e
e e
we will uh go ahead and call tonight's
meeting to
order if we could uh have a roll call
the members please
Mr shik here miss Dorne here Mr
Turner here Mr Rosenthal here miss leack
here Mr Levine here chairman Marsh
here uh first item is approval of the
minutes from was it
the we have the date
of it would have been December December
5th
2024 those have been disseminated does
any anyone have any uh modifications to
the
minutes do I hear a motion to approve
the
minutes motion to approve do I hear a
second uh all in favor say I for
approving the minutes I I those oppose
say
no and anyone abstaining say abstain we
have uh Mr LaVine
abstaining uh next on the agenda is is
uh public comment this is for anyone
from the public wish wish that wishes to
comment on the working of the board uh
not for any specific item on the agenda
but just the board in general is there
anyone here that would like to comment
on the working of the
board uh seeing no one we'll close
public comment we'll move on to Old
business um I guess do we not have any
old
business no and we will move in to new
business the first application is Bap
24-39 for 819 South
cassingham is the applicant
here if you could come forward
please if you could please be sworn
in please s your name and
address oh
can you press the green the button on
the thank 819 South casing ham Nathan D
do you swear affirm the testimony you
give this evening will be the truth yes
yes thank you and do we once it's green
you don't have to hold it down oh okay
thanks and we're new here uh do we have
any background on
this yes chairman let me get my uh so
this is um in R six interior lot R six
zoning the applicant is Seeking a
variance from Bexley codes section
12215 G1 to allow an accessory structure
to be installed within 3 feet of the
South property line um as you know
accessory structures must be 3 feet from
the rear property lines uh this is a by
level large Playhouse for a child um it
is currently built too close to the
property line the playhouse is currently
been built and it was noticed um on a
driveby uh from our code enforcement
officer um the size of the playhouse um
could not be built on the opposite side
of the yard due to power lines and uh
just reminded the board that uh we saw a
similar situation uh three meetings ago
uh with a playhouse
structure that's all from staff got it
thank you um if youd like applicant
would go ahead and just tell us what
you'd like to do here and uh walk us
through that that'd be
great sure uh yeah we're just requesting
uh a variance on that on that three feat
so we can keep it right up against the
fence uh where it is now from some of
the pictures we uh if if it's any
further out we just can't see the the
back kind of play area which is where
our daughter plays and there's rear
access to our um to the alley and so for
for safety we wanted to keep that uh
keep that
visible we have some additional uh
material just letters from Neighbors
talking about uh the playhouse we also
have some photos of a couple other
structures within two houses of us uh
where play structures or garages are
built right on the property
line um is there is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak to this
application for 819 South cassingham
uh does anyone from the board have any
questions or
comments I guess I have a question can
it be moved at all like away from the um
fence line into the more center part of
the yard it it's we built it so that
it's not like sunk in the ground so it
can be taken down um but it's way too
heavy to like just shimmy over and it's
kind of built around the tree
specifically um the thing we didn't want
is I didn't want it so close to that
concrete
sidewalk should somebody like you know
have have a fall I didn't want them
right next to the concrete either and if
we move it out then it's like sitting
right on top of our
garage as
well and then I was trying in this uh in
this diagram uh I was trying to note the
we have two windows from our house and
that's the visibility into the back and
so bringing the Treehouse out kind of
blocks that uh that visibility into that
back area where kids can congregate yeah
our gate our gate is in the alley there
and we didn't want anyone coming or
leaving I don't want the kids leaving
the yard or people coming in and us not
being able to see
that kind of a tight space
do you have anything from the adjacent
neighbor like letter or anything or
comments from no um she she didn't write
a letter she lives alone she she and our
daughter are like Grandma and and um
like Ser granddaughter um so she hasn't
I'm I'm she hasn't said anything to us
specifically but she also didn't write
us a
letter how tall is this
unit um
um I want to say it's 11 feet
maybe yeah it's like five it's a little
shorter than five feet at the
bottom we had an in we had a application
like this two months ago and the issue
with what we deal with here is not just
the existing neighbor right now but it's
people who will come in and also people
in the future who come in and primarily
not dealing with design but we deal with
sizing and massing um it's a very large
structure can it be any part of the top
being cut
down I mean it's built you can see how
it's built we had somebody build it
um and he was basically done I didn't
realize there was a there was a three
feet off defense thing I wouldn't have
done it like you know I would have
sunken the money into it first um but to
F to change the roof line would be
like difficult I would there I would
think Matt if it's if it was off the
three feet would this basically meet all
the requirements yes I mean so the
Height's not really question it's really
just a setback I think yeah I think we
didn't think we needed a permit for
anything because it of it wasn't over
the size of what was
required oh Rick
Rick microphone you turn your micophone
no so what we're looking at can you turn
your mic turn your mic on is is what
we're looking at less than three feet
it's about three feet from the sidewalk
currently we wanted it to be big enough
that I want I want to say it's like five
feet deep we wanted it big enough that
she can grow and still use it because
when you make a small Treehouse and
they're like three and then they outgrow
it and they stop using the whole thing
so we wanted her to be able to like you
know sit up there with her girlfriends
and bead bracelets and not grow out of
it right away our hope would be that the
variance could be since it's not a
sunken structure to have like an
eight-year take it down in a few years
um we don't want it once she's outgrown
it anyway but that's why we didn't have
it built into the ground and so if we
moved our our guy who built it can take
it apart and move it for us to a new
location but um it's too heavy to just
shimmy over and it's attached to the
tree
um so moving it from here
is would be pretty pretty uh awful and I
don't think I would want it close to the
sidewalk and blocking the backyard
anyway so we would just ditch the whole
thing is my thinking so I have a
question for staff so if this let's say
this is like a three-foot playhouse in
the same location does it still violate
code
it's we consider an accessory structure
yes so anyone who has a three-foot
playhouse that's next to the fence is
violating code too the only reason this
one was caught is because it's tall
right we caught it yeah on the drive our
code enforcement officer drives drives
the streets looking for yeah no I mean
I'm just saying yes you notice it yeah
so like a Pergola same thing someone
puts a perola from Costco same type of
deal
correct okay where like one lack of a
foundation a factor no I will say the
factor is the square footage so the you
don't need a permit to do this it
doesn't go in front of the Architectural
Review Board um because it's under 200
square feet the building code does not
regulate it 200 yeah 200 square feet so
it's one of those things we view it as
the code views it as an accessory
structure because the definition of
accessory structures and how large it is
um and so therefore where it's located
needs a
variance so I I know um Mr shik
mentioned this but um just so you know
I'm kind of telling you where I stand on
a little bit but we had almost an
identical situation three months ago and
we denied it um so I think that put puts
me personally in a pretty tough spot to
approve this because of the fact that
three months ago we denied almost the
exact same thing
so um I just want you to understand like
some of the thoughts of what the people
on the board are
because you you know we it's hard to do
it a yes for one and no for the other
one L I mean the other one was off the
the only difference was the other one
was off The Back Fence as opposed to the
side fence but other other than that it
was it was in the setback it was
attached to a tree and so it was I mean
very similar situation so I just want to
give you the heads up as to uh um just
what some people's thoughts are going to
probably be on this so yeah I mean this
is much more visible the people other
than the immediate neighbors it's also
much nicer I mean it's I don't know who
designed it it's really Charming I think
like a big birdh house it's super cool
but yeah I mean that the in that
instance really it was the immediate
neighbors were the only people who could
see it obviously in this case it's you
know fairly visible from we did get
eight from our super close neighbors um
in support of they don't care everyone
loves poppy everyone loves the neighbor
the neighbor kids are all over at our
house they love it it is like gonna
break a lot of little hearts I think if
we have to take it down um we just want
to
create the the best we're homeschooling
our daughter for a couple of years and
we want her to have as much outdoor
accessibility and play that she can just
super important to us um so I don't know
like from from a mom and from an
aesthetic standpoint we worked really
hard to make it not look like a Shabby
situation
um we plan to paint it but I'm not 100%
sure if that will help or make it more
visible I'm not sure about that but um
yeah so our our house is white our
garage is white the plan was to to paint
it white but we didn't want to paint it
after we found out that we might have to
take it down right so I would implore
you to please read the letters that the
neighbors did write in support of it
because they're pretty
compelling I don't know how quickly we
get an answer is that tonight or do we
wait have to
wait it would be tonight okay um and I I
also Karen just reminded me that we were
dealing with the side end rear yard
setback and we also had a very vocal
neighbor on the last
one we put this the only place we could
because the other side of the yard has L
like weird low power lines or I would
have put it in the larger side of our
yard um our daughter used to play back
in the back between the garage in the
fence line we had like some small you
know like little tight stuff there but
we ended up and we were going to build
the treeh house back there which would
have been on the fence line um but we
don't really want her not to be visible
we don't like her way back in that
corner so we we pulled it up forward
which we were not sure how we would like
and it's actually working out really
well but because of its size and because
of the concrete and the garage corner is
right there so you can just come around
that little sidewalk and if the
structure is out then you're like
anytime I need to put a wheelbarrow down
the sidewalk or anytime I get in my like
lawn mower out you're you're squeezing
between like the garage the treeh house
now just barely making through that
walkway I didn't think that would be
good we really did think it through but
we didn't know about the three
feet situation understood is there any
other any other discussion by the
board so no neighbors have come here to
complain or have complained to you no
one has complained to us
um and we have a lot of tree houses
around us that are are on the fence line
and that don't look good so we were like
well these SS looks nice as a real
roof we had Christmas lights in it over
over the holidays
make Matt aside from the neighbor
complaining are there any other
distinguishing features between this and
the case a couple months ago oh um
ours is not on the back fence line there
was
um in my opinion there was more room to
move on on the last one and it was a
much it was it was a smaller variance
they're asking for a three-foot variance
here if you remember that uh it was like
2 and A2 ft it was already off the
property line and we had that issue with
the fence right the fence being in the
wrong location so there were some quirky
things and you did have a very loud
vocal neighbor um two vares it was a it
was a side and it was just a side and
rear it was a side and rear um if I also
recall correctly didn't want to modify
it at all like even appli like a code of
pain correct to the neighbor
Wars and I I will say the the the
neighbor on that side we have a great
relationship I I clean her fence I you
know help help her a lot uh and so you
know any kind of
uh like consideration on keeping the
fence clean like I'm doing that for her
on on both sides of our
fence uh any other discussion by the
board are we ready for finding the
facts if we could have the finding of
facts
please the findings and facts and
conclusion of law for application bcap
24-39 for property located at 819 South
cassingham
based on the testimony presented the
board finds it appropriate to Grant a
variance from Bexley code section 12
5215 G1 to allow an accessory
structure Playhouse to be installed
within 3 feet of the South property line
does the applicant understand the
findings of facts as
read do I hear a motion for a
vote so move sh do I hear a second
second
roll call
please miss
leack
yes Mr shik yes Mr
Turner
um I hate do it but I'm gonna have to
say no and when we say no we have to say
why and I just because we've because
this the same situation was up before
and we denied them I I I don't feel like
we can I think it looks great I think
the Design's great I think your
daughter's adorable I think everything
else is great but I I just I I we I
can't do it since we did did not approve
the last one
so got
that Mr
Levine this is a very painful no but I
can't in good conscience vote Yes on
this one and no on the previous one
Miss
Dorne vote Yes I think this one is
distinguishable from the last one that
we had and that it is um temporary the
other one was built into a tree so I
think I see that as a major difference
so that's why I voted
yes Mr rosenal I'm fortunately with Mr
Turner I admire the project and I hope
you can find a way to move it and
reposition it but I I I have to vote no
for the same reason I just feel like the
precedent is such that there's not
enough for me different about it that
makes me comfortable saying
yes Mr chairman Marsh uh I'm gonna vote
Yes I think if if you moved it three
feet it would look exactly the same from
the neighbor's yard as it looks today so
I'm going to vote
Yes motion passes four to three yay
there you go thank you
