hello sir
you
I
72 you get and she she thinks
it's
small for the scale
of
I
have
all
now it could easily be that they
used
cus
Bon
well I always thinkir should beair oh my
God I thought I lost these found
them I only have 50 pairs sitting around
my
house everywhere readers
everywhere that goes along with the gout
right yeah readers
everywhere
like specifically Brie or
cheese
e
there
entrance
correct I'll call order the March 28
2024 meeting of the board zoning
and I'll do that again I'm going to call
to order
the March 28 2024 meeting of the Bexley
Board of zoning and
planning and ask Kathy to call the role
of the members present tonight to make
sure we have a quorum Mr Levine here Mr
Turner here Mr eel brener here Mr Marsh
here chairman Beall here that's five
members that certainly constitutes the
Quorum as I understand it yes you want
to look at that has everybody had a
chance to review the minutes of the last
meeting and if so does anybody have any
comments or questions or modifications
they'd like to
suggest and if not I would entertain a
motion to approve the minutes of the
February February 2024 meeting so moved
Marsh thank you Mr
Marsh second as Runner thank you sir I
didn't even ask for and you gave it to
me I appreciate that all in favor of
approving the February minutes as
written please say I I all opposed nay
I'm gonna abstain I was not at the
meeting oh thank you me too that's a
problem because I'm abstaining as well
okay then that three of us abstained I
also wasn't there but I read them okay
I think you could still
vote I didn't read them I I think what
I'd prefer to do is let's table this
motion to the next meeting table is I
will read them before the next meeting I
did not read them this time I usually
do um this is an opportunity for a
public comment on the work of the board
of zoning and planning not to talk about
any particular case but to just comment
about the general operation does anybody
here wish to speak
publicly I see no indication of such so
we'll move on to the next issue which is
old business and I don't think we have
any old business this meeting do we we
do not good new business the first
application is application number bz ap-
24-4 involves
2498 Fair Avenue the applicant is Amy
lowerhouse and the owner is Kyle Barger
the
request uh is to seek a strip of
appropriateness and approval of a
special permit for a functional
Dormer uh for a new detached garage and
a special permit for functional
Dormer so that's a lot of functional
Dormer work
there double yeah I just read it you
know
anyway would you raise your right hand
to be sworn you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give to the panel this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth that nothing about the truth I do
thank you very much Kathy you want to
give us some staff commentary absolutely
thank you this property is located in
the r six zoning District property
currently has a 20 X20 garage with a
second floor the applicant is proposing
an additional 24 by 23 garage with the
second floor building lot coverage is
35% the proposed structure takes it to
25.5 percent which meets code
the overall lot coverage is 60% has a
60% limit the proposed structure in
Hardscape takes this to
46.7% which meets code accessory
structures can exceed 60% of the lot
width in the instance of a detached
garage the two garages total 44 feet and
the lot is 75 feet in width making it
60% 45 feet so she's 1 foot under that
limit uh the proposed structure was
designed to meet code and its placement
size Dormer design and the fact that
it's a functioning Dormer requires a
special permit from the board of zoning
and planning the architecture review
board questioned the overall design in
comparison to the existing detached
garage and suggested that perhaps the
new structure could mirror the existing
garage to further match the rear
elevation of the house the applicant has
submitted updated plans the existing and
new garages are different in size but
the recent changes now make the two
structures similar in design the change
triggered a few es from mexic Cod
section
12215 in the effort to better mirror the
existing garage the following items
would be variances Dormer size
attachment to Ridge second floor square
footage uh limit of 50% the applicant
has also proposed an arbor structure
which is not necessarily lot coverage
but may or may not contribute to the 60%
of the lot width for detached garages as
was also a design suggestion from the
ARB members I would defer to design
consultant Karen voker to share the
details of that
conversation and in my uh
modification I've got these labeled as
plan a and plan B so depending on which
which way the board goes we'll determine
uh what findings I need to attach okay M
Boker um for some reason
my there it is let's just just stayed
open this time this
was this was such an interesting
discussion well any wasn't there I I
watched it back I did yeah because a
designed this originally just with all
purpose of not asking for variance with
all the new garage variant changes um in
other words she the D Dormers Heights
didn't quite meet because we have a new
rule on Dormers you know the
square footage plus we encouraged to go
below the ridge line which she did
and the um the width the overall width
compared to the width of the garage but
then as it came before our
board board um in so do you have both of
them in in my staff report I have both
of them I've got a and plan bent this
from closing on me um then I'm going to
bring it the St report then it'll be
easier to explain on page and on page
three Kathy has that's plan a the old
one this is the plan that was given to
us and it all except for the special
permit with the dorm which like this
would be an acceptable special permit
just needs to get reach
it it satisfies all the requirements but
the more our board talked about it we
decided that it really looks kind of odd
to have these two structures right next
to each other the one on the right is
the new structure right the is existing
this one is
the and encouraged her to look at the
current back of the house which I have a
photo over the back of the house in here
yes let me go down to that
whoops uh oh I'm sorry it's on page
two on page two um you see how the back
of the house consists of two gable
pieces that are connected by a third
piece and the board um encouraged Amy to
redesign the second garage so that this
these two
garages connect visually to the house
the problem with that is it requires a
