all right
I'll um
called to order the
March 2023 meeting of the
Bexley Board of zoning and planning
and ask
Ms Rose to call the role of the members
president
Mr Levine here Mr chair here Mr Marsh
here
also here so we have a quorum probably
should be noted for all the applicants
that when we have four members we're
allowed to conduct business but
it's a requirement that you get three
positive votes then in order to pass any
application and as opposed to if we have
seven people you need to get four votes
and so I suppose if you did that math
you'd find out that four sevenths is
something less than three quarters
that'd be my guess
anyway
um so if somebody Feels disadvantaged by
that they could certainly consider uh
tabling their matter but then of course
we have a delay of a month and
so otherwise uh we're certainly you're
certainly free to proceed and we we will
do so
have all the members of the board had a
chance to review the uh is it the
January or the February the January
meeting I guess
we didn't have a February meeting that's
right a January 20 23 minutes
and if so are there any uh comments
questions deletions or additions or
modifications
that anybody would like to suggest
if not I would entertain a motion to
call to approve the minutes of the
January meeting who Moved Marsh
thank you
all in favor say aye aye all opposed
the matter passes and the minutes are
approved
we have an opportunity by Bexley statute
for public comment on the work General
work and actions of the board of zoning
and planning if anybody's here that
wishes to make a public comment not
related to any of the cases on tonight's
docket of course but just generally
now's your opportunity to do so
I see no indication of such so move on
to
the next uh agenda item which is really
new business is there any old business
that's what I thought thank you
which leads us to application number one
involving uh 9 34 Grandin and that's
case number bzap-23-1
the applicant is Valerie house and the
owner of the property is Todd Berger
the applicator in this case is seeking
Architectural Review and approval of a
certificate of appropriateness for a
two-story addition at the rear of the
house the applicant is also seeking a
two foot seven and a half inch variance
from Bexley city code section
1252.09 in the R6 zoning District to
allow a two-story addition be
constructed four feet four and a half
inches from the north side of the
property line
would the applicant please step forward
if you would raise your right hand to be
sworn in please state your name
Ms house do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're going to give this
panel this evening will be the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth
thank you very much
Kathy give us a little rundown from the
staff's perspective please the
applicants asking to do a two-story
Edition due to the smaller size of this
lot being 40 feet it has a six foot
eight inch required side yard setback
which is one sixth of a lot width so the
variance request actually instead of two
feet seven and a half inches is actually
one foot three and a half inches okay uh
I'd like to point out that the house is
at a slight angle and the exist existing
structure is five feet two and a half
inches from the north side property line
and the addition is to extend 10 feet to
the rear and be constructed in line with
the existing structure placing the
addition two inches further from the
north property line then the existing
structure
the applicant was before the
architecture review board on March 9th
and at which time the plan was provided
with an additional covered
over the rear entrance
I received a favorable favorable
recommendation there were suggestions
that the applicant may want to consider
a deck as opposed to a six foot by seven
foot stoop at the at the back of the
Edition should the applicant decide to
add a deck instead that is something
that staff could review and approve okay
if it meets the zoning requirements I
wouldn't necessarily have to be a
condition of this board or you know
thank you and should the board find it
appropriate to Grant a variant staff
does not have any further
recommendations other than what the arv
has recommended but I want to ask if
there are any large trees on the
property that would be impacted by this
Edition
and if Karen if she wants to talk about
any of the design
um components sure Kathy pretty much
covered everything the architecture
review board was very positive on this
project I think it's important to look
at these
um these axonometric or like
three-dimensional drawings rather than
the this
um the elevations are a little deceiving
it makes it look like there's more of a
top heavy Edition and it's just really
not it's a very small house and I think
it just does a better job describing it
the things that the board the
architecture review board were were
interested in um guiding Valerie through
were things like new shutters but that's
not even part of this project so we kind
of you know they were like if the great
part of this would be to their
undersized shutters to make them
appropriately sized but you know we
talked about that and I think Valerie
was going to check with her clients but
I don't think it's really something we
can require but a lot of good
suggestions went back I can it's not
um
the other suggestion and I have to find