thank thank most of
you I think that's the first time I've
ever been called out
so all right the next item on the agenda
is Bap 24- 46 this is 251
Stanberry uh is the applicant
here if you could uh come up and be
sworn
in howdy
say your name and address please my
address or the I'm on here on behalf of
the homeowner that's fine your name and
address uh Luke girkin 478 South
Champion Avenue Columbus Ohio
43205 do you swear airm the testimony
you give this evening will be the truth
yes thank you and Mr Kingler do we have
some background on this one we do
chairman Marsh uh this is an R3 zoning
District um lot Siz is 150 by
188 the zoning code does not
specifically regulate quote unquote hot
tubs um the permit fees section says
swimming poolhot tub permit thus the
staff views them similar similarly from
a zoning standpoint as well as the
definition of a swimming pool or Family
Pool is considered to be any pool when
it exceeds 18 inches of water per water
depth per
14641 and
14648 swimming pools swimming pools must
be located 5 ft farther back than all
building restriction lines um so in the
rear yard that is 3 feet um for an
accessory use plus 5 feet so we say 8
feet for any swing pool from the
property line um this hot tub will be 3
feet N9 in off the property line uh the
property has a fence with a
self-latching gate as well as privacy
screening fence around the property um
and around the proposed hot tub the
application does not show any additional
Lighting on the hot tub that would
affect surrounding properties overall
the hot tub is much smaller than a
typical pool so occupant load and noise
during activities will be minimal or
much less than a typical backyard
swimming pool staff sees no issue with
experience thank you um if you'd like to
go ahead and tell us about your plan uh
walk us through that that'd be great
yeah so our plan is to move it within
that that uh setback area to create a
little bit more seclusion for the
homeowner a little bit more privacy for
them um also they have existing doors
that are going into their Courtyard area
right there um that we don't want to
impede for uh future foot
traffic um is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to speak to this
application for 251 Stanberry
uh any board discussion
here what what's sorry no it's okay four
feet three inches so it'll be 3 feet n
inches off the property line uh a
typical uh any any pool or you know we
Define pool as 18 inches of water deeper
has to be 8 feet off the rear property
line so they're going to be 3 feet n so
4 feet 3 in okay and is there a separate
fence around this as opposed to just the
one around the entire
lot there won't be not around the the
hot tub it's a like a set in Spa jacuzzi
Spa um and they just have their existing
fence on their property line okay
because didn't we have one where they
were doing this and Kathy said they had
to have separate fence around the hot
tub because like like fencing in the
whole yard is not the same as fencing in
I mean we had one in the past that way I
don't know what yeah it depends um and
it depends upon the fence right you have
to have a fence at least four feet but
then it has to have a self-latching gate
so if their existing fence didn't have a
self-latching gate that closes
automatically then they would need a
separate fence around the hot tub or
pool regardless okay in this case I did
check they do have a fence around the
property it does have a self-latching
gate they've noted that on the
application this an INR hot tub or above
ground above
ground so it has a cover then I assume
over it it does
yep I mean I mean to me I understand the
logic of wanting to put it there but I
struggle to come up with a hardship I
mean it would be nicer there I
understand given everything that's
already in the yard but you know I don't
know that I don't look at it and think
well there's no other way to have it uh
it just feels like a convenience but not
a you know there's not something about
the property or the lot that makes this
the only place that that could possibly
go so that's sort of my where I get hung
up on it gotta I don't I understand the
logic uh the reason it was designed in
that location right there within the
saback is mainly for the um you know
pedestrian foot traffic and
the flow of the
space um because they do have existing
door that's notated on that plan right
there
um essentially is this Pao
place what was that is the is the patio
in place right now or are you putting
the Pao in as well were're proposing to
rip out existing and put in new but it
would be essentially like for like
replacement
any other uh board discussion or
questions can we have the findings of
facts
please yes chairman uh the findings and
F the findings of fact and conclusions
of law for application bcap 24- 46 for
property located at 251 Stanberry based
on the testimony presented the board
finds it appropriate to Grant a 4ot 3in
variance from Bexley code section
14642 to allow a hot tub to be located
within 3T 9 in of the property line and
does the applicant understand the
findings of facts as read yes and do I
hear a motion for a
vote so move turn do I hear a
second second
Rosenthal uh roll call
please miss Dorne
yes Mr
Turner no um similar to what he
what said um they uh I I just especially
since the patio's not even in I mean it
seems very early in the design process
that you couldn't re locate somewhere
away from outside of this outside of the
setback so I'm saying
no Miss L stack yes
Mr schik
yes Mr Levine
yes Mr rosenal uh no just for the
reasons I sort of elucidated chairman
Marsh I'll vote Yes motion motion passes
five to two thank you thank you
sorry thanks uh next item on the agenda
is Bap 24- 47 which is 2143 East Main
Street see the applicants here if you
could uh be sworn in
please state your name and addresses
please Jack Reynolds 37 West Brad street
cols
Ohio and
Taylor 2154 East Main Street thank you
do swear affirm the testimony you give
this evening will be the truth I did
thank
you is there any background on this one
yes
chairman you give me a second here sorry
trying to get my okay the app can to
seek an extension so this has a long
history um this property as I think
everyone here knows is our uh Park is
the the parking lot across from the
Rusty Bucket um the applicant is seeking
an extension of a 2007 conditional use
temporary variance granted to allow the
commercial parking lot to remain um a
conditional use per Bexley code section
12 5
4.09 um it is in the mixed use
commercial zoning District it is within
the Main Street District overlay um for
for years uh the owner has been gracious
enough to allow the public to park in
the lot free of charge and is
coordinated with the city and Public
Utilities to allow the site to be used
for construction staging um in 2007 when
the parking lot was granted a temporary
U variance um it was supposed to be
reapplied for on an annual basis um that
renew has not occurred since 2009 so
really staff as staff we just want to
bring it up to code um uh per the MU and
Main Street standards parking lot should
have a 4 foot tall stone wall or metal
fence with a three-foot landscape buffer
screening the lot from public streets um
staff is asking that you
um uh or we would request waving the
stone wall fence requirement as we we're
working with the applicant and they've
um they're going to allow or work with
the city to install landscape a new
landscape buffer along Main Street in
the parking lot there
um request that the they request the
conditional use be extended for two
years um the property owner has agreed
to continue to make the parking lot
available for the general public parking
throughout the term of the conditional
use um the app the applicant should
update the current signage by applying
for a signed permit um and currently the
lot is being used to accommodate
contractor parking for the Fitzgerald
development um as well as well as
providing um general public parking
so that's thank you thank you uh if the
applicant would go ahead and tell us
what your plan is
there well I worked with Larry a number
of years ago to do the beex Gateway
project and the Alexander and so at that
point in time uh we started discussing
ing the development of uh this property
uh we've been through a number of
different interations and a number of
different partners that have looked at
the property uh we did have a meeting
with the staff back in December I think
it was on the 19th to talk about the
property uh Larry was at the meeting uh
there was a ownership dispute the Larry
was part owner and the other part owner
was the trustee of the family
trust and so Larry has finally gotten
control of the property uh ownership
itself and so that gives him a little
bit more free reign to start hopefully
developing the property uh I've got the
thought file here that was opened and I
know that we were talking back when the
Alexander and the B the Gateway went up
about the about developing this property
uh so what we'd like to do and now Larry
has a Freer hand to uh work with uh
potential Partners to develop the
property uh again we would like the two
years to continue to utilize the
property as a parking lot it's there for
the public uh I drove past on the way
here and there were probably 20 cars in
the parking lot people were parking and
walking across the street to the Rusty
Bucket and the the other restaurant
there so it it it's it's a it's an asset
to the community if you look at the
standards that are in the conditional
use there are eight uh criteria and if
you look at the eight criteria I think
that we meet those eight criteria for
the granting of the conditional use and
once again I can tell you that Larry
would like this to be very
temporary uh he would certainly like to
develop it uh with uh you know we've had
discussions me
you know like to see it the mayor would
like to see it develop so uh we we're
here for the two-year
extension uh we are working with the
city to upgrade the Landscaping along
Maine uh to again make it an appropriate
entry point into the city of beex so we
can answer any questions and uh made the
application uh
again we've we've been very
accommodating to uh Frank and his crew
with Cheryl and Public Utilities have
utilized it as a matter of fact they
were utilizing it for a last month uh to
do some uh additional uh upgrade to the
uh uh electric grid there along East
Main
Street got thank you uh do anyone on the
board have any questions or
comments I mean if
if the applicant was if the city weren't
involved I would not agree to this
because I would say show me the
landscape plan should I feel differently
about that because the city's involved
or is it fair to say come back with a
landscape
plan the city will be doing the this so
it's it's city right of way but a little
bit of the buffer extends onto their
property so the city will be doing the
Landscaping so we working with our
landscaper Landscape designer um Ellen
Andrew to come up with a good plan and
and get it done this year
and does that come back to this board or
not because of the
city and then I'd ask has there have
been repair work done to the park I I
haven't been in there in a while when I
go to the rest Buck usually park on the
street but the last couple times I was
in there there were like huge potholes
there you can't see any striping I mean
it
was yeah it's a parking lot but it
didn't look it didn't if we're worried
about the image of the city it didn't
look the best so I I I don't want to
make you pave it but I just want it to
be better than what it was I've tried to
make a deal with um some of the Columbia
Gas subcontractors who have used a lot
um over and over again and I think they
just got stopped due to the cold weather
that came quick but they have said that
they would uh give us some free Asphalt
to put down and uh take care of those
patches
okay and we have tried to price it out
um doing all of it like well over a
100,000 yeah I know it's tough because
you don't plan on it being there
permanently so but it's just I mean
there were big potholes I mean right you
can patch those at least or something so
okay uh any other comments or questions
from the
board can we have the findings of facts
and conclusion of the
board the findings of fact and
conclusion of law for application bcap
2447 for the property located at 2093
d299 and 2143 East Main based on the
testimony presented the board finds it
appropriate to Grant a conditional use
per Bexley code section 124.0 n to allow
the parking lot to and to wave the stone
wall fence requirement with the
conditions that the city work with the
applicant on the design and installation
of a rejuvenated landscape buffer
the conditional use be extended for two
years the property owner agrees to
continue to make the parking lot
available for general public throughout
the term of the conditional use and the
applicant update the current signage by
applying for a sign permit and does the
applicant understand the uh findings of
facts as read yes and do I hear a motion
can we add a term that that striping and
potholes you know that the paving be you
know made sound and striping be you know
current
and
functional I mean yes I would yeah I
would feel strongly about that I don't
know if I can make that unilaterally or
I can ask I don't know how we modify the
you can ask yeah you can effect but you
can make that condition I mean I would
like to do that especially if we're
saying it's for two years part of the
lot is uh gravel so it's very hard to
stripe on gravel but I would say we
could could work with that on the
asphalt areas no problem okay
great so are is everyone in favor of
adding a condition that the asphalt
areas be
restriped yeah reasonable effort yeah we
we agree thank you did you want the
potholes in there as well yeah I think
po you know repair potholes and re and
reasonably striped the asphalt areas is
fine with my son was six he said that
you were going to build a Lego Land of
that
property was that before after
2007 we had a condition to legol
land i' see a lot of head
shake OT I don't know Larry would be
agreeable do I hear a mo motion for uh
from the board to vote on this so move
second
r a roll call
please Mr line
yes Miss leack yes Mr Turner yes Mr
Rosenthal
yes Mr shik yes M Dorne yes and chairman
Marsh
yes thank you very
much and again we thank the mayor for
taking the time sit down with us and
offer to work on the uh landscape well
we hope you don't need the full two
years
oh Larry would agree thank
you um next
application is Bap
24-48 218 North Park
View the applicants here if you could be
sworn in please you st your name and
address please name is will lanard
address is 289 West weamer Road
Ohio thank you and do you swear affirm
the testimony you give this evening will
be the truth I do thank you well and is
there any background on this one it's
your favorite my favorite corner lot I
do like a good corner lot house does not
face where the front yard is platted
perfect um the applicant is seeking area
variance um from Bexley code section 12
5215 G1 to allow an accessory Ed
swimming pool in the front yard and a