variance but design wise it's a much
better
solution in our opinion agreed yeah and
it also enables them to connect it with
the trellis not really technically
connected in between it so they have
usable space you can see design wise
this is just a really kind of elegant
solution that matches the picture of the
existing back
of because it's designed the way Amy did
it to adhere
to the code it looks like like an extra
building on the site and while a site
can definitely support this extra
structure and there's no issues with the
block coverage it just looked kind of
odd so we were encouraging her to make
it more of a
unifying um backyard structures that
that go with the house having said that
it requires so so comes with a very
positive recommendation from the
architecture review board to change this
to request for the variants needed to
build um this structure instead of this
and did they ask for a remand back on
the final
design they did but it was pretty
obvious is that if done the way we
talked about it going to probably be
consense and I don't see anything here
that indicates to me that it wouldn't
just be a
con yeah they did Ser man back just
because it wasn't designed yet yeah
right makes sense and the fact that this
is a larger than normal wat also allows
that extra room for her to still meet
the lot coverage limits and overall lot
coverage limits very wooded and hidden
like you really can't see this at all
and if you stay on that photo one thing
I wanted to add it was very good summary
by Kathy and Karen um we're actually
reducing the overall development cover
of this lot by doing this because if you
can see in that picture because the the
driveways on the opposite side of the
original garage the entire backyard is
pavement um and there was nowhere else
to put the patio except for between
between the driveway and the house so by
moving by adding the garage that they're
going to use to park their cars and then
putting the patio between the two
garages that whole area right now that
is patio will become green space so
we're actually reducing the overall
development cover um and like Karen and
Kathy said as far as the new design the
only thing we need a variance for is the
Dormer um the size of the garage is is
within the standards the height is
within the standards it's just how big
the Dormer is how wide it is on the face
which you can't even hardly really see
from wherever you are on the lot and
then um the fact that it goes to the
ridge to match the existing garage which
what they're going to do with the
existing garage is um that's going to be
like outdoor living space they're going
to put their dining space in there and
things like that d
space yeah like Pati like outdoor dining
in the garage no in the in the original
in the old garage yes and that'll be a
modified space for because the door
opens to the
patio so I I'm completely lost here I
can't believe I mean I've been looking
at this and saw it earlier and I'm
saying how do you get a car in the first
garage you don't you don't no they're so
no so we're creating a allowing them to
have a second building that's not a
garage right how does that work how many
buildings can you have on a lot I mean
isn't there a lot space issue here
you've got your lot coverage limit
you've also got your expansion along the
property line limit but having that
Arbor I believe affects it or at least I
think it should be addressed but the two
structures separately don't exceed the
60% uh across it also doesn't exceed the
lot coverage
really the the the garage being she this
is a residential lot so it has to
provide at least two off street parking
spaces so by modifying that existing
structure which some people you know
they have an office space in a garage
but as long as they still are
accommodating those two off street
parking spaces which Amy is by adding
the additional structure they can turn
that
into recreational space
[Music]
um wow
we had a similar one on North View which
was an art studio that was attached to
the garage originally and then the
Garage exceeded the limit for an
accessory structure because you're
limited to 624 square feet well in in re
viewing it further we found that she
could have a secondary accessory
structure still meet the lot coverage
limitations still meet her needs and she
still maintains the
parking but if there's an accessory
structure size limit like because each
of these are Under the size limit it's
approved but if the if these were
attached they wouldn't be approved right
I mean if they were putting if they were
one structure yeah correct but I also
had another garage that was proposed
that had an arbor and I added that in
with the square footage because I
certainly can't ignore it and so the
board determined that it's not really a
solid structure so they were willing to
accept that as part of this overall
design so it's the basic enclosed
structure that we're basing our square
footage on right my my understanding is
that the trellis is a
garden feature it doesn't have a roof of
any kind um they just are going to put
twinkly lights on it and a fan um so it
doesn't it doesn't add to the
development cover or the accessory
structure cover it it could be
conditioned not to be
covered no doesn't bother me just what's
that oh well it's the existing garage it
won't be a garage once we do this
project so the one on the left is the
existing garage
current yeah and the one on the right is
the proposed new
structure
one on the left the left won't be a
garage any longer correct because
there's physically no way the garage
door is on the right hand side so
there's no way to access it with the car
all right what's on the second floor of
the first
garage um both just storage at it's not
living space
no I guess I'm just confused how they
can basically have two separate I mean I
know they're not technically using the
one as a garage but how they can have
two garages on the back of their
property like if this was probably a
standard 50 by 120 foot lot you probably
couldn't have this this is a 75 foot
wide lot by 100 30
13.65 ft where is it between uh
cassingham and uh well and cassingham no
is it at the Ben there where where is it
it's on the north side of fair um before
casting him I think yes it's before
casting yeah yeah so what Karen or what
Cathy was saying earlier is that your
accessory structure total width can only
be 60% of your total lot width so if you
had a lot that was 50 or 60 feet you
couldn't you couldn't feasibly put two
accessory structures on there because