I'll pull up the current one is the
suggestion was to put a cover over this
back entryway it's a young family it'd
be nice to have a cover over the back
door it's not really a zoning issue but
Valerie agreed to do that and um the the
comment about the patio the back patio
that Kathy's referring to is this rather
than just have kind of a stoop with room
for two chairs the board felt like as
long as you're going to do this you
might want to think about putting a
knife a more sizable patio and they were
they were good with that yeah
yeah and I think she actually brought
her you you brought that to the last ARB
that showed the cover yeah
and also if you had a chance to look at
the staff report I had provided uh
street view photographs from both sides
of the existing house to kind of give
you a better perspective what a little
Bungalow this appears to be that they're
extending
okay
but
Valerie do you have anything to add as
to why uh what they're doing here why
they're doing it and uh why we should
Grant the variance
um
she I think she was in labored during
the meeting yeah
oh my God
that ARB could do that to me yeah
um
yeah we do have a small setback
um
you know so we're not kind of
building out anymore than what is
apparently yeah
[Music]
what she said
um houses are you know the colors you
know yeah
all right thank you members of the board
do you have any questions or comments
we could safely then Mr chairman all
right
um
are there any members in the audience
that have any comments or questions
about this uh application
who have standing I should say and I've
seen no hands so with that uh Kathy can
we have findings of fat and conclusions
of law
the findings effect
23-1 for property located at 934 Grandin
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to Grant an area variance in Mexico
section 12 2611c have been met and a one
foot three and a half inch variance from
Mexico section
1252.09 are versus zoning to allow a
two-story addition shall be granted as
submitted
the board further finds that a
certificate of appropriateness
should be
granted in accordance with the
recommendation of the architecture
review board
uh
that's it all right I think that's right
and did we decide there were no trees
being moved
or taken out as a result of this project
okay thank you and uh
I should note
um that we had a discussion at the
meeting of all the boards and we need to
articulate reasons for negative votes
so if one votes negatively it would be
good to uh State your position and why
you don't think it meets the standards
for and whatever it is that we're doing
in that case nonetheless do I have any
uh changes to the findings of fact and
conclusions of law from any member of
the board
Valerie is that okay with you the way uh
the the standards were read there all
right do I have a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law so
moved Marsh Mr Marsh thank you sir
second second chick thank you Mr chick
please call the roll Kathy
Mr Schick yes
Mr Marsh yes Mr Levine yes
chairman B Hall I also vote Yes nice
project in on a
small stamp to work on there so thank
you
all right the variances are granted and
the uh approvals of appropriateness is
also granted thank you
thank you Valerie
the next case involves
273 South Dawson
it's application number
bzap-23-3 the applicant is Amy laurhaus
the owner is Natalie Cohen
the applicant is uh requesting
Architectural Review and approval of
certificate of appropriateness for a
one-story Edition which would connect to
the house to the detached garage the
applicant is also seeking a variance
from Bexley city code section 1250 2.09
in the R6 zoning District which requires
a principal structure to be 25 feet from
the rear property to allow an addition
to connect the principal structure to
the detached garage and I assume what
your mean is that the once you attach
them the garage becomes part of the
principal structure and therefore the
garage is whatever it is three or five
feet away from the property line and
that's the reason we need a variance in
that respect does that sound right
correct
Kathy tell us a little bit about the
staff's perspective in this case if you
would be so kind this lot is located at
the southwest corner of Dale and South
Dawson the front of the loudest planet
to Dawson a detached garage can be
located three feet from the side and
rear property line the drive in this
case is located 22 feet 7 inches from
the rear West property line and five
feet from the South Side property line
the existing principal structure is two
and a half stories and a 331 square foot
Edition proposed is one story with a
flat roof and decorative railing it is
small in comparison to even the existing
garage being the additional connect the
detached garage to the principal
structure as Bob said the principal
structure will no longer meet the rear
yard set back or the eight foot side
yard setback therefore the applicant is
Seeking a two foot five inch and a three
foot variance to allow only the garage
portion to encroach and all other
setbacks and lot coverage will meet the
code
uh the structure is located more to the
south side of the lot and the setback
from Dale Avenue the property is heavily
screened the architecture review board
recommended a certificate of a
preppedness be granted as part of their
consent agenda if the board of zoning