height variance to allow a 48 in tall
black black metal fence pool black metal
fence uh to meet pool enclosure
requirements so this is an R2 zoning
District corner lot um it's at the what
would that be the northeast corner of
North Park View in Commonwealth um the
front yard is platted so all of those
properties along Commonwealth the front
yard is platted to Commonwealth this
house the front door faces North Park
View as you can see so I've shaded the
house in kind of a magenta purple that
front door I I've kind of pointed it out
there so um this is a quirky uh
situation because it's an L-shaped house
um the structures are generally located
on the northeastern quadrant of the
property so the house really has no
backyard um and you see in green I've
I've put where the front yard is because
front yard is defined as you know from
the front living quarters of the house
to the street uh where the property's
platted um the pool is kind of in a
light blue there and it overlaps the
green so it gets into the front yard um
a little bit and then the fence I've
I've kind of you can kind of hardly see
the fence there but it's um it goes
around the property and that is uh Mr
Turner brought that up earlier it's the
it's the fence with the self-latching
gate around so they have to put a fence
in um we allow with a special permit
from you all you could put a 42-inch
fence up in your front yard but our pool
requirement is a 48 inch fence so hence
the 6 inch height variance for the front
yard
fence um there is precedent for this
there are other side yard and actual
front yard um because of the way houses
are built in this um within Bexley
there's other cases that these variances
were
granted staff sees no issue with this
variance yeah thank you very much if the
applicant could go ahead and walk us
through the plan that'd be great
sure well we were all very surprised to
learn that the the property pled in
Commonwealth and you know obviously the
house presents to North Park
View um the client was strongly hoping
for um a pool and a pool actually
associated with the the room to the to
the east so the the room I guess plan
view
up um seems like architecturally that
makes a lot of sense as as you walk
through the site um there's an existing
fireplace and seat wall just outside the
building that we needed to kind of avoid
so we were P pulling the pull away from
that so that kind of pushes us out away
from the
building
um right so the you can see the
fireplace on the left
there that being said we need to fence
the fence the pull in so we um you know
send a fence around the property line
but there's there's there's heavy
hedging there's lots of landscape around
the Commonwealth in North Parview so we
pull actually the fence off the property
line significantly on the you know
the the uh private side of the Hedge if
you will and we've add added some more
plants to kind of soften that so also we
specified a fence that is uh minimal the
black metal fence uh minimal ornate uh
design uh so it should visually not make
an
impact and they uh they really because
they have a big family they really enjoy
the pool um she was adamant about the
pool about this size a 20 x 40 SP
assistant with you know residential pool
scale so that's what what we've
proposed thank you any uh any questions
from the board or comments
yeah I have a question for Mr Kingler If
This Were what it looks like it is which
is to say the front yard is on Park viw
does this I don't know if you've done
the mat to figure does this would this
comply if if the house were ploted to
Parkview would not need other than the a
quick bar napkin math yes yeah the sidey
yard uh I think it's what do I have 30
feet and I think it's yeah it's like 90
ft from the edge of the property line to
the edge of the house um so yes to
answer your question yes it would it'd
be
fine any other uh any other questions or
comments yeah I've got one in the
pictures there a there's a wall is that
wall stop when it gets around to Park
View or is it does it w the on the
public sidewalk because on the Park viw
pictures it's got those taxes you can't
see is is the W wall cont you can't see
it in the pictures if it goes on yeah
the wall the walls um in the plan view
is kind of rendered dark um so it
follows yeah there's the wall picture of
the wall it follows Park View All Along
The the property and then it dies back
into grade as at the corner of
Commonwealth okay um and then Mr quer
what I mean I know we've we always run
into the issue with the pools in the
sidey yard front yard but I I just I'm
curious about this one
because what other ones do we have where
we've allowed it in the front yard the
actual front yard because to me this
this is a little bit different because
of the fact the front yard faces
Commonwealth so I mean you're putting a
pool basically that if you're sitting at
the new Pond you're going to be looking
across the street at a swimming pool so
I I I I I'm just curious because I I I
know that we've come up with this but I
don't think we've ever put one truly
like that faces a street like this yeah
one thing on that you cannot and I
should I don't know if there's a street
view you can't
see if you're sitting in the uh from the
pond you can't see that backyard very
well that all well but that's what
that's because of landscaping though if
the Landscaping is gone you'd be looking
yeah that's fair um 81 North Drexel has
one um there's one there's a couple more
in North Bexley um I don't have the the
addresses off the top of my head I just
know that this is not the first front
yard or side yard pool and the one on
the one on Clifton got approved that's
in yeah not not by us but by city
council well yeah but I don't I don't
know whether I I looking at the one on
Clifton I don't know whether I would
have approved it if it was on the side
on the Drexel end of the house I mean
that that's facing the street the where
the one is on Clifton at least it's up
against a residential property it's not
facing the
park I think staff viewed it um you know
we look at when I look at these things
and whether or not I see no issue with
the variances it's more it's not so much
the front or side yard it's kind of what
Andrew mentioned Mr Ren th excuse me um
where where the front door is and could
they put it anywhere else the structures
are mainly to the North and the
northeast of the property so this is
essentially their backyard
um it's only because it's platted to
Commonwealth that it's a front yard and
you you actually do have power as a
board I think we me I mentioned this
before to change the front yard of a
property if you feel that it's not
correct
um don't they have to apply for
that yeah it's within the code it's
within your purview to do that I think
that came up in a couple meetings past I
remember um it was with the the house on
the corner of cassingham in Maryland
when they were trying to do sidey
parking yeah so yeah I mean there
structures the garage is over to that
side there's another structure over that
side there's the you know there's a
driveway that goes to the back there
this is essentially the the green space
that they have uh we felt that they
weren't pushing it too far um they were
keeping an appropriate amount off of
Commonwealth
and this would be their backyard if Park
View if uh Parky was their
friend so could the pool be flipped so
that it's like lengthwise towards the
back of the yard so it's not in the side
yard well there's a covered space on the
east side of the building that kind of
andrain it who actually put this the
pull I think in the side side yard
setback
or um see yeah see the covered I want to
I want to steer clear from that can got
it would the applicant be willing to
agree to a condition to keep the
Landscaping
um screening from the there's no world
that if that say that hedge would die
that they wouldn't be replanted
immediately from knowing both
M yeah like far if we got a new owner
though that's the concern right like
sure yeah they they are there's if I
could add one thing there's there's they
have an ARB application next month
because they're doing more that's not a
variance um to that side kind of where
that structure is is and they're doing
more to the actual house itself so that
layout has been anticipated with that
ARB project coming for I mean I think
the project looks good it's just my my
concern is just from the from the
looking at it from the park is what what
my issue is as opposed to we could
certainly condition the
Landscaping there there's a not
insignificant grade change right if I'm
standing where the pool will be versus
the sidewalk on Commonwealth I mean
that's my it feels like five four or
five feet it's actually four feet nine
inches from lawn grade to Commonwealth
sidewalk yeah so so to some extent even
if because I mean how's that work we can
condition someone to put in landscaping
but we can't stop so if the ne if they
decided or the next owner decided to cut
down all those bushes the variant stays
with the property yeah it' be so be a
code enforcement code violation
yeah I I walk my dog past here and and
it is significant elevation and then the
Landscaping you you know I don't think
you'll be able to see anything but but I
I mean I I like the idea of Since since
we do have this and it is across from a
from a park I like the idea of just
putting a condition that Landscaping be
maintained along along Commonwealth as a
as a
condition um is there is there anyone in
the public that wishes to speak to this
application in the audience
tonight okay and should we be more
specific about what we mean I mean not
just any Landscaping right we're saying
it's screening yeah visual yeah I think
visual
screening and again you know I don't it
wouldn't have to be that tall do
everything you need I think if it's
three feet tall you're never going to
know what's on the other side of
it any other uhbe seven almost eight F
feet of yeah
elevation any other comments or
questions from the
board why don't we add a condition that
maint you know Landscaping be maintained
at least three feet tall along along
Commonwealth Mr chair just sometimes
when these things are done it's a matter
of height and
opacity um and I think you have some
opacity standards in your Cod I don't
recall for sure but yeah that is just in
in terms of the visibility through the
Landscaping that it's going to be a
minimum of a certain height and have a
certain amount of opacity so that you it
will be a typically an evergreen kind of
situation someone want to recommend an
opacity level to recommend an
opacity acceptable to the city city
planner
neighbor some of of them can be you know
60 70 80% with Landscaping I think um
Matt was saying with the fences it's 50
yeah
so like a corner lot fence that goes
along you know the road 50 we want 50%
landscape well would this apply to the
fence or to the um like arbes apply to
what you would like it it would apply to
the Landscaping that the Landscaping
that you put in has a certain amount of
opacity so it acts as a visual buffer i'
maintain greater than 75% opacity as a
condition with minimum 3et height and we
all get an invite to a pool
party those acceptable to you yes
yeah out here proposing would you like
findings of fact findings of fact please
sir the findings of fact and conclusions
of law for application bza P
24-48 for the property located at 218
North Parkview based on the testimony
presented the board finds it appropriate
to Grant a variance from Bexley code
section
12215 G1 to allow an accessory use
swimming pool in the front yard and a
height variance of 6 in to allow a 48
inch tall black metal pool front yard
fence to meet the pool enclosure
requirements with the condition that
landscape Landscaping SL visual
screening be maintained along
Commonwealth at least 3et tall with at
least 75%
opacity does the applicant understand
the findings of facts say red did do I
hear a
motion a
second second Turner a roll call
please miss leack
yes Mr
Turner did you say Turner yes Mr Turner
I'm sorry yes Mr Rosenthal yes Miss
Dorne yes Mr schik
yes Mr line yes and chairman Marsh yes
motion passes 7
nothing thank
you before we begin the can I recommend
like a three minute recess yeah we uh
we'll recess for 3
minutes
e
e e
the uh next item on the agenda
is see here is B app
2449 2300 East Livingston uh is the
applicant here
tonight you could come forward and be
sworn
in uh can you state your names and
addresses please
George tabbit with the Community
Builders uh 828 Vernon
Road Sarah gold with the cic 82 South
armore
Beckle Bill Downing ccbd 6370 R Sun
Drive gr City and do you swear affirm
the testimony you give this evening will
be the
truth thank you
and I'm sure Mr Kingler we've got some
background on
this we do
um so we have our uh city planner Jason
sui with omm here he prepared a uh staff
report uh which was distributed to you
all and then posted to the website Jason
would you like to give the staff report
for this one absolutely be happy too uh
thanks
for powering through a rather lengthy
staff report um sometimes as you know
when we are in the overlay districts the
physical staff report gets a little long
so we have a pretty lengthy checklist um
not indicative really of substantial
zoning issues more so we wanted to be
very thorough to allow you to understand
all the aspects that relate to zoning in
there so I'm going to go go through this
fairly rapidly and then please interrupt
me as I go and uh be obviously I'll be
here to answer any questions so this
property at 2300 East Livingston Avenue
as you are aware had been the last time
this came in in a different zoning
District a much more a much more Auto
oriented and um frankly kind of old and
decrepit zoning District uh one that we
had never really understood how to use
in order to get the kind of high quality
Urban Development that we really love to
see throughout the rest of the city so
through a long process the zoning has
been updated and it is now a Livingston
Avenue District which is an overlay on
the mixed use commercial District as
you're also familiar that's very similar
to the mechanism that we use on Main
Street and there's no um that's not a
mistake the the reason that the
mechanism is so similar is because now
that we are seeing a Redevelopment
approach not just here in Bexley really
across the the city across the region
across the country to look for ways to
infill what had been Auto oriented
corridors and find more densed urban
patterns and because of that ability to
do um that where the marketplace has
pushed it and where we've always wanted
it to be as a community we were able to
incorporate those standards into our
Livingston Avenue District now it's not
exactly the same as Main Street there
are some differences uh there are
somewhat larger setbacks uh there are
different criteria with regard to some
of the sighting by and large it's in the
same spirit and the idea is ideally that
over time as sites redevelop it will
become much more walkable and much more
pedestrian oriented like the vast
majority of Bexley is so um having said
that there are some specific things that