there wouldn't be enough lot width but
this is a wider lot so it gives us
flexibility H but there's also size
limits based on the size of the lot as
well yes so so accessory structures
aren't simply based on the r six zoning
or the R3 zoning but actually the
calculations of the square footage of
that individual
lot all
right well so do we have variances to
vote on or are we only giving a special
permit depending on which which way the
board wants to go with the design
determines what findings I should
read well I I personally I don't have an
issue with the design I think the
Design's great and I I agree flipping
the building and all of that I I just
and it sounds like we're not here to
vote on that but I I I'm still conf I'm
I'm just shocked that you can put two
buildings of this size in somebody's
backyard and not have to go through
zoning to have have them permitted but
but if we're only voting on The Dormer
which is basically what it sounds like
we're voting on if we vote on this
design let me let me read for Plan B let
me read what the uh okay for Plan B the
applicant just okay so the new garage
structure requires a variance to 12521
15D at it as it has a larger Dormer
which exceeds the size limit and
placement on the roof Mexico section
12521 15a to allow a second floor space
to exceed the 50% limit of the first
floor space by
2.7% and a special permit to allow for a
functional Dormer
and 12 52.1 5D and one to allow the
Dormer Eve length to exceed
50% 122.5 D3 to allow the Dormer to be
at the Ridge and 122.5 B2 if the arbor
is approved as part of the residential
or re redesign plan the arbor I mean
it's connected to this garage it's not a
solid Mass but but Karen and I could
also review an arbor and approve it on a
property it's it's the garages that
required to be like a 10- foot
separation from the principal structure
right and and three feet from the side
or rear property line so that Arbor if
it was detached it's totally detached
yeah it's totally detached from both
garages but but I just wanted to call
out the fact that we have that
60% uh limit on across the rear property
line she was already at the limit or one
foot under it with just the two garages
so by adding that Arbor in I want to
make sure I address that too if you're
comfortable with that
design well and if we're not she could
just say well we won't put the arbor in
she can still put both buildings
up right yes yeah
I let's say you just said well I've got
a garage I have the one on the right
already built and I'm going to build
this new garage on the left it's not
going to be a garage it's just going to
build an accessory structure of this
size is that okay yep
it's like a pool house yes it's like a
pool house it's like Anna's art remember
that stud for her to have a
separate I can think of quite a few head
but it's very much like a pool house
she's not used seeing on probably fair
but this is an unusually large
block well I mean is let me ask this is
the reason that the new garage is bigger
than the old garage because you wanted
more square footage for the cars yes and
storage area Etc the the if you look at
the front width it's the exact same as
the existing garage and then there's a a
step back that's behind the the column
of the pergola that kicks out a couple
extra feet to just give us the space we
need in there for the cars because the
original garage is is and the stairs yes
and the stairs yeah they want attic
stairs to go up to that storage space
above yeah I get that would be my last
question above the garage is also going
to be storage space it's not g be any
type of living space they don't plan on
doing any type of living space there
no well is there anybody in the audience
that is for or against this
application no I see no indication of
such members of the board I guess the
first decision is
do we want to do plan a where we give
two special permits or do we want to do
plan B which is architecturally more
pleasing uh but requires 67
variances Kon I have a question why did
the Architectural Review Board feel
compelled to weigh in on an area that
nobody sees except the
home oh they always do they care more
about the design whether it's front back
side
it seems anomalous to me that that the
the Architectural Review Board for
design reasons creates the need for
variances when the homeowner went to
them with something that didn't require
variances well they would prefer that
the structures match the original
architecture of the home and it's I
don't think they would have suggested
something that's dramatically different
it's a matter of the Dormer variances
yes and um you know to to a trained
we can't help ourselves but say oh those
Dormers are not the same they're not the
same height they're not the same design
and it looks bad to us the one that
doesn't cause any kind of variance or
anything is the Turning of the peak the
other way which really from sitting in
their backyard this is going to be so
much better than to see like one as a
Gable and one as the flat side of the
Gable um so they were giving you know
basically just really good I think good
solid design advice um Amy could have
gone either way she could have come to
us with the design as she did fitting
the rules of the Dormer but still
needing a special permit or doing
something more architecturally
appropriate yeah and I totally agree the
the Dormer and and sometimes it's hard
to visualize with just seeing
two-dimensional drawings but
the Dormer that I had proposed in in
scheme a that's the reason I I rotated
the Gable because it was so different in
size and feel than the original Dormer
that I thought if we mirrored them it
would feel very awkward um so that's
that's where I came to the original
design but I am in agreement with Karen
U that for the lot I think this is a
much more elegant solution uh but yes we
do need some variances for the Dormer of
the new
structure I think their their position
was kind of like it's a little bit of a
swap out of what variances you're asking
oh boy it's gonna be a problem to to um
to get a better design yeah I mean it's
not a huge I not huge right to your
point if it was a really big variance
and it made a I think they wouldn't have
gone there but this is just such a small
difference and it gives a much better
design so I'm trying to pull up your
first one it's a little bit like 2200
you know he didn't need any variances
and the Architectural Review Board said
I think would look better if we did X
which caused them to come over here and
get