planning find it appropriate to Grant
the variance staff would be interested
in knowing if any of the existing
vegetation would be removed to discuss
if additional Landscaping should be
considered as a condition all right
Aaron how about the ARB the ARB
unanimously approved this as a consent
agenda item with no conditions all right
thank you very much
Ms lauerhouse tell us a little bit about
what is trying to be accomplished here
and why the variances should be granted
oh that's right now I'll swear you in
okay I I don't think we should swear in
the professionals but nonetheless okay
if you swear or firm that the testimony
you're about to give this evening will
be the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes thank you please
proceed uh yeah
three um
uh garage as it sits meets all of the
um stipulations for a detached structure
are proposed Edition meets all of the
zoning stipulations for the addition but
the fact that we're connecting the two
puts the existing garage
out of conformance for the primary
structure
yeah our our
addition is a flat roofed Edition
um it has a rail on top we're adding a
rail you can see there on the left hand
side
um to an existing piece of the house
that has a flat roof
um and like I said it is within the
um
proposed the proposed Edition is within
the setbacks to the question about the
foliage really the only thing that's
there is a magnolia tree on the site
plan and they have actually recently had
that pruned up substantially with the
goal to keep the magnolia
I don't know how realistic that is but
they're gonna at least try
nothing else is affected
one big tree in the front yard
[Laughter]
all right
is has there been any uh communication
with or or contact from the
owner to the South yes yes they I make
my clients do that you do yes smart move
so yes they have and they're fine with
it okay
is there anybody in the audience that is
here to uh speak Pro or con this
application
I see no communication and such
members of the board you have any
questions
or comments about this application
no no awful quiet tonight it's been some
good might be some good projects huh
all right
um
I think it's pretty straightforward
Kathy can you give us findings of fact
conclusions of law on this matter please
define fact and decision of the board
for application number
bzap-23-3 for property located at 273
South Dawson upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence testimony before it the board
finds the applicant has proven the
criteria to Grant an area variance in
Mexico section 12 2611c have been met
and at that a two foot five inch and
three foot variance for from Bexley code
section
1252.09 R3 zoning
to allow a one-story addition which
connects the principal structure to the
detached garage should be approved as
submitted the board further finds that a
certificate of appropriateness
after review of the plans and
consideration of the application and
evidence and testimony given and the
recommendation from the architecture
review board the board finds that the
certificate of a perfectness should be
issued
thank you Amy's at me with your
requirements yep
um
Kathy uh if let's let's say they have to
move remove the magnolia tree as a
result of that conversation we had at
that last meeting do they need to
contact the tree commission about their
plans or how do we need to interact in
that regard
I guess if it was a significant tree
that the sport felt should be reviewed
by the treatment of the garden
commission but it's really on private
property so I I think the fact that the
applicants doing what they can to
maintain that tree
it is definitely a step in the right
direction so I don't think they're
trying to do anything that would
Department no no I don't I don't either
but I I was just wondering whether they
want
some communication if a tree is coming
down even on private property to replace
it with another tree or some such thing
you know I I don't know that's what I
was gleaning from the meeting so but
nonetheless you're aware there was a
tree commission I am advise your client
appropriately if for some reason that
tree has to come down okay it might be a
recommendation that they would consider
replacing another Magnolia should that
one
you know I I I I don't think I would go
that far but I think we should say we
should at least alert you to the
possibility that you might have to
contact the tree commission okay
I think that's adequate
um
all right
um
any additions or uh subtractions from
that finding a fact and conclusions law
for members of the board
if not I would entertain a motion to
call the question and to approve the
finding of facts and conclusions of law
so thank you Mr shank second
thank you Mr lean appreciate it uh Kathy
please call the roll Mr merch yes Mr
Levine yes Mr Sheikh yes
chairman I also vote yes thank you good
project thank you good luck
the next case is application
bzap23-4 involving 181 Ashbourne the
applicant is once again Amy larhas and
the owners or take a car the applicant
is seeking Architectural Review and
approval for a certificate of
appropriateness for a porch edition of
the house
Captain is also seeking a variance of
Mexico City code section
1252.09 in the R3 zoning District which
requires a principal structure to be 40
feet from the rear property line to
allow a covered porch Edition on the
