2021. On February 18th, 2020, I received an email from McBride Dale Clarion requesting an additional year extension for their approved zoning permit, which was granted per section 150.92 permits are valid for one year or under reasonable and legitimate conditions, the zoning inspector may extend it for a period of one year. It was noted since the acquisition of the company by 7-Eleven, new build rebuild projects were placed on hold. On June 23rd, 2022, Speedway sent revised plans with minor modifications which the city approved. Various emails were exchanged over several months with questions about the project, but the new construction did not move forward before the permit expired. In 2024, the project was reinitiated and a new traffic impact study was required to be submitted since East Worster Street had been modified with the new roundabout and the installation of a median since the project was originally approved. Also, the site plan was changed reflecting new canopy and building orientation and locations along with the addition of a raise the roost restaurant use inside the building. The city subsequently revised and approved the TIS. However, due to the changing building layout and different signage locations being requested, the city determined the signage variance that was granted in 2020 was not entirely the same signage being requested for the new site layout

and building. Um, for example, additional wall signage was being requested along with a slightly larger total aggregate of all the signage together. The two existing pylon signs are legal non-conforming. The pylon sign at the northwest corner of the site was approved by the zoning board of appeals on March 2nd of 1994. And the pylon sign at the southern edge of the property has an improved zoning certificate that was issued on February 15th of 1977. Below is a screenshot of the proposed layout and rendering of the signage that was approved in 2020. I also gave you a copy there of um the renderings that the ZBA had approved in 2020. Additionally, since the new zoning code was approved in June of 2023, the property was zoned IC Interstate Commerce, which has a maximum lot coverage requirement of 60%. Under the previous zoning code, the property was zoned B2 general commercial and there was not a maximum lot coverage. Um, additionally, outdoor lighting regulations were also not part of the prior zoning code. These are new regulations this project falls under with the new zoning code. So, I understand this is a new type of variance for the board which will not be used to seeing. I did reach out to the city's electric division for their expert opinion about the variance request. Regarding his opinion, I have a screenshot on the proposed outdoor lighting under the canopy. Um, and the assistant electric superintendent believes the lighting would be similar to the existing Circle K gas stations in the city, which he believes would stay within their footprint. The city staff has already approved the access to the site as required by the city of Bowling Green access management policies and guidelines by review of their traffic impact study. Speedway 7-Eleven have not yet applied for the zoning permit or submitted the complete site plan package for full city staff review, but I anticipate they will once the requested variances are approved. A permit was approved by the city on July 31st, 2024 for the fuel tanks to be replaced, which has been completed. Lastly, I wanted the board to be aware that 1670 East Worster Street also had several sign variances over the years,

but nothing to share that really pertained to the current signage request. Um, so again, I gave you exhibit A, which lists the prior variances. Um, I mentioned August 12, 2020. Um, that was approved. There was a variance of an addition that was June 13, 20 um, 2007. Um March 8th, 1995, a variance was approved for construction of signs at the speedway, which would exceed the number of signs. And then March 9th, 1994, there was a variance to allow the construction of a sign which would encroach 22 ft into 25 ft front yard setback and would exceed the square footage limits. On March 2nd of 1994, there was a variance to allow the construction of 120 foot sign, which would encroach 22 required 25 ft front yard setback. Um and then a variance for an accessory building canopy which will encroach 11 and 1/2 ft into the 37 and a half foot front yard setback. And um in September 8th of 1982, a variance to allow the construction of nine additional signs at various locations on the property limited to three signs per business. And that variance was actually denied, but then um it was appealed and a judge overturned the board's decision on that denial. And then lastly, there was a variance requested in June 15th of 1977 that was denied. So, here are some pictures of the front of the property. Another picture. And um obviously per their request, they would be uh demoing both the canopy and the existing gas station. Uh the speedway sign is one of the signs they wish to keep there on the property in this picture. Another view of the front where the sign is they wish to keep. Um this is looking from East Booster Street towards the existing facility and that back pylon sign they also wish to keep that which again I already mentioned. Um those both those

signs are legal non-conforming. Another view from East Booster here would be that additional parcel that they would build on as part of their property. Another view of that parcel and the pylon sign. There's also a site plan that was in your packet that I know is kind of hard to read. Um so if you have any questions, let uh the applicant know for sure. But one of the site plans did list the actual um the amount of imperous surfaces, the square footage and then the total lot area to calculate that 76%. Um in addition to that they pointed out that the existing site is legal non-conforming having um exceeding exceeding that lot coverage and then at the end of this construction actually would be less impervious surface than there is now. Uh we also included the landscaping plan just so you can get an idea that they will have um the required landscaping for the project moving forward. And then I tried to cobble some different things together just to kind of give you a better idea of all the signage. So this is the proposed site plan. Um there's a proposed building here that would sort of look sideways in a way um on Worster along with that fuel canopy. But then I screenshotted each sign. So there's the pylon that would remain. That's approximately 120 square ft. Um the back pylon again that's legal non-conforming. We labeled that sign H. That's about 200 ft. Again those two will remain. They would like to have a 24.55 square ft speedway sign on the canopy. Just the one sign facing East Worster. Then they would have um two speedway signs and a raise the roof sign on basically the west side of the building and the east side of the building. And there are two fairly we consider small 4.9 square