variances interestingly enough seems
kind of unfair for us to say
no well I don't I don't feel pressured
like that but I understand what you're
saying we had to see it though to make
sure that that they were correct in in
what they felt would probably be a
better design
I mean in my opinion if you feel
strongly about saying no you probably
would have felt strongly of saying no to
either
design that's interesting interesting
it's almost the same M because they're
pretty much the same details and they
both need our approval mostly most moved
by there being no neighbors here
complaining so
yeah if they wanted to use the first
building continue to use it as a garage
would that change
anything don't know how they would
access physically
but I'm saying I mean technically no you
couldn't even get into I mean
technically you could get into it you
could drive across the patio and part if
you got a if you got a Ferrari you don't
drive except for once a year you could
drive it across the patio and Pull It in
there but I'm just asking if by code if
it was still used as a garage could
you would it would there other would
there be other things we'd have to do if
it was still used as a garage the fact
that it's turning into a non I just need
to make sure that they have two off
street parking spaces okay by the
elimination of the parking spaces in
this garage they're providing in in the
new garage so they're meeting that code
interesting right I understand but I'm
saying if they left that if they
technically still had if they had four
parking spots now because they had two
garages is two garages allowed or is
that it's a minimum based on the square
foot lot coverage it it it's okay that's
all that's all I'm asking I just want to
make sure
y
well I I sort of feel like the concept
of this
application requires our approval now we
either
say we don't want to Grant all those
variances and therefore we're then left
with the decision of do we Grant a
special permit or
two for the first design right so I
think what we should do is since there
seems to be ACC chord in the and we're
getting direction from the ARB that they
prefer the second design
that we should look to the variance
requests for that second design to see
if we agree that they are all reasonable
variances that should be granted
pursuant to the requirements of the
Bexley city code that we have to
consider when we Grant variances
right I can review those um the first
one is that the Dormer is uh the way
that the code is written the Dormer
width on the roof is only allowed to
fill up 50% of the total roof width this
Dormer is
68% of the total roof width to match the
original um the second one is that
because the Dormer is enlarged we have
we are allowed 50% of floor area on the
second floor this is
52.7 so 2 7% over the
50% um and then the third one is that
the
Dormer roof meets at the ridge of the
garage whereas the code the zoning code
stipulates that that Dormer meet a foot
below the
ridge so those are the three right yes
but I have't thought okay so the
original Dormer the only variance it
required was the fact that it was a
functional Dormer so when you turn that
building and now that Dormer is facing
this Dormer if that Dormer was the same
size as the original Dormer but went up
to the ridge it would meet the width
requirements and if you're just using it
for storage who's actually going to be
looking both these Dormers at the same
time they're just but when you're
looking at it from the front it
looks you're think you're saying make it
not as wide on the roof if it meets the
50% instead of going to 68% aren't you
going to still have that same elevation
looking from the house yes yes just when
you're on the like if you're on the
pergola and you look at the Dormers they
won't be the same width so I mean that's
a Karen comment is I think that's minor
compared to the Turning of The Gables
the same direction so I I I can't IM I
mean there I no one will really honestly
perceive the total width of that Dormer
just because they're facing each other
so it's and even the bottoms are
different how you have ins and outs on
the one structure as opposed to the
other I the only way you could see the
width of the Dormers if you're sitting
in the seating area in between looking
up at the Dormers yes that's even a
neighbor wouldn't be able to see it nope
maybe maybe the neighbor's over here
looking this way yeah I mean it just
seems kind of like a little bit punitive
to me because it's like
you know that's not the point of I
understand it but if you feel if the
board feels more comfortable just
because then they wouldn't have a second
variance I I think that's minor compared
to turning the Gable the same direction
as the original Gable yeah that that was
the main thing yeah I I think I I
understand what you're saying but just
to get rid of one
variance on something that's about three
people are going to be able to see I
don't I don't know if it means that much
I mean I think the question here is do
these variance requests meet the
requirements of the
code and and whether we knock it down to
two variances or three variances I don't
think any one of these variances is
really significantly more important than
the others right well and I think you
know things that would be very obvious
to neighbors are things like the whole
overall height of the garage where U
this is the allowable height is 18 feet
and the existing garage and the new one
will be under that so um you know like
you were talking that's a much more
major variance that's noticed by
neighbors if it's a very high garage
we've had that before yeah yeah oh
yeah all
right
well I mean if I was sitting in the
backyard it would bother me but I'm one
of you know me too the small percentage
that it would you're an artist let
see we're critical observers yes right
trained all
right let's let's I'd like to hear the
opinions of board members should
we go with b and consider the three
variants requests there's actually is
there three or is there
five here's on Plan B one two
three four what's the fourth one the
arbor taking it to that more than 60% of
the rear
proper I guess I don't consider that as
part of an access this is my personal
opinion I don't consider the arbor part
of an accessory structure and I always
error on the side of caution so I'm
sharing that with the board if they feel
it needs to be addressed in that manner
I'll they can let but I'll repeat what
Kathy said we approve Arbors all the
time without bringing here it's just a