south side of the attached garage
all right
um Ms Rose fill us in a little bit from
the staff's perspective please
I think I got this tea mixed up the
other one is actually our sixth zoning
that we just finished I thought I may
have said our three yes this one our
16th this one's our three oh yes
the other one was our six yeah yes
correct okay
that's what she said
okay good uh this lot is located at the
southwest corner of Ashbourne Road and
Denver Avenue in front of the lot is
planted to Ashbourne Road the principal
structure includes an attached garage
and is non-conforming and that is
located 14 feet 4 inches off the West
rear property line and the required rear
yard setback is 40 feet
the garage has a flat roof
the covered porch also has a flat roof
and would be located at the south side
of the attached garage it would be 16
feet 4 inches from the rear property
line which is two feet further from the
rear property line than the existing
attached garage but it would encroach 23
feet 8 inches into the 40 foot rear yard
setback all other setbacks and lot
coverage will be met and the lot has
many miniature trees but I don't believe
any will be impacted this was reviewed
at the March 9th ARB meeting and was
also approved as part of their consent
agenda
all right
Karen that sounds like another consent
agenda item there was so you've got good
projects no conditions at all just a
unanimous consent agenda all right
um Amy um tell us a little bit about
what they're trying to accomplish and uh
why we need that the variance yes this
house is
a little odd in that it's
really not even close to the setbacks of
even if for a corner lot which are more
it's it's really set back far on the lot
to the South and to the west and so the
uh the garage that is there that's been
there for a very long time
um is completely outside of the setback
um so we are proposing that we add the
porch onto the back of that
um the the south side of the of the lot
um has a lot of great Trees and
Landscaping that they don't want to
disturb and also a lot of glass across
the south side of the house that they
want to maintain so the existing garage
basically has a big blank wall so we
felt that that was the best place to put
it it's a very open structure it's a
Pergola type structure it will have a
rubber roof on it but it's it's going to
have I think I have a picture of the um
of the look that we're going for just to
show you what that's going to look like
it's kind of like a heavy timber frame
look to go with the Spanish architecture
so that's kind of what it's going to
look like and then it'll have a rubber
roof on the top but as Kathy mentioned
we are two feet further back from the
West property line than the existing
garage and we're within this the
setbacks on the south side
is there anybody in the audience that is
for or against this matter please
I see no indication of such
questions or comments from members of
the board
I do have one question yes is this the
one where the
there's a
a
set of what it looks like just an
outdoor cooking area
is that nope nope
where was I seeing that one might have
been another case huh
now in the bottom left picture there you
can see the garage is basically covered
in
that's where we're going to put the open
porch there okay
let's see what I was looking at though
um
this one has I got the fire pit I read
it incorrectly as well yeah this one has
some built-in cabinets and a grill on
the on the porch is that what you were
asking yeah yes yes sorry I was okay so
my question is
can you build an outdoor kitchen with I
assume it has a heat source that close
to a wall yes so basically the two the
two dipulations is it will have an
exhaust Hood like a like a range does
inside
um that will vent out the top and
um the back wall behind the grill will
be a non-combustible material oh okay
I was wondering how that worked yep
so it will be reviewed uh by our chief
building official for construction
documents yeah okay so that makes me
feel better yeah if it burns down it's
their problem though I just think it's
no that would be my problem too so we
don't want that stuff I've thought of
that
yeah
all right
anybody have any other questions or
comments
Kathy I think these were all pretty good
projects today you want to give us some
findings effect conclusions of law on
this matter please yes
sorry
this is
this is 181 correct uh that is
yes yes all right I need to set back in
decision of the board for application
number
bzap-23-4 or property located at 181
Ashbourne upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before it board
finds the applicant has proven that the
criteria to Grant an area of variance in
Mexico in section 12 2611 C have been
met and that a 23 foot 8 inch variance
from Mexico section 12 52.09
R3 zoning to allow a covered porch
Edition
should be
approved as submitted the board further
finds out a certificate of appropriate
mess
as recommended
by the architecture review board
should be granted
reward
okay
what's happening the um
are
the is findings in fact satisfactory to
you the applicant yes
any uh
comments or additions to that by any
board members if not I certainly
entertain a motion to approve the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
so Mr Stephen thank you sir
Kathy cope please call the roll
Mr Marsh yes
Mr Levine yes Mr Sheikh yes chairman B