the applicant is requesting today you
know the one thing that is sort of the
biggest thing that is uh certainly
something you should discuss today
however is largely in the purview of the
architecture is the certificate of
appropriateness and the ARB already
heard this case I'll have Karen fill you
in on on what happened there um the the
the ultimate responsibility for approval
Falls to you and at the same time the
really in-depth evaluation of the
building will fall to the ARB so for
today uh while you're obviously welcome
to comment anything you'd like on the
architecture we're going to steer you
more specifically toward the other two
elements and that's the uh conditional
use permit and the variance the
conditional use permit is is required
for the application that's been
submitted based on the fact that they
would like to have residential on the
first floor of a multif family building
um as you're also aware in many
districts throughout the in every
District throughout all of Bexley we
have permitted uses and we have
conditional uses permitted uses require
no uh additional use permit they are as
it says permitted a conditional use
means there's a set of criteria we've
included those in the staff report that
you can review and determine if you
think they have met those criteria um as
a staff we do think they've met those
and I'll explain that in just a moment
the variance is a uh an effort to wave
the fence requirement um and this was as
as I understand it the applicant can
explain further an effort to help uh
appease a concern of the adjacent
neighbor for visibility issues with
regard to pulling in out of their lot
and they'll explain that further um I
understand they would be willing to put
the fence in as it is requested in the
code at a full height of 8 ft across the
entire back of a lot however in an
effort to try to work with a neighbor
they're asking to reduce the height of
that at the Far Eastern end and again
I'll let the applicant speak to that and
of course as you know in that case uh
you would look through all of the
criteria that are um in our code in
order to determine if a variant is
appropriate and determine that by
comparing that to the applicant's
testimony
so before I get into the specifics are
there any other questions or any
questions regarding what they are
requesting tonight and what they are not
requesting tonight just for context so
to make sure I understand it it's a
conditional use because traditionally
good Urban Development has residential
stuff upstairs and frequently we'll have
other like commercial type uses
downstairs so for example on Main Street
you probably wouldn't want front doors
on Main Street yeah so the that's the
why it's condition it's it has to do
with the development pattern yeah I
think i' phrase it a little differently
in that in a good Urban Corridor there's
a mixture of uses and you wouldn't want
to have
predominantly residential first floor
uses on the other hand a mixture of
those uses is absolutely uh reasonable
you'll see that on Main Street you know
there are numerous situations where
you've got first floor outd doors you'll
see that in the short North in High
Street you'll see that on Lane Avenue in
Upper Arlington you'll see it in
worlington on High Street you'll see it
in every District No district is
homogeneous at least not in our region
where every single first floor is the
storefront every single upper story is
residential it's a mixture and what we
really are encouraging here and we found
incredible success over the last 20 plus
years 21 years now officially since the
Main Street guidelines were adopted is
that creating the form of the building
is the essence of what is the most
important thing as long as the uses are
within the umbrella of the uses that we
as a community have determined our
appropriate buyer zoning code the form
of that building is really what moves us
forward and at the same time we also
don't want to build a situation where
we're predominantly one kind of use
because that's the problem we already
had we had a bunch of Auto oriented
commercial uses so I wouldn't say that
good Urban Design would not allow a
front door to be there I would say good
Urban Design would encourage a mixture
of those things just as we have in every
other Corridor it's a great question
yeah other questions yeah sure of course
so under 12 26.12 okay it's the
presumption that conditionally permitted
uses are not appropriate unless it's
proven otherwise right yeah there are
there are criteria and I will get to
those specific criteria but I mean
that's like the standard under that yeah
the standard is yeah the standard is you
want to make sure that it does fit
within the context of of the request of
why they're doing it absolutely yeah
okay thank
you other
questions all right so let me step
through this um overall uh we do think
that they have method criteria for
conditional use permit and I'll talk
about that um we also support the
Architectural Review Board which is not
yet offered a specific recommendation
other than that they return back to the
airb for review of the building design
and um of course it's up to you then to
determine the variance request the one
other thing I hadn't mentioned yet that
is important is that there is an
existing building on the site so you
would also have to approve demolition as
a staff we don't see any sign ific to
the existing building that's there and
would support that demolition so with
that before I get into the rest of the
zoning issues I will turn it over to
Karen to explain to you what happened at
the airb meeting yes um I'm GNA just
pull up the record of action which I
am posted a couple days ago so I don't
know if any of you have seen but um just
just as a point of General clarification
when the architect review board is asked
to recommend a case to all of you to
hear we have several options we can
recommend it in the positive we can
recommend it in the negative or we can
just move it to you and in this case
that's what our board decided to do
because there were too many outstanding
issues that we definitely did not want
to for you to feel that we gave it a
positive recommendation for this ma to
board the architecture View Board feels
pretty strongly that lots of elements in
this projects still need to
be looked over redesigned um
investigated
um some of which just for
clarification uh we included these in
the record of action things like massing
incorporation into the there was some
talk about how does this get
incorporated into the Livingston joint
plan um the building details massing
roof lines proximity there were there
were a couple I can clarify this if you
need but a couple board members wanted
them to at least kind of do the exercise
of how close is this building to um
local city have and Recreation are is um
study of the residential character of
the building in the mixed commercial
District kind of Pap were talking about
for zoning and and I we wanted to be
clear that all other issues that were
addressed there was a significant
discussion about the architecture we
didn't really feel that the architecture
is there not that it can't be but we
didn't feel comfortable um recommending
this in the positive however didn't want
to recommend any negative so we'd like
you to move on the zoning and um urge
you
please condition this on back to AR Bo
for
design thank
you I think I would add a lot of times
when we do that when this board does
that you recommend it back you have the
authority either have ARB issu the
certificate of appropriateness or they
come back with a recommendation to you
and you issue the certificate of
appropriateness typically we've done it
where it comes back to you where you
issue the certificate of appropriateness
um but they after you get a a
recommendation from them but that's up
to this board whether you want to
delegate that Authority or retain it
yourselves typically when we have
multiple things going on with variances
and of those kinds of things it comes
back here for you to recommend it or for
you to make the final approval in the
certificate of appropriateness following
a a recommendation after a remand
got it thank
you uh before we have the applicant
present do the I I've got a whole bunch
more for you okay keep going sorry keep
going I'm only on page two but I'll
speed it up I'll speed it up I promise
okay go ahead Jason before you start
yeah if if this project had all the
residential component on the upper
floors would we only be talking about
the fence today yeah the second and
third floor it's permitted to for uh
them to have residential on second and
third floor floor for any development um
and it's permitted to have commercial on
the first floor a a variety of
commercial uses um that are in our code
which obviously we can go through it
more detail so yeah that is absolutely
right the only difference from the code
from a use standpoint is the request to
add or to swap out residential on to the
first floor instead of having commercial
and is that a result of the zoning
change yeah the zoning previous case
correct the issue was whether
residential would be permitted at all
yeah the the pre I mean it's it's a
whole thing I'll Katherine can get into
all the the specific nuances the biggest
issue is that um we had an auto oriented
commercial zoning before now we have a
mixed use Corridor
zoning so it's very very different and I
I mean it's truly uh uh modeled after
Main Street so think of Main Street with
some with a different set of slightly
different set of criteria uh but that's
that's the best Coral area now whereas
the previous Corridor was modeled after
Sawmill Road or something something you
know a typical freeway off offramp kind
of commercial
Corridor yeah um so I'll hit the
highlights just want to get get through
some of the bigger aspects you know one
of the the significant issues here we'll
talk about in a second is is plan
conformance and there are a number of
plans that have been done um in in
addition to specific area plans there
was a diversity Equity inclusion
strategy in 2020 where one of the the
major issues that had been cited in
Bexley is the concern over the current
uh configuration condition of more
affordable housing and how that can be
extrapolated into better safer healthier
living conditions and some key elements
were were located and you know one of
those is along this Corridor and so
that's that's an opportunity here we'll
talk about how it conforms to a several
other plans one of the most important
things to remember about this Corridor
hearing that at the previous meeting
there were some specific concerns about
safety and other
issues there is a um a funded
Redevelopment strategy for the entire
portion of Livingston that borders on
Beckley so from the bridge that goes
over Alum Creek almost out to James Road
there's a little road right before it
both sides of the street will be
completely rebuilt with pedestrian
facilities pedestrian bike we call them
sus shared use paths uh in the
transportation business the final design
is not done and yet there is no
indication that the design won't very
closely meet the um the recommendations
of the joint Livingston Avenue report um
I know this for a fact because our
office was awarded the opportunity to do
that final design and we've been hosting
a series of meetings with the city of
Bexley and the City of Columbus who are
jointly funding and jointly implementing
that plan and there's a whole bunch of
other money that that was already uh
awarded to that so this is a funded
project this isn't a specul ative
project and the current design calls for
in these this portion down to the creek
which we're calling basically the you
know the commercial mixed use portion
due to the zoning that's in place there
will be approximately a 10ish foot
sidewalk I think it'll end up being 10
feet which is what we're going to talk
about requesting of the applicant today
and then planting beds in front of that
very similar to what you see on Main
Street and then a 18 inch to two foot
buffer zone that hopefully will also
have like a decorative brick paving Edge
the reason I can't F safe for sure is
because we have to have this all
approved by the city of Columbus and the
process is still you know we're six
months into that process we're getting
very close to that approved design once
you get past Francis the entire North
Side will almost definitely be a 10-
foot shared use path which will be set
back off the street most likely with an8
foot tree lawn which will be you know
full of Street trees and again we're not
sure 100% but we think it's probably
going to be concrete on the North side
and then on the south side of the road
for the entirety of that length Columbus
is contemplating a shared use path that
would also be 10 feet wide material has
not yet been determined that would also
be set back from the road with a treelon
so just for your understanding as this
street
transforms the intensity of traffic and
the the um facilities for pedestrians
and bikers are going to be radically
different and there are a lot of median
elements too so traffic should be slowed
pedestrians should be accommodated
bikers will be accommodated it's GNA be
a really great street
so oh no no no it will be two to three
feet plus at least a six foot um uh
planting bed and then the sidewalk so
there'll be 8T there'll actually be even
more barricade here because there will
be a planting by with a curb now again
the material the curb is still being
discussed it'll look very much like Main
Street maybe not the same materials
though sure what's the time frame on
this yeah the time frame for that again
these are all you know there's RightWay
acquisition those kind of things so
ideally the there would be
groundbreaking in two years I can't
promise that today and then you know the
construction cycle then would be you
know a year or however long that takes
so um I don't know Matt do you have
anything else he's been involved in all
the meetings too do you have any other
pressions of that from a time frame
standpoint between 2028 and 2030
y yeah for the completion for the
completion yeah so the groundbreaking
ideally is in two within two years and
then it's one to twoyear construction
cycle so that is interesting to know but
you are sharing that relative to this
case because this is all leading up to
why it seems okay to have a conditional
use of residential on the first floor
specifically because we're going to
request that the applicant make slight
modifications to their streetcape
Frontage in order to match the joint
Livingston Avenue plan it's very close
now they're showing an 8ft sidewalk
section we're going to request that they
show a 10- foot sidewalk section and
then agree to meet whatever final design
we come up with over the next ideally
several months I mean we're very close
to having that design locked in it's
just a matter of final approvals from
the city of Columbus and the City of
Beckley and you know all the Departments
that the city of Columbus has to go
through in order to make sure
everybody's okay with it there's a lot