matter of in the context of these two if
they're not
connected I I don't consider it part of
the structure right I mean that's my
opinion no I just ask one question on
the they're not connected on one of the
drawings there were only three posts for
the pergola oh
yes that's connected to the one the new
structure I can adjust if that's a
sticking point I can adjust that so that
it's not connected I don't think that's
as much of a issue whether it's attached
or not it's just addressing one or the
other I mean that length of accessory
structures across the rear property line
and in this case you're just AB budding
other properties and it's not along an
alley
but Kath you're asking for the
variance would not
in no she's not asking us to do anything
I just want to I want to address it if
the pgle is included I want to add it in
as part of that 60% because it's not a
mass it's it's just structure but it's a
light structure and there's no roof so
want to air on the side of caution here
that if that is a problem we've voted on
it and given a variance for it is what
she's saying and the way it's currently
built according to Matt comment uh it is
connected in some way right now now she
could change that and that would
alleviate that problem but if we give
her a variance then she could do either
way she wanted to do yeah I don't
consider it for the square footage
because in the past you decided that it
wasn't necessary but I just want to
address it in some way shape or form can
I just ask a similar question there if
there was a Pergola that took up the
entire space of the existing pergola and
both garages let's just say it was
massive pergola would that be allowed I
would probably bring it before the board
just because of that this footage but
but because of what it is it may not be
an issue but I would rather let this
board make that decision than me but
that would then need a variance because
it would be more than 60% of the width
that's why you
right it is an accessory structure and
they limit accessory structures to 60%
or less of the property so why is a
pergola considered an accessory
structure I can't simply ignore it okay
okay but but but it doesn't does it
count toward lock because I guess I know
when we talk about lot coverage you know
we're talking about water drainage and
things like that so in that sense it
would just be more like a patio not it
is I mean it's Unique and it's
acceptable because of what it is but
like if you put it in a sidey yard
setback I I'd have to address it because
it's an accessory structure and it's in
a sidey yard setback so
okay we've had some Contraptions built
in sidey yards that we had to deal with
that aren't weren't easily definable you
know of like a garden area with a
structure around it you know
I would like to point out that if you're
driving your Ferrari in the in the
driveways right there and you go left of
the drive the garage you could drive
right in the other garage just yeah
that's interesting a little bit of grass
yeah that's interesting I would just
like to point that out yeah but I was
not as crazy as you all looked at me
like something that has a nice turning
rooms right yes we got it Mr Mr Turner
would you like would you like a
requirement that no Ferraris can be
parked in well that's actually why I was
asking Kathy whether four cars gares
were allowed I wasn't trying to fight it
but I was saying if it's not allowed
then we need to address that and make
sure that's covered as well but because
she said it could be a garage then we
don't have to address it yeah just
making sure that we there wasn't
something else we needed to do because
on the existing garage the garage door
stays yes y
yeah all right let us proceed to plan B
first and let us here findings the fact
we need to do these
separately Kathy I think they're all
tied together I don't think we're going
to agree to some and not all and or it's
going to be either all or none very
likely now members of the board you have
any feelings about that you want to vote
separately on the four requests for
variance or do you want to read them all
out and they all go or they don't I mean
if they don't get them all I think
they're going to go back to plan
a I'm I'm fine with all being together
and I I'd like just to put a comment in
there about that the uh that this Dormer
is going to match the Dormer design of
the existing garage so that if in the
future someone comes in and wants to
deviate from the
Dormer criteria that we've made it clear
that this is matching the an existing
Dormer condition good good point is
everybody okay with that yeah also fine
with it being together I think
clarifying that fourth post again just
from a precedent standpoint would be
helpful so that we can actually say it's
a okay accessory are you okay with that
yes
okay Mr Turner what was that you have no
I'm I'm together all right give Kathy a
chance to recuperate there from those
all those comments this drawing only
shows three post okay so you want four
posts to show that it's a separate
structure
correct speak for
you
connect
all all right Kathy if you give us
findings of fact conclusions of law
please thank you findings of fact and
decision of the board for application
number bz A- 24-4 for property located
at 2498 Fair upon consideration the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven the
criteria to Grant an area variance in
beex COD section 12261 c have been met
and variances from bexy code section
12521
15 a to allow a special permit for a
functioning
dor
D1 for the D to exceed 50% of the second
floor space yes comparon to the first
floor D3 Dormers to be at the
Ridge and
B2 to allow an arbor in between the
two accessory
structures uh in or due to the in order
to match the existing accessory
structure as recommended by the
architecture review board and with the
condition that the Arbor have four
separate or posts and separate from the
accessory structures the board further
finds after review of the plans and
consideration of the application and
evidence and
testimony and as recommended by the
architecture review board that a
certificate of appropriateness should be
issued in conjunction with the accompany
motion and decision granting
variances okay
Amy everything seem copasetic there yep
understand all right members of the
board any alterations to the findings of
fact You' like to make or you think that
that's
a well I said modified Dem matching as
recommended by the architect yeah oh oh
because of the unique to match the
existing Dormer