Hall I vote Yes also the
appearances are granted in the
architectural view the certificate of
appropriateness also approved thank you
thank you very much
all right if I've been told that the
fourth agenda item has been tabled is
that correct information yes they've
requested that it'd be tabled until the
April 27th okay I'm gonna double check
that date make sure we are accurate yes
the 27th at 6 PM okay do I hear a motion
to table the fourth agenda item which is
case number
arb-23-1 involving 2555 East Main Street
the Montrose Elementary School
playground essentially so moved thank
you Mr Marsh second please second second
Minister Shank
all in favor
vote I I all opposed nay thank you the
motion to table
till the April meeting passes thank you
thank you thank you
do we have any other business from any
members of the board or the staff we do
we do we have a last item which is a
recommendation to Bexley city council
and that's why Mr SUNY have graced us
with his presence so I thought this was
a pretty easy docket for him to be here
I'm for the short meetings so Mr Siri
tell us what what you you think here
about this matter absolutely
um let me know what you want me to put
up on them oh yeah
um actually you know what might be
useful even though it's
um
probably the first
um report that shows that parcel right
there
yeah I think it's the second page of
that
perfect
yes I think it's just oh there we go
um uh just asked
uh just to review this very briefly and
then answer any questions uh this parcel
which I think we all cloakly refer to as
the South Bexley Gateway even though it
has not yet been constructed uh was
transferred and ownership quite some
time ago from Capital University uh
however it still remains in the CP
zoning District which is the campus
planning district that district is
specifically designated in order to
allow larger scale Master planning
cohesive with the Capital University
campus on the other hand this parcel is
now specifically in with the intent and
not just by the city but I think we'll
hear if if he testifies from the owners
as well to be more in keeping with the
frontage of Main Street that is uh not
uh is aligned with the requirements of
the campus planning district and is
better suited to the muc district which
is the mixed use commercial in addition
as you're from familiar we have a Main
Street District which has some
additional criteria as an overlay so
this would also slightly amend the Main
Street District boundary that parcel
that sort of hangs down right now on the
right uh is not now in Main Street right
now the Main Street District just goes
right above that parcel so by
transferring this into mixed-use
commercial and Main Street it's the
opinion of the city that we're sort of
catching up to what the actual intent is
of this parcel or these set of parcels
as well as taking just one more small
hurdle away from the potential
Redevelopment not that we ever intended
to oppose someone coming in with a with
a development that would meet the mixed
use commercial however almost almost
definitely it would require some sort of
rezoning so by resume zoning this
proactively we'll remove that as a
possible hurdle and allow applicants to
know what it is that our intent is with
regard to the code so that's pretty much
it uh happy to answer any other
questions that you have and obviously
hear from uh from the representative of
the of the owner all right
sir is that is that your cue okay
that's that's my job
um do you
SW your name please uh Jackson D
Reynolds III Jackson B Reynold the third
you swear from the truth you're going to
give us this evening will be the whole
truth and nothing but the truth I did
thank you sir
um I'm here on behalf of the owner of
the property uh the owner was approached
by the city themselves uh when they were
doing some research on the Park area
that there you will be hearing next it
was noted that this property still zoned
under the capital zoning classification
more or less and so the mayor came to
the owner and said you know we're going
to make a uh uh Council uh foreign
for the for the property and so are you
comfortable with us moving forward with
putting this in the muc's own
classification and so we looked at the
the possibilities what was the positive
negatives and obviously Larry
redeveloped the property to the north
it's an muc so we're perfectly
comfortable with the city initiated
rezoning of the property uh obviously
Jason will tell you that you know there
there is a three-step two-step process
limited development plan uh final
development plan uh and then of course
you have to meet all of the standards
under the Main Street guidelines Etc so
it's just putting it in the proper
category for moving forward and and so
we're comfortable with it and uh I said
I would be at the meeting just to say
that it's okay with us okay
let me ask you a question though
absolutely is this property is this the
property that has gravel surfacing on it
it is so is what's the story on that so
it was actually granted a one-year
permit to do that uh the city did Issue
a letter to the owners about a year ago
uh reminding them that there is an
expired permit for that and
um currently we don't know of any formal
or informal plans on this site uh so the
mayor in speaking to him did mention
that um the city is is happy to issue a