ft welcome signs at the entry doors again on the west and the east side that we um we don't call them signs because they are so hard to see from the rightway. you have to be able to see a sign really from the street to be able to um call that a sign, but we wanted you to see the full sign package that they're proposing. Um then in the bottom corner, we gave you each sign label along with the square feet and added that up to get the total sign air proposed at 550 ft. So here's more details in your that were in your packet of the actual speedway signage. again the um sign A and the various square feet of each one the raise the roost sign another speedway sign the welcome sign I mentioned again not part of this request but just wanted to give you the full signage package here are the um elevations or renderings that were included in your packet showing the signage and then again here's that pylon that would remain the other pylon that would remain or highrise sign. This would be the speedway sign on the canopy or actually, yeah, there it is on the canopy. And then this is the lighting plan that was submitted that was in your packet. And then we also um had a type of lighting um that will be mounted under the canopy as part of the um package that was sent to you. [Applause] We did not receive any letters or phone calls from any neighboring property owners. An advertisement was placed in the newspaper of general circulations required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notices required by the administrative code were posted in the proper time and location. A letter was mailed first class mail to the tax mailing address of the owner and joining property owners. Therefore, all the procedure requirements for the hearing have been met.

A couple of deep breaths. Joan can shake her fingers. Chief, lots of information, complicated stuff. Well presented. Thank you. Is there a representative here from 7-Eleven Speedway? Please come up to the podium and give us your name and address for the record, please. My name is Laura Treneler and I am with McBride Clarion here on behalf of 7-Eleven Speedway. And an address, excuse me. address 5721 Dragonway, Sweet 300, Cincinnati, Ohio 45227. Okay. Do you confirm that you swore your oath to tell the truth for us? Yes, I did. Thank you. Um, and I do have packets for you guys that will hopefully tell the story a little bit better. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry about that. So, Thanks, Lauren. We saw a lot of this. Okay. All righty. So, Heather did a great job of giving the overview and kind of history of the property. Um, but I will delve into it a little bit more, but try to keep it brief. Um, as mentioned, Speedway owns 1650 East Worcester Street, and they operate an existing Speedway facility on the west side of the property. Um, they have a vacant portion of the property that was the former BP station that was demolished. Um and they previously applied for permits and were approved to redevelop the site in 2019 2020. Um Speedway was

then acquired by 7-Eleven and that's why the project kind of went on hold um now that the dust has kind of settled from the merger. 7-Eleven's in a position where they can redevelop the site and start the project in 2026. Um so that's why we're back here. The proposed project is fairly different from what was previously approved because the site layout and the building design has changed um due to 7-Eleven's current prototype. Um, so I guess first of all, as an overview of the project, Speedway is proposing to raise all existing structures on the site and redevelop the property with a 4,800 square ft con convenience store. Um, that will be located on the former BP lot. And then the auto fuel canopy over six double-sided dispensers will um be proposed in generally the same location as Speedway's current fuel canopy. Um a total of three driveways are proposed with this development. Two along Worcester Street and one along Shannon Drive. Um the two on Worcester Street will function as right in right out and that third driveway that was there for BP will be closed off and removed. Um so overall consolidation of driveways. Um updated landscaping, lighting and building wall signage is proposed with the project. And as Heather mentioned, the new development will result in a reduction of about 5,300 square ft of imperous surface area. Um, so that leads me to our first request. We're requesting to exceed the maximum 60% imperous surface area on site by 16%. So we're proposing a total of 76% of imperous surface area. Um, and this request stems from kind of the nature of the use. So, our civil

engineers have added um green space and landscaping um throughout the site as best as possible. And that's what you can see on the front page of this packet. It's the existing conditions versus the proposed landscape plan. Um, unfortunately we're not hitting that 60% maximum because we do have to provide sufficient parking and maneuverability for fuel trucks dropping off fuel to the underground storage tanks. Um, and a new sidewalk along Shannon Drive, I believe, is proposed. So, while we are exceeding the 60%, we are bringing the site into closer conformance with the code because we're reducing the overall square footage of pavement or imperous surface area by 5,300 square ft. And do you want me to just go through each variance first and then do questions or um frankly what I'm hoping is we can deal with this all at one time rather than individually. So why don't you go through all Okay, I'll keep going then. Um and then our second variance request um and if you turn your packet to the next page, you'll see our lighting plan. We are requesting to exceed the allowable light levels under the fuel canopy. The code allows a maximum of 5-ft candles under canopies and we are requesting an average of 36 ft candles under the canopy with a maximum of 43 ft candles in some places. Um so this is kind of the standard across the board for gas stations. Um our request stems from safety concerns. So 7-Eleven's main concern here is that the extra light levels will allow the workers in the convenience store clear visibility to the gas pumps and vice versa. Um and especially customers that are women or elderly want to feel safe while they're