yes the new Dormer to match the existing
yeah I said to match the existing
accessory
structure
okay
okay um do I hear a motion to approve
the findings of fact conclusions of law
so move Turner thank you is there a
second second eel Brer all right thank
you Mr echel brener that's a mouthful
you know echel brener you got to really
work hard to say say that name Beall's a
lot
easier
um Kathy call the role
Please Mr merch yes Mr echel Bruner yes
Mr Turner yes Mr Levine yes chairman be
I also vote Yes and the variances are
granted and the I guess there's no
special permit on this one now result
all right that's a very
interesting case
all right you're here for the next one
too right so the next case is
application bz ap- 24-6 involving 2529
East Broad Street the applicant is Amy
lowerhouse the owner are Mel Marcel
bishop and Melissa salguero rotier how
about that for some French or Spanish
names um the request is to seek in a a
SC of appropriateness and approval of a
variance for an addition to the east
side of the principal
structure
and I guess since each case is different
I should swear you in again you swear or
affirm that the testimony you give
before the board this evening will be
the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth thank you
Amy M Rose so the applicant is actually
seeking approval of a 2 fo3 inch
variance from exic code section 122.0 n
R3 zoning to allow the addition to the
east side of the principal
structure uh the property is
located it's platted to Broad Street as
the front the primary entrance faces
cidy the existing structure meets the
required 20 foot side yard setback along
cidy the attached garage is considered
part of the pral structure and it
currently encroaches 20 feet into the
required 40 foot rear yard
setback
the addition is proposed along the east
side of the house along Cassidy and will
be located at the same setback as from
Cassidy as the existing house the rear
property line is angled which places a
portion of the southeast corner of the
proposed addition into the set back and
encroaching from 1 inch to 2 feet 3 in
along a 10-ft section of the South Wall
of the
addition if the board finds it
appropriate to Grant a variance from
exex code section
12209
the attached garage portion of the
existing principal structure well it
already encroaches 20 feet so with the
addition of the east side of the house
it's actually 37.9 Ines from that South
rear property
line okay Aon do you want to open this
um site plan hopefully this one will be
a lot simpler I could not open that in
the Viewpoint okay wonderful I think you
just had it up there I'm having a little
problem with um acrobat
so I will just keep trying and Karen
there is an ARB on this right oh they
approve this with con as consent okay I
didn't so
if want to buy some
oh this is never happen okay don't move
anything so yes if you can see nope
well this is they're just trying to sell
me TCH well we can look at our own okay
yeah you you can see how the property is
angled and the um this house is pretty
much other than the east side it's
non-conforming on all sides the rear
property line is at the bottom yeah the
bottom um on the South Side there so you
can see the shaded areas are addition
and as that angled line travels across
it just it cuts that corner of that
addition yeah well that's
interesting yeah so where's Broad Street
here give me some orientation to the top
okay thank you Cassidy is to the right
side Cassidy is to the right side
correct this so this is what we're
talking about right here is that the
area that was struck by the car yes
okay yeah I was wondering why they're
not making it Stone again because it
handled the car pretty well yeah well
we're we're as you can see there is a
separate approval they're getting a
fence and we're going to do some
landscaping and things like that fence
is already approved is it yes yeah yes
already approved that
yeah
okay does anybody
have any question questions or comments
here is anybody in the audience that is
for or against this matter please
no the one
variance yeah it's a non-conforming
structure
yeah so I mean that garage is already as
I said 20 feet into that rear yard
setback but because of that addition
it's you know that corner is kind of
poking into that required setback so I
do need to address
that
okay
any questions or comments from members
of the
board I think we have findings of fact
and conclusions of law
please findings a fact and decision of
the board for application number bz
ap-24 D6 for property located at 2529
East Broad Street upon consideration of
the application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria to Granite area
variance in beic code section 12261 c
have been met and a two foot 3inch
variance from beic Cod section 122.0 n
R3 zoning to allow an addition to the
east side of the principal structure
shall be
granted as
submitted all right uh after the board
further finds that a certificate of
appropriateness should be issued as
recommended by the Architectural Review
Board very good thank you very
much Amy that sound acceptable to you
yes members of the board you okay with
the reading of the
findings do I have a motion to approve
the findings of fact and conclusions of
law please so move Turner thank you Mr
Turner second
second thank you L please call the RO Mr
Levine
yes Mr Marsh yes Mr echel Brer yes Mr
Turner yes chairman beheld I vote Yes
and the variances and certific
Brokenness are granted thank you thank
you you don't have any more cases that's
it tonight oh Jesus thanks
all
right the next case is application
number bc- 24-7 involving 394 South
Columbia the applicant is Karen McCoy
the owner is Michael gimper the
applicant is Seeking a variance from the
board for to allow a 36inch columns at
the driveway
entrance
and ma'am your name please Baron McCoy
Baron do you swear orer IR that any
testimony you give the board this
evening with the truth the whole truth
is nothing but the truth I do thank you
very
much all
right did my brother work on this job uh
he has yes he has okay then so it's
beautiful well inexpensive yeah I know
he's my architect too I understand how
it goes um so I I probably recuse myself
even though my brother's retired the
house didn't he did he work on this too
or just the house he worked on the house
yeah I know I mean it looks to me like
this is you just want to go home and eat
cheese and no I'll sit here and watch I
want you to say
that watch basketball or something all
right then with that in mind why don't
you take the case over is that okay