follow-up to that should the board feel
that it's appropriate at this time
a follow-up to the letter yes and there
was a there was a meeting and some
discussion and since then uh there's
been no further action taken that being
said yeah it that has obviously well
expired because that was many many years
ago
I mean it just seems like
from the point of being
consistent in application of that
particular
uh rule which forbids I don't know if
other members of the board were I know
uh Brian Marsh was there then but I
don't know if you were here Ryan and
basically you you can't have gravel
covered Lots within the city the same in
Columbus
Jack knows I mean it's so I I think they
were developing
uh the north side of Main Street and
intended I believe to develop the south
side of Main Street in a similar fashion
and then when that became either
economically in unfeasible or or whether
they just change their minds it doesn't
really matter
we said hey this is gravel and he said
well we're we're going to do something
with it so let us keep it gravel for a
period of time why
blacktop and then we're going to put
something on top of it five months later
so uh we issued a letter that said they
have uh we issued a ruling of some sort
I believe that they have a Year's
extension before they had to change the
surface of that lot and that that's my
recollection would be that it's been
several years now yes and so the the I
think we've done this to other lots and
I think we need to be careful that we
apply that rule uh consistently
throughout the city so I think what we
should do is request that your client
um abide by that and maybe do you have
any idea of of what their plans are in
that regard or they talk to you about
this issue at all
you know
larion would love to develop the
property and you know we had plans to do
this back in 2008 and we know it
happened in 2008 uh and so it has gone
through a number of different iterations
as to what he'd like to do on the
property but I think he is once again
working towards getting something on the
property
and I you know uh I can certainly
talk to Larry again but he's been in
talks with some different Developers for
you know doing something on the property
and I think
Kathy's talked to him about it you know
Kathy talk to me about it and I talked
to Larry about it so he's aware of the
desire for the city to get something
done on the property especially since
it's kind of the entryway into the city
you know it's okay first thing you see
on a right there well I should just say
one one more thing uh to the commission
the there will be two Council hearings
on this as a rezoning your approval is a
recommendation to counselors yeah right
so then there will be a hearing next
Tuesday and because there's a seven day
minimum period Then they actually have
to have another hearing which would be
April 11th so they're the public would
have options so they want to come speak
about this two more times okay and
they're really two separate issues here
that were two different issues that
being said that's a an excellent point
that you make in terms of the before we
vote on the first issue the one that's
Forest night
what what action can the panel take what
are their options with regard to the
gravel surfaces a lot to issue a
I can send a letter to the property
owner reminding them of the original
approval and which had expired and
possibly give them a timeline that we
either have plans going forward or that
have been replaced with hard skin yeah
I mean I think if we said uh in view of
the fact this is not the first go around
if we said within six months we'd like
to have uh either a plan for development
or resurfacing that would be a
reasonable period of time
it will be toward the end of the asphalt
season two
six months from now six months okay I
can put that in my letter if that meets
that's not I'm not calling the shot here
I think we should I mean I I agree it's
I mean it's it's an eyesore and it's
going on well quite a while so I mean my
my feeling is and I'm sympathetic that
if you know if they were going to break
ground tomorrow it'll be different but
it's been that way for a long time I'd
like to put something in there uh and I
mean I'm comfortable with staff you know
reaching some agreement whether it's
some Landscaping
something so it just doesn't look you
know the eyesore is gone
and and so you know again I I would I
personally would just say that they
shouldn't within six months they
shouldn't they should have reached an
agreement with staff on an acceptable
resolution resolution to it whether you
know whether that's Planters or
landscaping or Paving or whatever
the suggestion in terms of what our
Authority is
well you know I guess our Authority was
we gave them
a year
to do what to get it done or how did
that go it was basically a year or two
to remain as the condition it's in now
so that has not permanent yeah because
they're not remedy let's say I mean it's
not only a visual thing but it's a dust
thing it's a it's also a uh uh
consistency of application of the of the
law of the ordinance thing
we're being asked today to vote on those
ordinance and that's the conditions
um it would actually be a separate issue
yeah the condition is about rezoning
which doesn't really have to do with
condition over property itself however
staff would be under advisement that we