departments and and we're conjoining
that request or the proposal would be to
conjoin that the conditional use conjoin
to them participating in that design yes
yeah so that's the specific reason why
it's important to you today to consider
the bigger reason is because we've heard
these concerns of safety I just wanted
to express to you that whatever you see
there today and there may I'm not going
to say day one when this opens it'll be
done what I'm saying is it's a plan
funded project and day one when this
opened we would require them to put
their section of sidewalk in that would
match we were doing so that would be
there on day one is that one of the
legal requirements to consider future
conditions uh well we since there what
we're allowed to I'm just making sure
this is sound because oh yeah yeah so we
can predict future happenings and
consider that as part of our decision
well the reason why is because we have a
joint Livingston Avenue plan that was
adopted by the community and we're
following the joint Livingston Avenue
plan sure sure I understand that but
like we can't control what property
owner does with his property or doesn't
do so like for example the liquor store
on Livingston he could stay there for
another 50 years so but we can't
consider what he does or doesn't do with
his Pro so just to clarify this project
will install this sidewalk in front of
every single business that exists now on
the street okay yes yeah I understand
and it's funded it's go it will happen
it's just a matter of whether if if we
can expedite the process and it goes
smoothly it could we could break around
earlier if it goes slowly we might not
break around for three years instead of
two years so yeah yeah I just want to
make sure we're like considering the
legal requirements so if this gets
bounced back to us or to city council
that we have like accurate
legal right and those are two different
things we're not considering we don't
you don't have to consider what's
happening on all the other properties if
you don't want to I'm just bringing that
up to clarify the fact that this is
going to be a long contiguous pedestrian
realm that's what's going to happen it's
funded it's G to happen but what you do
have to consider is what happens on this
property and because we have a joint
living Cate Avenue plan and we know that
we're designing this to match the joint
living Avenue plan we would request that
you put as a condition on approval that
the applicant also has to meet that
Frontage even if nothing else got built
we would still want that to happen
because we want to implement the joint
Livingston Avenue plan even if we didn't
have the money we would do it on an
individual property basis luckily we do
have the money so we can do the whole
thing which is pretty great what is the
source of the funding uh Matt do you
remember all that I'm sorry we I I like
to spend the money I don't I don't
remember where we got it so yeah um it
varies money from ODOT money from the
city of Columbus money from the city of
Bexley um any other fun sources yeah
there attributable funds and Transit
supportive infrastructure fund reason I
ask is is there any federal money
involved and can we count on anything
from the federal government anymore it
has been pre-committed what it is
pre-committed
the money's in the bank money yeah yes
yep um okay well uh that was a long
diversion into that let me just get
throughout some of the technical details
um basically the the site impacts the
site plan as proposed does meet the vast
majority of the Livingston Avenue design
standards that have to do with site some
are UND undefined at this point um and
I'll Point those out real quickly I
don't think it's anything that is in
opposition it's just that we don't have
clarification on those yet um in
particular we need more clarification on
uh if there are going to be roof mounted
or ground mounted Mechanicals how those
will be screened they have presented
some fencing details with regard to um
the fence between the two properties we
need some clarification on how that
would screen the dumpster and whether or
not um we need more details on the
dumpster screening that's again just
something that hasn't been quite fleshed
out um also there are a number of things
that you'll see here with regard to the
land plan we would request that they uh
be referred to the Tre and public garden
Commission in order for them to make
sure they're following the joint living
Avenue plan which in this case really
means they're following our new
streetcape that we're proposing um there
are also other landscape elements on
there so it will be important for them
to follow that one thing I do want to
mention just as a a an assist if anyone
is looking at this section in our code
um as you know it's a relatively new
code section and sometimes when things
get added to the code service
they don't quite paste them in right so
there's a lot of duplication where they
put half of the table in and then put
half table in again so apologize for
that our service will get that remedied
at some point regardless um just wanted
to clarify that in case anybody was
looking through that in that way uh from
a parking standpoint it's one
residential or one parking space per
residential unit in the MU District they
have 27 spaces they have 27 units so
they have met that standard um now with
regard to the conditional use criteria
if you get to n uh page seven of the
staff report the bottom of page six
lists where in the code and what those
conditional use criteria are and then
I'll just quickly go through them as to
why we believe that they meet those
conditional use criteria for a special
permit for a conditional use um you know
the first one has to do with plan
conformance and we have a number of
plans uh that speak to this pretty
specifically of the 2013 Bexley
strategic area plan calls Redevelopment
for redevelopment in this portion of
Livingston and also for long-term
affordable housing options within
Beckley the 2017 Southwest Beckley
strategic framework sites the need for
affordable housing in the area and
references the need to create new
affordable housing in advance of the
change significant changes to Mayfield
Ferndale now the plan gets a little
murky in this section because it active
it does advocate for commercial uses on
the first floor of Livingston Corridor
and then it also advocates for
residential in this section even though
it was already zoned um commercial and
also advocates for single family which
seems unlikely in the fact that it was
already zoned for auto oriented
commercial uses that's for you to kind
of interpret as as to how you feel that
that plan guides us uh the 2020
diversity in equity inclusion strategy I
already mentioned is very strongly
calling for affordable housing and the
2022 joint Livingston Avenue plan which
I talked about with regard to that brand
new streetcape so I won't talk about
that anymore um for the second one the
question of where the land how the land
you
oops Yeah so the section you read about
uh the plan does advocate for active
commercial use on the first floor in
Livingston and say however it also
designates for this site to be
residential use but it's not designating
residential first floor use it's just
saying it it it just kind of it just
says it's in it's part of a giant single
family District where everything else in
the district is either single family or
institutional except for this corner
okay yeah so again it's a little harder
to interpret that um the use will not
have a negative impact on the
neighboring uses um in our opinion it's
more similar to the uses uh to the rear
north and east of the site then the
previous use and then what you could be
allowed to do here and you are allowed
to have a three-story building that is
residential on the second and third
floor so changing the first floor to
residential is really more in keeping
with what's adjacent to it um the use
will not be hazardous to have a negative
impact on existing future surrounding
uses again we don't see any uh specific
spefic elements that would cause that uh
the property and proposed modifications
satisfy lot lot requirements all kinds
of things in that one it does um use
does not create a unique burden on
existing or Public Utilities this is not
um it's consistent with inter further
City's economic goals uh won't increase
property values have negative economic
impact that's true it's a huge
investment of of financial resources and
compared to what's there now undoubtedly
uh raise as we've shown in many studies
and were testified to in the previous
incarnation of this uh this tends to
raise property values and not decrease
it when this new kind of economic
investment is made uh the use character
and keeping compatible with adjacent
structures and uses again that one I
think will go back to the ARB as far as
the architecture from the lot placement
standpoint it's really what we'd want it
to be in the front of the lot with the
parking behind set up to be uh
compatible and then finally any proposed
construction will not result in
destruction loss or damage of natural
Scenic or historic features of which we
do not believe there are any on the site
so to wrap up this whole uh staff report
wait Jason sorry on um for the city
economic goals is this property going to
be owned by a nonprofit or is it I will
turn that over
to others oh uh with the how the
ownership of the property will be on by
nonprofit but how beond it continue the
ownership of the Community Builders
if I can just read the criteria real
quick and then we'll get back to that if
you don't mind then I'll be done I'll be
out of your hair but again we should
read all those within our head the first
floor being residential it's not there's
no discussion about the upper two floors
the Upp two floors are in the zoning as
opposed to a Coffey shop would putting a
residential thing on the first floor
negatively affect the Jason properties
blah blah blah it is somehow
inconsistent with it's not the whole
building not the whole building this
first floor and the question is as
residential versus again a coffee shop
or whatever or a Tavern or many of the
other things you're allowed to have so
you know if it was a different kind of
thing if it was a retail store or
whatever is this having residential
going to make it any substantially worse
in any of these criteria for the
neighboring property we do not think it
would be in fact we think it would be
less burdensome in most cases especially
because of the traffic of pattern uses
uh overall parking uses access to the
site all those reasons why commercial is
tends to be more burdensome some which
is typically why we have an 8 foot fence
in between the two uh for that very
reason so if you choose to act the that
we do have a few things that we would
like uh number one that it Returns the
ARB for that design approval and we can
you know read through that more
specifically at that time um also that
it would be referred to the tree and
public garden commission to review the
Landscaping um and then as I mentioned
earlier that the street Frontage is in
conformance with the selected design for
the street avenue or the Livingston
Avenue street skate project and then
some other boilerplate language so with
that I'll stop uh turn it over to you
and be here to answer any
questions can we go back to my question
yeah now I now now I'm we're all done
I'm all done so
okay
so oh I'll answer his question and
then
um so I believe the question was whether
was owned by a nonprofit um the the
community will will be financed with
lowincome housing tax credits uh which
is an IRS mechanism to create affordable
housing um it's basically how all
affordable housing is created today and
in the United States um under that
program the literal owner entity is
organized as a for-profit organization
um it's managed operated um and the
long-term economic interest in that
for-profit entity is by the organization
I represent the Community Builders and
we are a nonprofit
organization um so I hope that yeah so
will will property taxes Etc be paid or
because you're nonprofit they won't be
paid um so the uh the property benefits
from as would any other property being
developed at that location or any other
location by for-profit nonprofit
anything else um this city has made uh
commitment to provide tax abatement real
property tax abatement um to residential
uh communities like this one so because
of the city's
um legislation previously passed it
doesn't regardless of ownership pay
property taxes if the city had not
passed that legislation we would pay
property taxes so when that because
there's a time frame on the abatement so
when the abatement expires they will we
begin paying property tax pay property
tax
okay for before we have them present
there any other does anyone else on the
board have any questions of Staff or any
other
discussion okay um with that we're going
to limit the presentation to 10 minutes
and then if there's questions from the
board that'll be additional time
later go go ahead I'm Gonna Keep it very
brief I do not need the slideshow no I'm
Sarah gold I'm the vice chair of the cic
the Bexley cic
as you know um we are the economic
development agent for the city of Bexley
it's comprised of public officials and
private residents like myself so we've
been involved with TCB helping to
support this project from the very
Inception I joined the TC uh the cic in
2019 and have been working with them um
ever since um we are supportive of this
project we are here to help spur um you
know Bexley strategic initiatives of
which this plan plan meets um for
affordable housing um and today we are
currently the land owner of the 420
North Cassidy site um so part of the
team here and I will pass it off to
George who is with
TC well good evening um uh we were
invited in it was uh by staff and we
agreed it would be a good idea just
given the long history of the project um
to sort of uh bring everybody up to
speed and we did have a little
PowerPoint that um oh thank you um Miss
Boger um that we'll we'll we'll run
through the good news is um uh Jason has
already covered a lot of things that I
was gonna discuss so there's a but there
are a few things that I'd like to fill
in um just briefly I'll I'll I'll
introduce ourselves um and who we are um
tell you a little bit about the the
timeline that brought us here because I
know not everybody was on the board um
for the first go round um I want to tell
you about the commun public engagement
process we did because we did a lot of
groundwork through the fall um that
brought us here today and which
influenced the designs we we're we're
presenting to you and the ARB um and I
want to talk a little bit about what a
housing tax credit is I think it's
relevant to some of the questions um and
then tell you how all of that led to our
project um design so um the Community
Builders we've been around for over 60
years um we are one of the the largest
nonprofit affordable housing developers
in the country um in our career we've
developed over