making transactions at the fuel pumps. Um even though we're exceeding the light levels, we are still meeting the maximum foot candle requirement at the property lines. So, while you can tell that the canopy is bright, it's not going to cause a lot of light spill onto adjacent neighbors. When you say candles, so 5ft candles, you mean that just is the amount of light that it puts out. That's correct. Yeah, that's the level of lighting. Okay. Yeah. I'm not a lighting expert, but yeah, it's a good question. And then I believe in the staff report the electric division said that the circle K was something similar or comparable. Yes. Okay. Um our third request tonight, third and fourth requests are regarding the signage. So hopefully I can break this down and make it a little bit easier to understand. The last few pages um of the packet are things in the sign package that I thought were pertinent. So, starting with the first signage request, we're requesting to exceed the maximum number of signs for one business. Uh, the code allows three. We're proposing seven. Um, two of those seven signs are the existing interstate high-rise sign and the pylon sign on site. Um, and then the other five are the four building wall signs and the fuel canopy sign. Um, the reason why we need to exceed the signage is because the orientation of the building, you can see, is turned sideways so that the entrance faces the fuel canopy. And our biggest concern here is that Speedway wants to be able to identify the building on both sides and include the raise the roost sign, which identifies the raise the roost restaurant inside of the store. Um, and

then that way the building can be identified to potential customers driving east and west on Worcester Street. Um, and when you look at the sign pack or the building elevations, you can tell that while it does seem like a lot of additional signs, when you really look at the building and the canopy, it appears pretty modest in my opinion um, with the scale of the building. And then our next sign variance request is to exceed the total allowable sign area for the site. So this goes handinhand with the previous request. The code allows 336 ft. We're proposing 550. Um 200 square ft out of that 550 number is the interstate highway sign. So that is a large chunk of the sign area that already exists. Um, and then if you take away that 200 square ft, 350 is the remaining, which is closer to what the code calls for. Um, and that includes the Wall Stein's Canopy Pylon. Um, so we do feel like with the history of both properties, the BP and the Speedway, we are doing an overall consolidation of the number of signs that previously existed. Um, and hopefully that paired with our landscaping and the more modern building will altogether make the property a little bit more attractive and bring in closer conformance with the code. So, I think that covers the requests. I'm happy to take any questions. Laura, thank you for being here and for the presentation. We all remember when the beefy was operating and then when it wasn't and what an eyesore you get off at Bowling Green off of I75 and the first thing well you see Bob Evans you see frickers and you see an empty guys took care of that. Thank you for that. Yeah. Uh of potential concern. Sometimes zoning codes make great sense when written and under the circumstances at

the time. So small tweaks don't really run that don't run contrary to the spirit the purpose of the code. They're understandable. I was taken aback a little bit by your your requests are not close, but let's go through these a little bit because I think I it makes some sense, but I want to bounce this off of you. For example, the square footage right now at 336 maximum allowed to 550. That's a 63.9% increase. Uh the more than doubling the number of allowable signs from 3 to 7, but I read somewhere in the packet we have seven signs out there now, I believe. So, so there isn't really an increase in science, it's an increase over what our code says. So, we've bent the code already. Um, and then when if these drawings, and thank you for bringing these, and thank you, Heather, for giving us an advanced look at these. If these are in perspective, those are not big signs for the size of the building. No, they're really not. it I like like I said when you look at the building elevations by themselves it's really pretty modest looking I think for a gas station then I was also the the the the the coverage 60% maximum which you want to take it to 76 again not close but we have learned that actually right now we are at 76 or around that now so my question had been what are we going to do with all that extra water we're already dealing with it is my question. The one thing that's kind of hit me a little bit, and I don't know how foot candles work either, but going from five foot candles to 36, is that the number? Yeah, it's an average of 36. It sounds like it would look like a spaceship landing. And this was my concern. You have a hotel right next door. Yes. We with our previous experience with this, it sounds like a lot, but and you can tell that the canopy is well lit and