should follow up uh with the
recommendation from this board that it's
a time limit to be imposed I'm just
wondering if we could if we have an
ability to conditions
that's a good question though well I I
think what we should do is
say in view of the of the assertions of
counsel tonight that they are still
looking at other avenues of development
that we tell them that uh
that
they have six months to comply with the
city code
or maybe not even six months I don't
know I just picked six months out of the
air but
I I
Enforcement Officers well
I I may think that's a reasonable
request and
um to have this board convey your
specific concerns and recommendations
for a timeline I think I think is useful
for us
and again it doesn't have to be it
shouldn't be part of the motion to
approve but we'll take that as a as a
recommendation
you know
what can the
compliance officer do except report it
to the to City staff
good one ear support yeah um so
typically we start off with a letter
with you know what we would expect and
if there's no compliance then we can
issue the notice of violation okay
well let's go to the issue before us
tonight which is should we recommend to
city council that they adopt the uh the
plan for this particular parcel it's
actually more than one parcel quite a
few Parcels there one two three four
five six Parcels one two one six Parcels
uh and that and that it become part of
the uh I mean
what warning would you use Jason uh part
of the muc district and Ms District
which is really an overlay okay and
that's all in the ordinance so MSB Main
Street overlay correct Main Street
any questions or comments from members
of the board on this
is there anybody in the audience that is
for against this matter
no there's nobody in the audience except
our two steadfast citizens
um
all right
um does everybody understand it and feel
like we can make a vote on a
recommendation right then I guess the
the motion would be that I would
entertain would be uh that
the bees app recommends to city council
uh approval of
putting this particular
piece of property which is uh at the
southwest corner of Sheridan and Maine
um
under the muc and and Main Street
overlay and commissioner it can even be
easier than that all you really have to
do is recommend uh approval of ordinance
0623 okay there you go makes makes it
even easier thank you very much I can
read I can read a longer version if you
care for the record yeah that's okay
yeah
it's uh ordinance 06-23 thank you which
amends the official zoning map at that
corner yep all right with that in mind
do I hear such a motion so some second
second thank you Miss Marsh
Kathy please call the roll
Mr Marsh yes
yep yes
I vote Yes also so the recommendation is
granted on the other issue
um I think we should first of all direct
the staff to send a letter and the
question is uh
should we impose a
a timeline
what we did last time was we just said
we'll Grant you a a period of time
within which you don't have to comply
with the laws essentially what we did
right so now we're at the point where
we're going to say we're going to give
you an additional extension in view of
the concept that there's been other work
done to try to develop that property but
it has to have an ending date on it and
that ending date is Boom three months
six months
what do you think Ryan what do you think
I'm I'm inclined not to do anything
since we already gave them an extension
and and just we've we've let staff know
that we think it should be informed
forced
yeah I think it's my recommendation is
that we didn't enforce it and I think
it's just going to be in best faith for
both parties just to work together on
this and trust that you know by the end
of summer would be great
um you know to have this done but I
don't know if it's for us to put that
condition on it
okay
all right
yeah or or if it would be great better
yet improvements
yeah I'd love to be back
[Laughter]
all right then I sense that there's no
motion to be made and therefore we'll
move on to the next subject matter but I
I think what we're saying is we would
certainly encourage the staff to enforce
the laws
equally
yeah as to all landowners in Bexley that
would be a goal of the board I would
think
all right
is there any additional new business one
more all right one more uh this is very
similar to the previous except that in
this case what we're talking about are
Parcels that are along the Waterway or
Long Island Creek in order to allow
um the Sheridan Park to be zoned in the
open space District uh as uh as you know
there have been considerable
improvements proposed and considered for
the park system throughout the city in
particular in this area and
um in looking at this more closely we
realize this is sort of an amalgamation
of other zoning districts right now
um it's not indicated on this map but um
just for a kind of a sense of what's out
there uh that first large section
um all the way from from Main Street
down to where it kind of jogs in that's
campus planning district immediately
under that is our 12 zoning district and
there's another portion of R12 then
there's a large section of plan unit
development as you go further down if
you can scroll down just a little bit
sort of that big section there keeps
going down all the way and then finally
the part that if you keep going down
just a little further part that shoots