that's fine thank
you uh is there any background on this
the applicant seeking a special permit
in accordance with beex 126 4.02 C which
limits front yard fences and walls from
24 in to 42
in uh to allow 36 inch high columns at
the driveway entrance and at the
northwest corner of the property within
City rideway the proposed columns 3 feet
high with a 4inch limestone cap and
they're 2 feet 4 in in width is that
correct the fact that the columns are
proposed in City RightWay further
require approval of City and a hold
harmless agreement the owners have
indicated that the existing oak tree
they would like to construct these one
foot off set from the East edge of the
existing sidewalk which would permit
construction of the columns without
impact on the existing oak tree root
system and in the staff report I have
included
photos uh of the front of that site if
you haven't had an opportunity to go
by
uh the board should discuss both
placement and style of the proposed
columns and I'll like to know if Karen
has any comments on that and there would
be landscape proposed around the columns
if the board finds it appropriate to
Grant a special permit it should be
subject to the landscape review and
approval by the bexy treatment public
garden commission and approval from City
Council of the hold Harless due to the
location in the right way okay scroll
right Mr acting chairman I I decided
that I want to make sure there's a quum
oh gotcha so what I'll do is um probably
abstain from voting got it but I would
remain on the board for this hearing
because my brother didn't work on this
particular aspect of the job but it's
his firm his former firm he's retired
now as you know sort of been retiring
for a long time yeah he been saying he's
retired active retired architect
actively retired yeah
good okay so Kathy you were finished
with your reported okay you don't have
any comments I really I don't have any
comments we did not take this to
ARB so um the homeowner purchased this
house when it was under construction and
then began to customize it so the the
landscape plan that was approved
previously by tree and public garden did
not include columns did not address the
frontage at the sidewalk of the site um
the current homeowner would like to mark
that he would like to have address
signage and columns that flank the
driveway and then have a reciprocal
column at the north side of the property
at the property line um he desired to
have them as close um to the sidewalk as
possible because at the South End there
is a very beautiful mature oak tree and
digging for the foundation we didn't
want to get into the root system and
affect structural roots
so that was the reason for asking for um
this variance to be able to place those
columns and they are proposed at a one
foot offset from That Sidewalk I believe
yeah they're actually um proposed at two
foot um that was they I've talked with
them and it actually sits back two foot
so it's two foot off the it's two foot
both directions two two feet off the
drive and a twoot set back from the
sidewalk okay that would make sure
there's you know nothing with the it
doesn't compromise the sidewalk
either you see the large tree there in
that photo that
tree
anyone on the board have any
questions I think there's there's boards
on the ground there's a piece of plywood
laying on the ground that we show you y
that that plywood's much larger than the
base of the column but
that's the columns are pretty small in
stature originally um Mr glampire wanted
to match the columns that were at homie
previously owned um which was further up
on Colombia which is now actually that
lot's been kind of subdivided and two
more columns have been added um but in
this design he's proposing it a little
different because he actually has a cut
Limestone cap the other columns are made
and you know entirely of the ashel
stone is there anyone in the audience
that wishes to speak this application so
Karen if you pull that up more to the
next
photo you're looking straight down the
property line you can see that board
behind the tree the tree to the right so
the neighbors have a fence that goes
right up to the property line so that's
where that column will be where that
board is laying on the ground just
behind the
sidewalk and we typically don't practice
having retaining walls or structures at
the sidewalk because it makes it
difficult when you're trying to replace
the sidewalk to put a border there for
the
concrete yeah so the twoof foot setback
would be better yeah for that
aspect anyone on the board have any
questions about this yeah the only
question I have are there other houses
along Columbia like how many of them
that I know there's one across the
street a little ways up and I know
there's the one where the driveway is
kind of on the corner yes those two are
there are there more than that do you
know yeah further north on Colombia
there's actually four similar columns
that occur at um 202 and 216 Columbia
and there's also one at the corner
they're really tall and it's a driveway
that comes out off the corner of the
property at the intersection and they're
like five five or six feet tall that's
the one I was referring to yeah yeah
there are much larger ones and several
examples where the landscape comes out
to the back of a sidewalk as well and
some Garden walls too right
any other
discussion is there any concern that if
for example a car ran into these
columns that the city would not be
responsible for well there'll be a hold
harmless agreement with the city as part
of this it would require City council's
approval being it's in the right of way
and that's what if they do approve it
they would require a hold hermis
agreement that keeps the city
Heros M Rose will you read the findings
of facts
please the findings of fact and decision
of the board for application number bcap
24-7 for property located at 394 South
Columbia upon consideration of the
application proposed variance in
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria to Grant an area
variance in Mexico section 12 2611 have
been met and a variance from bexi or
special permit in accordance with bexi
code section 12 62.2 C to allow three 36
inch high
columns shall be
granted as submitted with the condition
that it is two feet off the drive and
sidewalk and that it is further subject
to review and approval by city council
and they hold harmless agreement and the
tree and public gardens I'm yes and tree
and public garden commission for
landscape review and approval does the