that's what we want for our customer safety, but the light spill won't really go onto adjacent properties. We're still meeting that maximum foot candle requirement at the property lines. Gotcha. Thank you for your answers. Anyone else questions? I guess um I appreciate that Speedway in some forms have been working with the city for six years on this project and during that time a couple things have happened uh that appear to have created some moving targets for you as the developers that are no way your fault. U the roundabouts were constructed. Uh great improvement to that east corridor and the the entrance to our city for sure. Um, but it required you to do some things that uh were a little bit above and beyond. I think uh you you extended the zoning permit to start with and then weren't able to get things together and the time ran out so you actually came back and resubmitted went to the expense of a new TIS that was eventually approved by the city. Um our zoning code was updated a couple of years ago and there were a couple of effects from that. Uh first of all, as Jerry pointed out and as Heather uh first pointed out is that the old zoning code, you didn't have a a requirement of maximum lot coverage and now you've got 60%. Mhm. And uh I'm sure that was a difficult thing for you to do considering safety and trying to get the uh buildings on the site in a way that made sense uh just from a development standards standpoint, but also to to meet Speedways development standards or rather um 7-Eleven's development standards. and you worked with the city to do that and at the same time reduced that impervious surface uh square footage to a a significant degree and

then also due to a zoning code update change uh you had to comply with the outdoor lighting requirements. I'm no expert on outdoor lighting either, but I have some experience with with these kinds of things and I agree what's important is the spillage from the site and even though there is a hotel there, uh you've addressed that and the city's own experts have confirmed that that should not be an issue. Um as for the signage, signage is always a problem in probably every community you go into. Yeah. And for years, I'm talking back in the 1980s when I worked here, especially out there on East Worster Street, that was a big concern. And the city did all kinds of things to try to or looked at all kinds of things anyway to try to deal with sign pollution. And um I think uh as Jerry said, I think if you look at the size of your signs and in proportion to the building faces that they'll be affixed to, um it's it's quite tasteful. a lot of developers would have come in with a lot larger signs and also given the fact that the uh highway sign is 200 square feet that's really not an impact from the ground as you're traveling and looking at adjacent uh uses businesses um I don't see that uh as a factor and also the fact that as I understand the number of signs that is there uh now on the combined parcels now it's not that it's necessarily illegal is one parcel, but the two combined at seven signs, you're not asking increase. So that's good. There were no objections from neighbors that I heard. Correct. Y um essentially when I look at these things and while legally it's not the case, but perceptually anyway, there are two businesses there. There's the fuel part and then there's the uh the restaurant part. So again, it's not legal, but

conceptually in my mind, it makes little sense for me to look at some leniency with number of signs because you you're basically in my mind dealing with two businesses. Um uh I've probably gone on long enough. I do definitely appreciate that you did not ask for any variances from the landscape requirements. That's that's that's a big thing. Yeah, we're going to try to make it as attractive as we can. So anyway, all that said, uh I I don't see much problem with this. Okay. Thank you. Let me just ask. So the two really tall signs, which I find so offensive when you go into communities and there's all these really tall signs. Um I agree. I think the ones on the building aren't that bad. You want them on both sides because of people coming from different directions. Is that why you need them on both? Yeah, that's correct. so that both traffic patterns can see that it's a speedway and it's a raise the roost restaurant. But you're not there won't be a tall raise a roost sign as I can tell. It's just the tall speedway one. So they'd have to get pretty close to see the roost. That's correct. I believe that um we could switch out a panel on the pylon sign if we wanted to add a raise the roost somewhere. Um, but that would be the only additional place we could do that legally. Would would you the the canopy that's there right now? Would that exceed as is exceed the five foot candle limit? I don't even know if I'm saying that right. I believe so. I I haven't driven by at night, but I I assume I assume so. And that candle limit is pretty standard. what we're doing, what you're doing for businesses like this. Yeah, that's pretty standard for what I see across the board. I love the fact that they're greening the property by 5,000 square feet. And and I'm sorry, just let

me ask again. So, we have the Speedway signs over near the fuel center. Why do why do we have the Speedway signs on the Razer Roost restaurant? Um, so it's the convenience store and Raise the Roost restaurant are in one building. So, it's a convenience store for Speedway. Yes. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah, that's correct. Any other questions? Anyone from the lobby care to make a comment on this case? Any final thoughts? Yeah, I mean, basically the only one I thought was uh substantial was the seven signs. And I have a I have a bunch of respect for 7-Eleven's corporate standards, but it seemed like a lot. But after reviewing the the plans and everything, it seems pretty sleek and pretty pretty modern, and it doesn't really seem like that uh big of a request. So, my concerns about the signed variance has been alleviated. Anything else? No. No. Um, does anyone see a reason to deal with these requests separately or can we do them all at once? I think we can do them all at once. Okay. Anyone have a care to make a motion on the disposition of this case then as a package of all the variances? I would um support the um how how do you do this properly? Granting the variances in total as submitted to this board. Perfect. Is there a second? Second. Moved by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Crawford that the variance request as a package be approved as submitted. Any further discussion? Mr. Secretary, would you please call the role? Jerry Anderson? Yes.