33,000 apartments for um for families
across the Midwest and East Coast um we
U specialize and we're uh um providing
uh working with communities who uh seek
us out because of our expertise working
with a variety of affordable housing
programs and our track record of helping
communities meet their own development
goals um I myself am a Bexley resident
I'm I'm a newcomer I only got here in
2001 um but I live around the corner
from the project um you know I I I I I
think I've seen the playgr the the the
uh play equipment that uh was the first
subject of the evening as I as I walk my
dog through the neighborhood so I'm I'm
really invested in this project um uh
not just from a professional but also
from a personal point of view um if we
can go to the next slide um I think
everybody knows we're talking about both
um the 2300 Livingston Avenue which
would be 27 apartments and 420 North
Cassidy which would be 16 Apartments um
that we'll get to after after Livingston
Avenue it's part of a tax credit award
that was um uh applied for competitively
by uh our organization um in partnership
with the cic and and and um through a
long process that we we worked through
with the city um uh if we can advance to
the next slide um we really began
working in in 2018 Jason already alluded
to the um Fern Ferndale
Mayfield uh plan and um that led to an
RFI that the city released looking for
organizations such as ours uh to help
them think through how do we promote
affordable housing in Bexley we
responded and um while that effort did
lead to anything at Ferndale Mayfield um
by 2020 some other property um had been
identified as development opportunities
specifically the the Cassidy site which
the cic purchased um and the uh the the
the then vacant and still vacant Funeral
Home on Livingston Avenue which which
needed a new use and um with
encouragement and partnership from cic
and city um we prepared um and were
successful and all securing an
allocation of low-income housing tax
credits it's important to understand
that that housing um uh tax credit award
is for both sites together and they both
have to advance together in order for
the award the award and the financing
for the project to stay intact
um uh through 2021 we we worked
carefully we we secured um the zoning
variances for both sites and design
approval for the cast City site
um there were a uh coming out of that
process some concerns about safety on
Livingston Avenue I think everybody
knows that history um the project came
to a stop at that point
um uh and then um in the in the time
since then um in 2023 the city um while
all that was going on did um update its
strategic plan I don't I don't think
that Jason caught this one there was a
strategic Plan update that identified as
a goal the finding a permanent home for
the Bexley Senior Center um and I think
it's important to note since the project
uh that is part of the project and then
reaffirmed um a the long and lengthy
record of um commitments to to
affordable housing um uh and then in
2024 the zoning code was revised um that
happened in May um and with that um I I
think it result some of the issues that
um had had left the project at a
standstill and we were in a position to
um to start work again um and if we can
go to the next slide really though with
the passage of time and um with new
plans in place and and so many things
and and with frankly with a senior
center that had popped up and really
taken route it was just a it was an idea
of something that might happen in 2021
and then and those three or four short
years it became really um a beloved
institution within the community so it
really didn't make sense at that point
to just pick up the old plans and try to
press forward we really felt that it was
important to engage the community and
just start all over again and so this is
a list of uh I mean in addition to these
meetings there were numerous coffees
there were informal meetings with staff
um anybody who wanted a chance to talk
with us and give their feedback had the
opportunity
um and um I I won't uh go through every
one of those but um if we can go to the
next slide um oh nope too soon
um I I think what I what I want to
emphasize coming out of that is it gave
us some really fantastic feedback about
what we needed to change um and I think
there's um what we'll get to later on in
the presentation is um for each project
I'll kind of give you the uh what the
pro new programming guidance we we we
got through that process and other
things that have occurred in the
community um and how that influence
changes in the plans because they are
very different than where we started
based on the feedback we got so um
before I get into that um the last thing
I wanted to cover is just the housing
tax credit program now I'm ready
um uh perfect oh you can if you hit
enter it'll it'll pop there we go so uh
first just the history and the context
of how affordable housing works um the
low-income housing tax credit was
established in 1986 it is the vehicle
for the main vehicle for creating
affordable housing in the United States
now it's a capital subsidy that
organizations like mine can receive an
exchange for building apartment
communities and housing that provides
long-term commitments to affordability
and so specifically here for this
project that means we can offer a a
one-bedroom apartment at a rent as low
as $250 to $300 a month um and then up
from there uh for for a family of four
um we wouldn't house anybody earning
more than 80 about $80,000 a year and
then it's really sort of it runs the
gamut in between so that we have a mix
of incomes from the very lowest up until
something that's you know uh upper uh uh
lower middle
income um
the other thing I really wanted to talk
about so it yeah it's it's 3.7 million
units of housing have been developed
with this um and in program over the
past 40 years a
100,000 um uh housing units here just in
Ohio so it's really it's been around a
long time it's very successful broad
bipar by bipartisan support in Ohio um
the the program is administered
states are the ones who allocate this
resource to projects so Ohio Housing
Finance agency was created in
1983 it's called OFA uh they are the
state's expert um in affordable housing
policy they've been doing it for you
know uh quite a long time now um they're
responsible and have been since the
Inception of the program to determine
design criteria for livability safety
sustainability and other threshold
quality factors to make sure all of the
housing that is developed with the
program is done so um W with with with
best practices um they'll work with um
uh the Ohio State University keran
Institute state and local government
tenant tenant advocacy stakeholders and
others every year to make sure their
their guidelines for selecting and
approving projects are um reflect best
practices um the last thing I want to
say on it is um it's a very competitive
process um the year that the uh beex
apartment projects won a an award of
funding only one in four uh proposals
was funded um the average cost I would
say the minimum cost I would say for
putting those proposals together was
$50,000 people don't do this for
practice um it's a very uh it's an
intensive process it requires um uh you
folks only do it with high quality sites
uh and and locations that they feel
would make excellent
housing
um all right we're done with
that so uh what I'll do now um this is
the last piece I do before I hand it
over to our attorney just to for any uh
words he has um just talk a little a
little bit about some of the what were
the parameters that drove the
programming and design um if we can
advance um we've talked about oh yep
we've talked about the the the Strategic
plan um uh oh you know what Karen this
one um we yeah can we if you skip ahead
a bunch of slides we'll get to
Livingston there we go all right support
incor affordable housing I think we
Jason covered that really well if we
keep going um The Joint Livingston
Avenue plan I just like this has already
been covered a lot but I just these um
pictures really spoke a lot to us as we
worked with our architect this comes
straight from the the the plan um I
think you see on the left sort of a
vision that Jason described in words
incredibly well of of a very activated
Urban environment and on the right is
the uh the adjacent residential
environment and um
our project finds itself right exactly
at the transition between the two um so
as we think about um the the the first
floor residential you use part of what's
on our mind in addition to all the the
criteria Jason listed is simply the fact
the idea that having that first floor
residential use at that that fulcrum
that that um leverage point between the
two um districts is a really good idea
it helps um make a nice buffer
um it's also the first project in this
new commercial Zone and quite honestly
um we don't think um uh trying to put a
commercial in use in there that would
struggle for a long time to come while
we're waiting for everything else to
come along much of which would be on the
opp on the far side of of College Avenue
really makes sense at as point so uh
that kind of guided a lot of our
thinking in this if we can advance um I
think we've covered
this
um I think Jason
covered Jason covered that um this is
some I just want to touch then on so uh
we looked at all the plans um and then
we spoke to folks you know we also
wanted to hear on the ground um we had
we did a targeted um meeting with just
folks within a six block ra uh six
surrounding blocks and then numerous
other uh uh meetings that that we held
for the public um some clear themes came
um safety of residents and children
recreational opportunities on site um
line of sight consideration for drivers
and a design that complements Francis uh
and feels residential so this is the old
um site plan that was previously
approved you'll see if you look at the
intersection of Francis and Livingston
at h the corner pretty pretty close um
and then if we move to the new site plan
um what you'll see is we've really tried
to push the building back as far as we
possibly can um we moved from an
elevator building with a central
Corridor to a not to a walkup building
with no Central Corridor so that we
could compress um the the depth of the
building and pick up some um some
distance distance the building further
from the street Street and then we did a
couple of other things too all in the
with that goal of of getting as far back
from the street as we can uh we
appreciated the the the Insight that you
can't everything you can do to make the
building safe you you ought to do we
believe it's a great location and
appropriate location but if we can
enhance safety even more than it was
already there why not um so we were
grateful for that feedback um the
building went from about a uniform 17t
setback
to um uh from the curb to about 25 ft
where the building is closest to the
curb to almost 30 feet where the
building is farthest from the curb so we
really did uh get it a lot further away
um it doesn't show here but there'll be
some landscape boulders and other um
features on the corner to prevent um any
Wayward traffic from um disrupting the
the on-site activity um the if we can
advance
um you also see this um uh this is taken
straight from the um the Livingston
Avenue plan this is our building with um
the tree lawn that um Jason was
describing the very wide sidewalk path
that um so those tree Wells we think
provide a pretty subst substantive
barrier that wasn't there before the and
and then the additional distance and the
plantings and front of the building
really I think all of those things
together do a lot to um even further
enhance the protection to the the the
existing use if we can advance the um
this is our um you know the feedback
about really creating a um a residential
context that complements um uh uh
Francis um this is the our first
iteration of that I think we got really
um good feedback two weeks ago from ARB
and so this is not the final version but
I think um if nothing else we hope this
illustrates our commitment to that that
that principle of um uh the the
residential design on Francis if we can
advance in
advance
um I think I covered all the stuff I
wanted to um
David chairman Marsh we we may have
snuck a a few minutes over our 10 there
I I think given the size of the project
I think that's okay okay great um Again
David Hodge attorney for the applicant
and I I am going to be reasonably brief
uh I think Mr sui did a great job of of
of an overview of the project and really
addressing specifically uh how the
project fulfills the conditional use
criteria uh Mr Rosenthal I think you
also earlier in the discussion really
honed in on the issue that this isn't
not this isn't about the second floor
this isn't about the third floor this is
about the residen or units on the first
floor and this is about a simple fence
height issue uh as an accommodation for
Clear Vision and sight visibility on an
adjacent driveway so uh I might just
work through the individual criteria
here quickly uh but as I do uh it is our
position uh it's your staff's position
you know I think it's there for your
city administration's position and the
elected officials of this community have
long demonstrated their support for uh
this project as well as the one on
cassid
and it's our position again Theon night
that that we do meet all of the criteria
a through h under section
12543 of the Bexley code so let me just
hit those and then I'm going to stop and
of course we'll stay on hand as long as
necessary to answer any questions that
anybody has so a uh the use so these
first floor units are they consistent
with goals and policies of any adopted
plan I love that word any any adopted
plan uh you heard staff site a 2013 plan
a 2017 plan a 2020 plan a 2022 plan and
our earlier slide showed a 2024 plan so
not just any plan lots and lots of plans
so we meet
a b the use will not have a negative
impact on the neighboring land uses and
the larger Community because of the
differences between the proposed use and
the existing uses in the community so as
you look at where this property is we've
got uh an auto uh repair facility
adjacent we've got residential adjacent
uh on two sides and we've got an office
building adjacent on the other side but
we also have to remember the context of
the underlying zoning of the property
which allows a lot of stuff taverns and
Retail and you have to you you you can't
read that in a vacuum you have to read
that section in the context of what can
otherwise go there by right as a p
permitted use in the table so
Mr sui said this earlier he's absolutely
right introducing a purely residential
use here is uh certainly more in uh Con
in the context of the neighborhood and
more appropriate arguably than a Tavern
and some of the other uses that can go
here by right the use section c the use
will not be hazardous to or have a
negative impact on existing or F future
surrounding uses um this is not going to
be a hazardous use at all this is this
is a residential use adjacent uh to
residential uses and not going to have
any negative impact in the context of