out then uh toward toward the East is
R12 so what we're trying to do is put
these all into the open space District
um you will notice that as you go north
just a little bit from here there are
some gaps and the reason that those are
gaps is because those are in the campus
planning district as part of longer
Parcels that go much further to the east
we didn't want to try to subdivide
parcels and get into a whole situation
where we're either splitting Parcels or
having multiple zonings on the same
parcel so in lieu of that the city has
secured easements for uh passive
Recreation space from Capital University
and that area in those Gap Parcels is
only intended to be a trail never
intended to have anything more so we
really don't need anything more than
just those those recreational passive
easements
um on the other hand all this area that
will not be zoned in open space will
then fall under any of the criteria of
open space which means other Park type
facilities could go in there uh we're
not sure exactly what those will all be
right now that being said it gives the
city the ability to pursue those in uh
concert and consistent with anything we
develop in a normal Park situation
um the one thing I will point out here
that's a little unusual is you notice
the parcel lines go well into the flood
way so this actually looks like a little
more ground than it really is because a
lot of that is underwater so you
probably wouldn't hang out there often
in the park but hey I don't know maybe
you would if you had a kayak or a canoe
neither you'd be in this open space
zoning while you were kayaking uh that's
really it those are happy to answer any
other questions that you have this is
again just to kind of make our zoning
map a little more consistent with actual
current uses
it's not about the resulting you know
wineries brushes were ever even created
and why the human or not
they asked you know a lot of savings
developments
um again I don't know for sure
um the ones that are the gaps they also
extend to the center
um it's just that it's kind of funky the
way this is drawn there's like a kind of
an extra line that's the floodway line
um typically back in the day uh zoning
Parcels for non-major waterways and for
roadways were just given to the center
of the street or the Waterway it was
just the way it was done uh well before
any of us were born so I can't speak to
their decision-making process uh I will
say that over the years it's very common
for municipalities to remove the center
running
um aspect of parcels and move those back
to an established right away because
that gives us legal rights to do what we
want in city-owned property um it also
is something that usually landowners
like because it reduces the square
footage of their property that they
can't use anyway so it like
incrementally reduces their tax bill not
a lot but tiny bit so for the Waterway
the parcels were created over time just
as independent development Parcels I
don't know what was there in all of them
uh and it's kind of I mean is planning
nerds we like to look at old Sanborn
maps and try to discern why different
things happened if I was to guess I
would say that you know at a time in the
past there was a desire to have
individual parcel lots that face the
Waterfront over the years those have you
know changed considerably the extremely
long lots are almost always the result
of someone just responding to sort of
extra ground between a road way system
so what I'm guessing is way back in the
day those Parcels probably ran all the
way from Sheridan straight back to the
river and somebody parcel goes off at
some point somebody sold the back for
somebody that wanted to do something
kept the front and then just had those
in the middle so
um yeah there's a ton of reasons that
could have happened uh which it's sort
of like that show of how did States get
their shapes they could do it how do
parcel get their shapes but it'd be a
lot more boring and specific so but yeah
that's probably about the best answer I
can give you is Parcels are almost
always a weird amalgamation of leftover
decisions from the past
these were all previously owned by the
university oh no uh just the specific
ones that are in the the gaps are the
ones owned by the university it's these
have been owned by a variety of of
entities over over a different time so
yeah yeah
uh in fact on the bottom was uh all the
residential that was Associated like the
very bottom was part of
um uh some of the more the affordable
housing area
um than there was area that was actually
used as I think there was an area that
was used to dump for a while way back in
the day so there's been a whole bunch of
different zone or different ownership uh
situations and now it's City ground
all right thank you Jason yep
members of the board and he thoughts or
questions or
this is ordinance
0723 that's correct
everybody feels like they understand the
issue and uh uh then I would certainly
entertain a motion to approve or
recommend approval to the city council
of
ordinance 07-2-3 so move mark thank you
Mr Marsh second check thank you Mr Shank
Kathy please call the roll
I vote Yes
the matter is recommended for approval
of city council the ordinance I should
say is recommended for
all right any additional new business
or old business or past old business the
meetings hereby adjourned
to be