Tim Emerick? Yes. Uh Julie Broadwell? Yes. Jeff Crawford? Yes, Rod Noble. Yes. Requests have been approved. Please see the planning department for the final permits and wish you all the best. We'll do. Thank you very much. Laura, you said earlier you're going to start the project or could in 2026. Yeah, that's the plan. When when are we going to be up and running and buying roost chicken and biscuits? In a perfect world, spring of 2026. We'll see how fast we get permits. Um, and then if not, I would say probably fall. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, last case for this evening. Um, help me out, Ally Buckers. I'm here to represent not make it tonight. So, I'm okay. on behalf of QuickTrip has requested the following variances to allow new construction at 120 Freeway Court to allow the construction of a 58T 8 in x 124T 2 in accessory structure which is an autofuel canopy and a 31 ft 6 in x 114t 8 in accessory structure which is a diesel canopy which would both exceed the 18 ft maximum height by 7'6 6 in. They would be 25 ft 6 in tall. And to allow the construction of a 79 ftx 113 ft travel center, which would exceed the 60 ft maximum front yard setback by 105 ft from the front property line along East Worooster Street and by 88 feet from the front property line along South Dunbridge Road. This is a corner lot. And would the representative please come forward while Heather, you

would Okay, I'm going to go first. Right. Did it, didn't I? You did. Uh, under the zoning code article 2 district and zone regulations, section 150.13, defining structure height. Um, under section A, structure height is the vertical distance between the average grade plane of the structure and the highest point of any flat roof. Um, I gave you a copy of the visual there. So um in this circumstance the canopies are measured to um the top of that roof. Under article 3 uses section 150.44 accessory uses the fuel canopies we actually consider as accessory uses. The required setbacks and um other regulations for accessory uses are actually under a different table of this section which is uh table 22 accessory use setback table. under other it get accessory accessory use type you will get your maximum height of 18 ft that I've highlighted there um additionally this uh property is a little complicated um if you've noticed by looking at the site plan it has frontage on four streets so to consider it a corner lot it's almost like a you know I don't know a double corner lot I don't know what else to say so it's it's hard to determine you know the front the rear and the side property lines And it really, you know, we can be very flexible with that. Um, in this circumstance, we did, you know, obviously call it a corner lot. Um, since it it really is between Wooster and Dunbridge, those two main thoroughfairs a corner lot. Um, this property is also zoned Interstate Commerce District IC under section 150.36. As mentioned earlier, the intent of the IC is to have a mix of lodging, commercial, and retail establishments. And um under this section is where the actual lot building and design standards come from. We have the IC district

standards table, table 13. And you will see the front yard setback there is a little different than we're used to with the new zoning code. Um we actually have a 25 ft minimum here. So, a 25 foot minimum front yard setback and a 60ft maximum setback. This is new. Our old zoning code did not have a minimum and a maximum setback. So, I'm just pointing that out since again it's something um new to consider. So, as mentioned before, this is an aerial aerial view of the two parcels that they will build upon both of those parcels. Um, again, it has frontage on Worooster Street, South Dunbridge, and then Freeway Court and Expressway Drive. We did give it a uh Freeway Court address, as you can see, 120 Freeway Court, because that is where really the the major entry points are and exit points are of the property. Using pictometry, here's a view. This would be facing north. So across there you'll see the Meyer gas station and then the hotel there to um the right of the screen. Here's another view of the property. Again you can kind of get your um directional here with the Meyer gas station to the left and then the hotel again. Another view of the property from Worooster Street and then another view of the property. I also wrote a memo on this one because we have been working with Ali who is not here. Wes Plier is here on his behalf. Um we've been working with them for a long time. So I'll read this memo for the record just to give you some background. So this is to the members of the zoning board of appeals uh subject variance request for Quicktrip 120 Freeway Court dated May 30th, 2025. The city of Bowling Green has been working with representatives since early 2023 to construct Quick Trip, a travel center, which is proposed to be located at the southeast corner of East Wooster Street and South Dunbridge Road. And I gave you a copy of the aerial below in the memo. The property is unique since it has