some first floor residential
uses uh the property uh and the proposed
modifications meet or satisfy the Zone
essentially the zoning requirements uh
in this case they do we have one
variance that we've requested to not
strictly meet the zoning uh code on and
that has to do with the fence height on
the Northern property line uh in in
georg's great work with the community
and the adjacent property
owner uh so we meet
d uh e the use does not create an undue
burden on existing public facilities and
services such as Street utilities
schools or refu disposal this these
first floor residential uh uses are not
going to have one iota of a negative
impact on U existing or future public
facilities actually it's going to have a
positive impact impact on future public
facilities because it's going to work to
make all the necessary accommodations on
this shared use path and this this
future pedestrian
Corridor uh so we meet a f the use is
consistent with and or furthers the
city's economic goals and will not
decrease property values or have a
negative economic impact Mr Turner asked
a great question earlier uh the question
was generally is this a tax exempt use
Georgia's answer was the city
Bexley in the you know city of Columbus
city of Lancaster a lot of other places
created a city-wide
CRA um uh I don't know that the city of
Bexley did a Citywide but they created
it here and the purpose is to is to
frankly facilitate these types of uses
to to facilitate housing in general you
know with with with Intel and with with
the recent andil announcement and just
the existing housing market in our
community is abysmal and it's a wreck
and we are grossly under housed and so
lots of municipalities have wisely
adopted um Economic Development
incentive tools to spur on residential
growth in the community and it and it
works so that was a lot but we are not
going to have a negative impact uh at
all in fact uh having a vacant unused uh
building there is
arguably what's the negative to the
neighborhood somebody coming in
investing creating a building of this
High Caliber uh in consultation with the
rigorous processes of the city of Bexley
is going to uh probably increase uh
adjacent property
values so we meet f g the uses in
character and in keeping and compatible
with the adjacent structures and uses or
uses permitted or conditionally
permitted in the zoning
classification uh earlier talked about a
lot of the other things that are that
are by right here uh and this is
Introduction of some first floor
residential in an area that is
residential on two sides uh Auto on one
and office on the other so certainly uh
some first Flor residential uses here
are in character and keeping uh with the
context of the of the neighborhood so we
meet g h any proposed construction will
not result in the destruction loss or
damage of a natural Scenic or historic
feature of major
importance the old funeral home uh
building is not a historical uh facility
and so we meet H I'll stop there and
appreciate the the the time uh
appreciate the opportunity to be here
and uh certainly stay on hand to answer
any questions that the board has or uh
neighbors have thank you all thank
you do the board have any comments or
questions before we proceed
I my only question
is from I think it's a community
Builder's question I just want to
understand
economically your toolbox allows you to
put whatever you want on this first
floor if you felt like the project is
better and more viable and makes more
sense by whatever metrics Financial
primarily I mean that's why people
develop things you could put whatever
you wanted down there in terms of you're
not limited to only to residential if
you if you felt the project was better
with shoe stor in a Tavern down there
you could you're you would be able to do
that you're not you wouldn't be able to
do that and proceed with affordable
housing um to be able to proceed with
affordable housing um we we we do feel
it's important to be able to keep the
first floor use as as residential um it
would uh to do otherwise would would
push the project in other directions
that that would would make it un
unviable but it's not but it's not a
it's not a limit no I mean own the
property currently I mean certainly
available to us would be other ways of
developing the property you know uh for
a more Art Market purely Market oriented
use where where we could do first floor
Cavern you know whatever um with with
with um uh market rate apartments above
and um in that scenario we'd probably
push um or I I think available to us
also would be a higher um uh increased
height um four or five stories but um we
prefer to stick with you know obviously
based on our our mission is to provide
provide affordable housing it's what we
do it's what we believe in um that's our
our our core value so you know the
three-story um purely residential is is
what we would like to proceed
with I've got a couple questions um so
do you know what the footprint of of the
entire building is
single floor probably in the um the
zoning um site plan map that we
submitted and I'm sorry I I can't that's
okay um and then when you talked about
the buildings I just was just curious do
you do you continue to own them or do
you own them do you flip them to sell
them once no no um I I think um uh we do
this because it's it's our mission I
mean we we were as I said we came
together in the 1960s in um in Boston um
and then slowly expanded into other
markets but we buy these to own and
operate um you know in perpetuity um
that's our mission that's what we're for
we don't we don't have another mission
beyond that okay and then um when the
project was presented before it was
affordable housing as opposed to
low-income housing but now you're
stating they're G it's going to be both
just my apologies um those terms are
often used
interchangeably um the the the financing
mechanism is um referred to in in um
through the IRS as the lowincome housing
tax credit okay um if it's broadly
within the category of affordable
housing there are other that's the
primary and most important mechanism for
developing affordable housing the
low-income housing tax credit there are
some other tools out there and they all
together fall in that bucket of afford
housing so so as you people will be low
income through the less than 80,000 30%
yeah so the maximum for a family of four
there's it's a complicated set of rules
um we could spend the next I happy to
spend as much time as you no no I've got
the but that's okay but if a family of
four would be you know the the maximum
income would be in the low 80,000 it's a
it's a function of what local area
incomes are um and and that 80,000
number is a percentage of median so so
what would a single person's so for a
single person we could go as low uh as
30% of area median income that might be
um you're testing my knowledge now it's
in the
20,000 uh 20,000 a year range and as I
said rent at that for that Resident
would be in the $300 a month range it's
it's a it's quite powerful as a as a
that's okay just when it was presented
before it was presented as you know
School teachers police officers some of
those people but it doesn't sound like
those people are going to meet the
econom a school teacher and Bexley makes
a starting salary for a school teacher
in Bexley is $50,000 a year so I I think
it's absolutely it's a uh provides
housing for um we see it as a as a
mechanism to make um you know a school
teacher could live there um a a daycare
worker you know it's it's a you know
well if a single school teacher if she's
single she's going to be making 50,000
you just
said when I said 20 in the 20,000 that
would be the lowest so there's um we
have a a tier of apartments that would
be for um families earning say 30% of
area median income families are singles
okay and that would be um where that
$220,000 come then a tier at 40% a tier
at 50% and so on so you get a little bit
of everything in between if we did too
much of one um I think people would
dissatisfied with the outcome we want a
balanced Community
okay work is in is in this world and my
work is sort of across the Spectrum all
all types of Moran family a lot of a lot
of other folks refer to this type of
housing as mixed inome okay and that's
what it is it's it's it's a mix okay and
then this is a quick question for Jason
then I got one more after that um when
it comes to parking there's also two
offices here so two office spaces so
shouldn't there be additional parking
beside the 27 I mean those are offices
incidental to the use of the of the
actual residential use so in our code
it's all residential it's not like
they're not offices that are people
aren't going into those offices as a
typical office would be that's just not
the way our code works now if you wanted
that to if you I don't know just that's
how we' interpret it that that type of
that type the the uh supportive part
parking uh is is is at a level that was
contemplated in the minimum parking
required under the zoning code it's it's
a another example of this would be an
apartment complex in the suburb
someplace that's a 240 unit apartment
complex and that 240 unit apartment
complex has a
clubhouse with a uh that's staffed that
has a leasing office you know a small
gym a pool you don't base your parking
on the clubhouse size square footage
office at all you base the parking on
the the number of units in the building
this is how it's yeah but okay I just in
in this particular case the big
discussion last time was a lot of any
kind of overflow parking is going to
head to the streets and right now you've
got exactly the number of parking for
exactly the number of Apartments that's
also assuming that two bedroom and three
bedroom apartments are only going to
have one vehicle and
then you will have additional staff
there at the office office leasing or
doing whatever so that so there will I
mean I know in general everybody's not
there at the exact same time but I'm
just I just want
to that's the fear of making this
residential on the first floor to me is
the fact that it's the possibility of
more cars and again we're going to get
back into the street issue I think
you're actually I think you're actually
arguing against that uh in my opinion
almost any actual commercial use is
going to generate more cars at Peak time
almost any like I can't think of a a
commercial use in place of a residential
that would have fewer cars at the peak
time it was open now in the middle of
the night if it's not open and if it's a
Chipotle is it gonna you know holy moly
I mean it's like and that's all out here
like a restaurant is a permitted byright
use so if a Chipotle wanted to go into a
first floor of a building that was built
here we have no zoning power to prevent
that and that would generate a lot more
cars than any residential on the first
from I'm just saying from a planning our
planning evaluation having experienced
you know hundreds of thousands of
applications a residential use is going
to generate less than almost any
commercial use so if you're arguing that
parking is a problem we should be
encouraging less commercial use now I'm
not saying that's what we want to do in
the whole Corridor our code this is what
our code says for parking and so we're
not here to discuss I mean you can
discuss parking but you can't judge
their request for conditional use based
on parking because they meet the parking
so that's like it's not even on the
table for us to talk about that's my
question do they meet the parking
because if there's an office in there
that's it's it's it's an incidental
office use to the residential building
it's not an office use that you lease to
a separate office and the answer to the
question is yes and if we didn't meet
the parking we would be in here
discussing a variance to the minimum
parking so we meet the parking if I
could just add that we did do a um we
had a team member go out survey Cassidy
apartments on North Cassidy Bexley house
on broad across from Panera um the
apartments that are um adjacent to the
new um what's the new park guys um in
South beex lay I'm forgetting the name
of Pardon Schneider Park the apartment's
adjacent to Schneider Park they went in
the morning and midday and in the
evening and they went on the weekend the
peak um usage of the parking was 75
parking spaces per unit um and the
average Bridge was 0.5 parking spaces
occupied per unit our own experience
with communities like this is 05 parking
spaces per unit is adequate so we really
feel like we're actually overp parked um
but we wanted to meet the code um and
and and thought that was appropriate
okay and then the last question I have
is
um can you explain to me why the two
projects are tied together because I
don't think you I don't think you
mentioned
that um let's see I I'll try to keep
this brief um the the the it's a um
again this resource that is allocated to
uh owners and operators of affordable
housing in exchange for affordable
affordability commitments um it's it's
done through an application process and
we made when we made our application we
made it for the two sites together um so
in order to keep the that award intact
um we need to be able to proceed with
both locations but it goes without
saying that the Zoning for each piece
need needs to stand alone and come
through this process and
being yeah I just don't just when you
when they were here previously they said
if one of them didn't come it doesn't
happen you're not going to do the other
one even if the second one passed so
that's what I was asking just for clar
clarification on that thank
you
question um so I listened to the ARB
minute
and someone on behalf of the builders
was speaking there and they said
something that kind of caught my
attention about this property and I'm
just curious it said it's not the per
the perfect or best use of the land and
essentially they said but but it's good
because it's the first building in the
Livingston project and that I thought
was a little hard to hear so I I'm
curious as to why you know it is the
first building and I'm I'm just
wondering
why that you know why we wouldn't put
the same effort into that because I
think the the Cassidy building is
beautiful and I'm just curious as to why
we're not you know this is the entry
into Bexley right this is people's homes
and I think it should reflect that same
Integrity as like a main street or you
know something we would do over here
that you know we want to keep that high
standard and why would we would do that
on Cassie for this next one we're going
to consider but not keep that in mind
for this that's what I'm concerned and
we had our um we had a um some
Consultants with us and it it may be
that may have been a a a statement by
the consultant um what I and what I
recall is we were having a a a really
good conversation center around this
idea of should the first floor be be
residential or or commercial and just
the goals of the Livingston Avenue plan
I think the what the um speaker was
probably trying to get at is right now
um residential is the best use today um
because it's the most likely thing to