applicant understand the findings of
facts as read by m Rose yes I do and do
I hear a motion from the
board so moved Ash Brer no second second
Turner a roll call
please um Mr Turner yes Mr echel brener
yes Mr LaVine
yes yeah Mr Beall I vote
abstain and chairman Marsh
yes it's a very nice project thank you
thank
you thank
you I have um one good new bu business
item which is just for consideration and
thought doesn't require any votes or
anything at all that the
uh couple members of the tree and public
garden commission have asked us to
consider
uh getting sort of an approval from them
from that
commission one way or the other just as
we get from the ARB every case when
anything is going to be built in in the
right away
now they under Now understand after some
discussion that that uh the city council
has to approve all these anyway that are
in the right way but they would like the
their their take on the matter to be
made known to this board when before
this board votes on variances so no vote
being taken nothing I'm just conveying
you what they're saying I'm not
endorsing it one way or the other I'm
just telling you that's the uh the
suggest question or request that that
was made to me so do now the well two
questions so it would have to go to tree
commission before it comes to us because
we'd have to have we have their opinion
before it be like this in other words we
just said yes but you have to get Tre
Garden commission approval right did
this come from the mayor no okay came
from tree the tree and garden commission
members okay but and then this okay but
if their meetings are two weeks before
and after us I mean if it gets to them
in time we we had some conversations and
that's still in discussion um as
their their recommending body for what
this board is making a decision on right
um so I guess that's up to the mayor to
decide but I did have a conversation
with the chairman of the tree and public
garden commission interested in knowing
uh maybe specific criteria for this
board to consider when when we're
looking at those type of items that are
in involved with a landscape plan
right in other words the question is
what has to go before the tree and
garden commission at all right certain
things have to go certain things don't
have to go right Landscaping but all
Landscaping do all
Landscaping uh plans go to the tree and
garden commission um if it's on private
property if it's a new house it goes to
the tree and public garden if it's uh
private property it can go to the
landscape
consultant and in the city right of way
typically they review items but it's
specific to Landscaping so I would defer
to the mayor on the specifics of who
should look at at The Hardscape in the
right of way and I do believe this will
be a subject to conversation at the
Chairman's committee meeting abely yeah
and and I'm not asking anybody for any
I'm just conveying that this was brought
up to me and so I'm conveying it to the
board because I'm not the board I'm just
but I think it's important to know I
mean what things that we're really
looking out for or whether there's you
know uh easements for utilities right
and uh you know because the more
Hardscape that's in these areas the less
options there are for landscaping or
city trees sure so perhaps we can come
up with some criteria to consider in
future cases like this right good and if
it's a built structure like a
column it should probably be reviewed by
architecture review board well I'm not
suggesting it doesn't go to
Architectural Review right I don't think
they were for this one well actually
though if it's a like a a landscape wall
in a front yard if it's under two feet
it's subject to a building or a fence
permit and a landscape plan which could
actually be reviewed by the consultant
if it's on private property so depending
on where these things wind up determines
who's looking
at I guess I
just I just was curious as to what their
reasoning is behind what why they want
to see it like like they're saying I
understand it now they can explain
themselves but as I understand it all
they're saying is
that if it is in the right of way which
is where they have jurisdiction over
trees apparently being planted that they
would like to at least give us their
recommendation that's how I understand
it
I'm not sure it hurts us to hear the
recommendation but the question is what
do they have the jurisdiction to look
over about defining I think they have
jurisdiction or anything because they're
they're not a legal board they're just a
board of recommendations so that's all
yes so they don't have actual
jurisdiction over the trees it's just
they recommend this be done to the trees
recommend this not being done to the
trees so um yeah I think
that's yeah I I I mean I I just
I I guess I'm just wondering what the
premise is as to why
they I mean I I'm not trying I'm trying
to be difficult but it's just to me it's
an extra step that it's it's not a
jurisdictional board but
why like what what are they what are
they looking for to get out of that like
like us changing our opinions based on
the way the trees are is that what
they're looking for like they want us to
as I understand it they want us to know
that approving this column is just to
use tonight's case as an example might
affect a tree or their ability to
replenish the canopy is the word I think
they
used so once again I'm regurgitating
what I heard today but they they would
like to at least be able to opine to us
their position since
they're looking at this stuff all all
the time and I actually had this case go
to the tree and public garden Commission
in hopes of getting an approval of the
Landscaping prior to your review of The
Columns and from what I understand it
got tabled and I think that that's where
that conversation started so see I can't
say that this is what they're required
to look at because right now I'm simply
requiring the landscape to be reviewed
because that's been the the normal
procedure so if there's a change in that
procedure I would think that I would
have to check with the mayor to make
sure that that's the route that he
prefer we go with that I mean we're
checking into it yeah yeah that's all
but I think there is important
information for this board to know when
they do have to make decisions on that
things we need to be aware of existing
City trees and and maybe those should be
incorporated into the plans when they
bring them in so you know where
everything's at right really
yeah very good any other new
business if not uh