frontage on four roads, East Worster Street, South Dunbridge Road, Freeway Court, and Expressway Drive. It essentially is a corner lot with two front yards, but the front yards could be along any of the streets as long as there's also a sideyard and a rear yard determined. In this scenario, the site plan submitted lays out the property lines along East Worster Street and South Dunbridge Road as the front yards. The property line along Freeway Court is a sideyard and the property line along Expressway Drive as a rear yard. The property is zoned IC, which is Interstate Commerce District, which was a new zoning classification created July of 2023 when the new zoning code became effective. When the zoning code was adopted, this was the first time a regulation for a minimum maximum setback became effective. The minimum maximum setback requirement is also applicable uh to the central business district and the gateway district in addition to the IC zoning. City staff has already approved the access to the site as required by the city of Bowling Green access management policies and guidelines by review of their traffic impact study and most of the administrative staff have signed off on the zoning certificate approval. There are some comments that still need addressed by engineering utilities, but nothing that would require or would excuse me impact zoning items on the site plan. Thus, the property owner is ready to move forward with requesting approval of the required variances. Here's pictures of the property here um from directly at the intersection there of Worster and Dunbridge. Another picture of the same intersection. Another picture of the properties. This would be facing south. This would be a picture of the property from uh Worooster Street. And this would be from Freeway Court. So facing north towards um Meyer there on the other side of Worooster. Here's another view of the property from Freeway Court, but it'll be facing west. Another view facing west from Freeway Court. And this is from Dunbridge. This view is also from Dunbridge.

And this is from Dun actual well I should say the intersection of Dunbridge and then expressway drive facing north. This would be another view from Expressway Drive. So East Wooster would be there at the back of the screen. Another view from Expressway Drive. And then this sketch was part of your packet. Um so I tried to again boil down the requests onto one site plan so you could see the actual variance request. So, we have the um diesel canopy which would be at the back of the site, so more towards Expressway Drive for the truck traffic to um enter and fill up. Um so, the proposed height on the site plan was 25'6 in where the maximum height is 18 ft. And I think Wes is going to tell you later that that's taller than they would they're going to propose here. But again, it's better to ask for really the maximum than have to reduce anything later or ask for more later on. Um, at the front of the property there along East Booster would be the auto fuel canopy, which also has the same proposed height of 25'6 in with a maximum height of 18 ft as an accessory structure. And then those red dash lines actually are the labels for the minimum 25 ft front yard setback from Dunbridge and East Wooster. and then the 60 ft maximum front setback line. So, I just wanted you to be able to see those red lines and point those out. That's where the actual convenience store, which we call travel center, uh would be located within or outside of, I should say. I also have largeriz plans up here that um Mr. Plier had mailed us. We just didn't make copies because they're just so large and awkward to mail, but I'm happy to pass those down so you can see those more closely. Uh the rendering was also part of your packet that shows the five bay diesel canopy with the height there labeled along with the double stack 8 canopy

which is the autofuel canopy again along the east booster frontage. And then we gave you a site plan that included the uh landscaping so you could see that along with the buffer fence that's required to have parking in the front along East Wooster. And then here's also a rendering that was part of your packet to see what that uh autofuel canopy could look like. Um we did not receive any written phone calls or written phone calls. Sorry, it's been a long night already. Phone calls or letters from any of the neighboring neighboring property owners. An advertisement was placed in the newspaper of general circulations required. A site notice was placed at the site. The other notices required by the ministry of code were posted in the proper time and location. A letter was mailed first class mail to the tax mailing address of the owner and joining property owners. Therefore, all the proced requirements for the hearing have been met. Thank you. Please come to the podium. State your name and address for us if you would for the record. Wes Pler. I'm from Freeland and Kaufman in Greenville, South Carolina. Um 209 West Avenue, Greenville 29615. Um you affirm for me that you swore your oath to tell? Yes, sir. Uh, can I pass out a couple more exhibits? Um, that will help with the matching setup. Yes. I was having trouble imagining this. Thank you. I think it want to see them. Thanks, Thank you. [Applause]

Okay. Um, again, I'm Wes Pler. Um, I represent Quick Trip. Uh, we're the civil firm. Um, I've been working with Heather for, uh, several years on this property and, um, we are civil engineers, landscape arch. Uh, Quick Trip's very excited to potentially be in Bowling Green. Um, and they're excited to partner with the city, foster a sense of community, generate tax dollars, create jobs, um, and improve uh, the traffic signal at the intersection. Um, do you want me to I have the variance criteria I'd like to go through? Do you want me to go through just one at a time? Start with Go ahead and do them all. Okay. Um, we can start with the maximum setback. um whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Uh possibly, but safety is a top priority which is achieved by thoughtful sight design. This is done by separating the auto customers and the truck traffic. Moving the building closer to the interse intersection would place them all in one large parking area. The store as it currently sits creates an auto customer and pedestrian component and then a separate truck component in the back. Um you can reference the overall site plan uh that one uh that we've seen on screen. Um number two, whether the variance is substantial. Um it is significant from the written code which is updated uh but not what is currently built along Worooster. Um number three, whether the central character of the neighborhood would be sub substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Um, if you'd reference that sheet I just gave you, um, it would not. The adjacent hotel has a 169 ft setback from East Worster. The

fuel station across from Worster is 165 from the rideway. The current location for the Quick Trip is around 165 from the rideway. So, very similar to the adjacent uses. For the Dunbridge frontage, QT is 148 from the rideway. and the fuel station exceeds that with 209 between the building and the assumed rideway. The building placement further from the rideway allows for wider landscape buffers along the front edges. We have met and exceeded the landscape requirements and the plan proposes street trees, screening shrubs, bike path, pedestrian sidewalks, bike racks, outdoor dining tables, and ornamental fencing with stone columns. The landscape plan has been approved by Adrien Loian Kirrion. Hope I said that right. Um, and again, I provided y'all a landscape plan. Number four, whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. No. Number five, whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Yes, the property was purchased with full general knowledge of the zoning classification and permitted commercial uses under the Bowling Green zoning code. However, technical standards such as specific maximum setback limitation are frequently subjected to interpretation based on sight specific conditions, traffic design, and operate operational constraints. Number six, uh whether the property owner's predicament feasibility can be obiated through some method other than a variance. Um if QT were to meet the maximum setback, the rear of the building would face the intersection. Additionally, pushing the building to the street would create dead-end parking, which we always try to avoid. Number seven, um whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granted varants. Uh it's very challenging for this use uh or to meet the intent as it creates unusable space between the setback line and the rideway and creates an unsafe environment for pedestrians and

vehicular traffic. However, substantial justice would be done based off precedent of existing commercial businesses along Worster. Um, I'll proceed on to the canopy height. And, um, like Heather said in the on the agenda, I know it's 25 1/2 ft max. That's Quick Trip's general standard on how high they will go. Um, generally for the auto canopy, it's a 17t height clearance. Um, and for the diesel it's 16 ft. So, um, that's the bottom of the canopy. Yes, sir. Um, and I know did y'all have y'all did not get this copy. Okay. I I apologize. I only brought one of these, but if you want to pass this along. Thank you. Um, it explains that and the parking lot's not flat. So you 17, we we'll start with the auto canopy which is 17t clearance. Um you put that at the the highest mark and as it slopes down you have a new finish grade and that same height since the canopy top is flat it's going to be a little taller. Sure. Um so that explains that a little bit and shows you the maximum heights. Um, at the top of the canopy, you have a 3 and 1/2 ft wide canopy top. Um, which I'll go on to explain. Um, number one, whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Possibly, but the added height is a safety measure to prevent potential damage as well as increasing visibility to the store for customers. The IBC requires 13 1/2 ft of clearance. QT has built many stores and through their experience and research. Their standard

clearance is 17 for auto and 16 for diesel canopies. The 3 and 12 wide canopy top is an aesthetically aesthetically pleasing brush aluminum with eliminated red band. Uh whether the variance is substantial, it would not create a noticeable or significant difference. whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered. Uh it would not. The QT fuel canopies are designed to complement the building materials and design. The same quality that the building conveys is reflected in the canopy. Uh number four, whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services. No. Number five, where whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge. Yes, the property owner was gener generally aware of the zoning regulations at the time of purchase. However, the request to increase the canopy height stems not from a lack of understanding, but for from a commitment to deliver delivering a modern, consistent, and visually cohesive development that aligns with QuickRip's national design standards. The proposed canopy heights reflect the company's uniform architectural style which emphasizes clean lines, brushed aluminum finishes, and an integrated illuminated red band that enhances visibility and brand identity without appearing bulky or intrusive. Allowing the canopy height to align with these standards ensures that the site maintains the high quality modern aesthetic seen across Quick Trip locations nationwide. Um, number six, whether the property's predicament feasibly can be obiated through some method other than a variance uh simply not without compromising their standards. And number seven, whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done. We believe the intent is still being met since the request is only 4.24 ft for the auto canopy and 3.33 for the diesel canopy. Is that to the top? Yes, sir.

And you'll have the believe you saw the rendering. This is a very clean look. Any questions from the board? I do. Oh, please. So tell me how traffic would be coming in here. The people would come along the the semi trucks would come along Dunbridge and enter there. Is that what you're saying? To keep them separate from the Yes. The traffic would enter from Expressway Drive and go through the canopy and exit uh freeway court. Um they would not the diesel the trucks would not go through the front. Okay. You said expressway they'd come in and they would come in expressway drive and that's the diesel entrance, the truck entrance. And then when you you talked about pedestrians, are you talking about pedestrians that are just in this area and walking around or you're talking about pedestrians coming and walking there because we don't get many pedestrians out there? Well, we are um proposing the multi-use path um along Dunbridge and a additional sidewalk along Worster Street. I know there's a hotel next door. Um I know there's a u maybe passive recreation across the street, I guess, caddy corn from um the meer. So hopefully this will um promote um walking and pedestrians in the area. So at least like even just from the hotel coming over you're saying if people at the hotel want to walk over. Sure. And there's again I failed to mention the sidewalks along Freeway Court and Expressway Drive sidewalks on all four franches there. Okay. Thank you. And with the wider one along Dunbridge.

In your application, you mentioned the maximum setback due to an easement restricting the gas canopy from being behind this. I could I'm not Yeah, missing I'm missing the easement on the site plan. I guess the easement is right behind the store. Um there's a 30ft right there. It is. I see it along Expressway Drive right here. There's a 30ft utility ement right there. Oh, okay. Yeah. Oh, I missed that. Right down the center. I see. So it works again if you place the building where it is. Um it's very similar to adjacent uses and it works very well with separating the diesel and the auto component and it works well with that work around the utility. That clears up a lot. We don't we don't want to have to relocate that. And again the landscaping requirements are met. Appreciate that. And no complaints, no letters of support or complaint. Correct. Okay. I would not have been surprised to hear from the hotel. And if that would have been the case, I'd have had a whole series of questions for you. So, okay. Don't have to worry about that. That's great. Good news. I'm kind of curious. It's a similar request to what we just reviewed with the canopies. Why why there's not a more firepower to the lighting request on this one? Well, I was going to ask both about lighting and and signage because I think we, as indicated earlier, we're dealing with pre-existing signs across the expressway. I can't believe you guys are going to be tucked on the east side of the interstate and not be putting something up in the air. Our plans first for the signage, um, there's a monument sign that is in front of the auto canopy. Um, there are no plans for a large pylon. Um, I know there will be some canopy, typically they'll do a couple canopy signs, little button signs that are on that three and

a half foot. Um, there's a couple building signs and they are going to address those separately. And okay, I don't know if there'll be an additional variance for that or not. Um, I know that's a separate permit and um, and for your other question, light level for the lighting, we have submitted a phototric plan and we have met all the comments. Yeah, I mean electric superintendent did approve it and they're kind of in the same situation as the last request. We've been working with them prior to the new zone zoning code going to effect. So I cannot remember if you guys applied before the new zoning permit or not because like I said this has been going on for a long time. The traffic review probably took the longest and then there was you know some changes to the site plan and so it's just been a long process. But I do know our electric superintendent approved the lighting. And Wes, did I hear you say, is your canopy itself going to be lit around the that red illuminated band? Okay. So, we may be getting sign bearings requests possibly, but nothing extreme. I mean, again, I think there could be some wall, some building facade sign, like small little signs. Um, and usually they'll do a canopy sign. Um, and that's to be determined. So, one thing that struck me was when you said um it's comparable to other fuel centers along list or something close to that maybe that you said that was in reference to the just the the building location um in relation to the rideway. Okay. For the maximum setback which is part of the new zoning code. Okay. We just felt like putting the building up on the road, although would meet the new code, just would not doesn't really fit with the existing uses along East Worster. And um and just not very safe for I mean, I don't I think it's a

better looking situation with the store as it is and not the the back of the building facing that intersection. Yeah. And again, separating having the auto in the front, the diesel component in the back, so you don't have one large parking area. Any other questions from the board? Just real quickly, the store for all intents and purposes is carry out. Yes. Well, I mean, there's Travel Mart. Yeah. Okay. They do provide the two dining tables, outdoor dining tables, and Okay. Um, and we don't want to call this a truck stop, but Bowling Green, we don't we don't get diesels at that exit. We will now probably in large numbers if if business is good, right? That's the plan, right? Okay. Today, we're just dealing with canopies, the heights of canopies, and the variation um request on the setbacks. Correct. Okay. Anyone from the lobby have any comments? Any final thoughts from the board? Um, yeah, I mean I think strict application of the the parcel is kind of, you know, has a lot of frontages. Strict application of the setback requirements would hinder the economic output of the parcel. So to me that you know uh based on that particular parcel it would create a hardship. I agree and like I said in the absence of my my concern would have been with the hotel but they're obviously not concerned and I apologize for missing that easement but once I see that now the site plan makes total sense and that's so you did a nice job with how you configured things on there. Thank you. That's good. Okay. Anyone care to make a motion for disposition of this case? A

motion to approve. A second. I'll second. All right. Then moved and seconded that the variance requests be approved as submitted. Further discussion. Mr. Secretary, please call the role. Tim Emerick. Yes. Jeff Crawford. Yes. Jerry Anderson. Yes. Rod Noble. Yes. Julie Broadwell. Yes. Your requests have been approved. Please continue to work on with Heather and Sounds good. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And we have a few things before you leave. Anyone have anything to say from the lobby? All right. Anything else from the many of the board members? Have a motion to adjurnn. So move. Second. I'll take a nap.