succeed you know we we need to start new
development on Livingston Avenue we've
got a great plan in mind um and we've
got this concept for an activated U
mixed juuse District
um we don't have all the options
available to us right now we could it's
hard to make that um uh Tavern or other
use work there today uh in isolation
from a more complete district and so if
he said there was not everything was I
think what they were trying to get at
was the idea that not all of those
Solutions are available to us today
because we're the first it's the first
one and really our options are a little
more limited because the market um isn't
there yet for for some ideas that that
might be able a little more um feasible
in the
future
um that that was you know kind of
troubling because I don't want to you
know like when we build something I want
to make sure it's going to be here for
generations to use and we're not going
to look back and be like oh if we should
have done that and so I mean that's
that's a consideration I think in
whether we make this a you know uh make
a ruling on this because if we say
actually it would be better to have it
commercial in you know five years when
this path is out then we're stuck I I'd
say I think an additional um response to
that um Mrs Doran is
um you you heard uh the city's
architectural consultant Miss Boker
earlier and staff also talk about the
fact that this is presently in the ARB
process that uh ARB acknowledged that
it's not not right yet that there is
some additional uh work to be done in
terms of what uh the end athetic is and
and certainly TCB is committed to to to
doing that necessary work in fact they
have to do that necessary work and and
and get the uh certificate of
appropriateness from the Architectural
Review Board right and so the Aesthetics
um certainly are are an important
component of this um and that component
is going to take its appropriate course
with with the ARB in terms of the
ask uh specifically on the zoning
element we're talking about the first
just want to remind everybody we're
talking about the first floor
residential uses and a uh fence that
that varies in height um as uh some you
know we TCB would build it to meet the
code and not have to be in here talking
about a variance but they want to work
with the adjacent property owner build
that fence at a more appropriate height
so the Aesthetics are important I agree
with you and and the City uh has a
stringent process in place to make sure
that that element's right I just want to
add one more thing the criteria that are
up on the board right now our code is
like any city code is designed both to
make sure that we are able to review
things in a way that assures that we
feel they've met the criteria that are
important to us and that the applicants
have a way to understand what they
believe they need to accomplish in order
to fit within that criteria so the only
thing that you're judging this request
on is whether or not you think they meet
these
criteria and if you do believe that and
again not that the whole building should
be there not that the second or third
floor should be there not that the size
of it because that's already Allowed by
zoning the only thing about this
particular request is whether you think
the
change not even the change the allowing
of a conditional use for first for
residential meets these criteria and and
I just want to keep because that's the
Box we're in and I think a lot of these
other issues just they don't really rain
it's just not part of the
review is there any other discussion
from the
board should we cover the fence before
public comment
or after the fence yeah I me it seems
pretty cut and dry yeah let's just pull
it up and look at it and this is a two
second thing I think
yeah keep
yes that perfect you all you know I've
watched you tonight you're very well
aware of the um the variance criteria
it's the it's the the uh Duncan factors
the standards not hardship the standards
practical difficulty um the code the
code says and George if I get this wrong
you correct me the the code says that
you need to have an8 foot fence all
along the northern edge of the property
there's a driveway that you can see uh
on this side which is due north of the
fence and so we have purposefully
stepped the fence down from 8 to six uh
from 6 to 4 as it comes out there to the
street to Francis so that there are no
visibility issues uh there for that
neighbor uh coming in and out of the
driveway that's the
variance if I can the the the request is
really the the product of a of a an
ongoing um
uh relationship that we formed with the
immediate neighbor um and is one of a
number of um design things we we've done
to uh address concerns of of of the
neighbor um um other things include some
of the benches you see along the backs
side of the building how we located some
of the two and three bedroom units um
the inclusion of the um um the uh uh
play area to the rear of the building um
those could proceed without variance but
this this this request did require a
variance
so that of one more question I promise
it's my last so one of the conditional
use use criteria is involving safety
have there been safety studies done on F
like ground level
Apartments um versus first floor level
Apartments like obviously access and
criminal activity are you know work hand
in hand so I'm just curious if there's
been studies for the ground level versus
the first floor level
Apartments just in general for Crime yes
um you know I guess I would um that's
not my area of expertise I I think I'd
really refer back though I think early
in my the beginning of my presentation I
you know discussed the role of the how
Housing Finance Agency you know they
were um pulled together in the early
1980s to be the state's expert on
affordable housing they're the ones who
are responsible for determining design
criteria for determining how sites are
and locations are selected and approved
and I think implicit in all of that is
um uh an understanding that you know uh
this is this meets current best
practices and
exceeds okay I was just
curious I'm not sure I just want to
mention I'm not quite sure where the
safety criteria is obviously we want
things to be safe it's before a if you
read
12262 under oh just s of the general
header gotcha the conditionally
permitted uses are not appropriate
unless an applicant proves that use
their uses will not be detrimental to
the public health safety or general
welfare of the city or the neighborhood
in which it is proposed I I I would say
I guess a couple things you heard um Mr
sui and his staff remarks talk about the
various
neighborhoods um in which there are
existing first expor residential multif
family developments in the community I
think he cited Italian Village I think
he cited Short North um there are these
certainly exist over in Oldtown on long
I I worked on a project called the
Yardley on Parson Avenue which is Parson
just south abroad that's got some first
floor handicap accessible units
interestingly the retail has never
rented and that's been there a
decade um and so it is very common in in
urban neighborhoods to uh incorporate
some some first floor uh uses and you
know it's going be locked doors and and
and and all various things that that
that go towards the safety and the
appropriate management of the
property before we before we open up for
go ahead if I may there was a question
earlier from Mr Turner about lot
building coverage I think building
footprint didn't you did that that
didn't get answered did it because I was
looking up okay uh overall roughly the
site is three
31586 Square ft the building takes up
roughly uh a little more than a third of
that at
12,000 um and roughly 50 square ft uh
The Hardscape which would include the
parking lot in sidewalks is
13,700 square feet so roughly about 5500
square feet of uh Green Space or what we
call impervious surface
between got it
yep sorry no no that's fine so before
before we open it up for a comment is
there any other board
discussion so um we're going to open it
up for people that have standing and
what I'd like to do is because we have a
lot of people here I'd like to swear in
everybody at once so if you if you think
you want to speak tonight it would be
good to be sworn in if you change your
mind we'll swear you in later but we'd
like to swear everybody in at once so um
and then just a reminder so on this the
this board tonight is hearing two things
we're hearing the conditional use about
residential on the first floor and
there's a fence variance th those are
the two things that this board is going
to consider tonight and vote on so I
would just ask that when you come up you
consider those two those two items so
with that if anyone wants to speak
tonight if you could stand up now we'll
swear everybody in at once and then when
you come up you'll just give your name
and address and and we'll go from there
so uh
so so that's a that's a legal question
if you if you got a notice or if you
feel that that you are being impacted by
this uh more than just the general
public then you would you would have
standing and and I think
typically uh I think typically we would
if you think you have standing then you
should come up and speak and then if we
determine you don't have standing we
would let we would let you know is that
okay okay when the 0424 ordinance was up
for consideration and everything a lot
of us on ucair Francis Pleasant Ridge we
received letters from the City about it
we are allowed to speak however from
what I understand there's only a couple
people here that have actually receive
letters so if we were included in the
process for the ordinance why weren't we
send letters on this yeah I'll defer to
Miss Cunningham um because you were
following two different processes so the
resoning process is a legislative
process and an ordinance on zoning
resoning to but it pertains to this
so to the F that on the rezoning is a
matter of general public concern any
ordinance on zoning is a matter of
general public concern when there's a
discussion of amending the zoning code
of the city which is what that was well
this is also a matter of public concern
too for a lot of people well I
understand that but in terms of the the
way that the law looks at that and the
law looks at standing is this is this is
actually an administrative process not a
legislative process you're before
administrative board and the people who
are directly and adversely impacted by
the proposed you conditional use and
variance are the people with standing so
if you so what what are the parameters
for that typically it's when they say
people with notice your notice is Matt
200 feet yeah the board regulations are
200 feet so typically so basically you
just talking about people live on
Francis maybe right there at Pleasant
wrench that live adjacent or close to it
standing can be it it's you know it's
not as objective as that if you have a
direct and aous impact that you can
articulate about how it impacts you
other than a general public concern you
may have standing in the case I think
when you come up say where you live and
you know who you are where you live if
you have an impact other than being a
resident of Bexley and generally
concerned about Bexley State what that
is um if that's your concerned then
State what that is and the the chair
sounds
like he'll either make a determination
or the board the board has the right to
participate and whether or not they
think you have standing or allow the
testimony and then weigh whether you
have if you don't have standing we your
testimony accordingly so that's
typically the way the board does it but
that's that's the way standing is you
were you were in two different processes
that's why all right lot of gr area yeah
yeah so so uh yeah so the process we'll
go through is we let let's do this let's
anyone that wants to speak we'll swear
you in then we'll have you come up give
your address ex give your comment about
if you why you believe you have standing
and then we'll make and then it's it's
really the process is this board if
there's a disc discussion this board can
vote and decide whether we believe you
have standing or not have standing that
that that'll be the process for tonight
so is that correct Miss Cunningham okay
so any anyone that thinks say anyone
that wants to speak t on this on this
item please stand up and we'll swear
everybody in and then one at a time you
can come up and we'll determine standing
and go go from there and then we we are
going to limit everyone to three minutes
uh Mr um shik will have the timer
going do you all swear firm the
testimony you give this evening will be
the
truth thank you thank you and then we'll
go ahead we'll just let's just start
over on the left side of the room here
and work around
yeah
yeah and if you could just state your
name and address
yes and and about how far away are you
from city
blockes does does anyone on the board
have a concern about him presenting go
ahead You' got got you got you've got
three minutes three minutes yeah Mr
christop can you can you push the
green sorry for the record okay there we
go okay thank
you uh Mr study has given us a real
limit so I guess I'm going to have to
limit my Concepts into the safety issue
of first floor residents as opposed to
not residents on the first floor the the
impact of the parking is is going to be
something that is a continuing concern
the safety issue is that there some 45
children in this apartment building and
there's no place for them to be except
in the apartment building the safety for
the parking
issue the Overflow is going to be there
if you go down to Francis now and you
see parking on both the east and west
side of the street I don't think a
safety vehicle can get through there and
so you we we we just we have to decide
what the possibilities are we can't just
keep assuming everything's Rosy because
as we know life isn't Rosy we've tried
to slow the traffic down on Livingston
Avenue with this condition that they put
on it now it has not worked that's still
a racetrack and I dare you to walk up
and down France Livingston Avenue and
feel safe you can't do it and it's
always it's especially bad from College
Avenue because people are trying to beat
the merger going east they they're
racing to see who can get to the single
Lane first and then going west they're
racing to see which land they can be
first in at the traffic light when how
however many of them can run the stop
light before it turns red half a minute
before they get there uh the laws are
not
enforced uh they're ignored it's it's
atrocious accidents from Alum Creek to
to James Road are Legend uh it's just
it's just impossible but I'm concerned
we have the same issue at the North End
of M of Francis where it it comes into
Mound we have no parking signs but when
Capital has an event people ignore them
and people you cannot get through to
mount street with a vehicle that's any
size when they have home events and
parking is there a bus couldn't get
through there we know emergency vehicles
could not get there so we have a concern
a terrific masterful concern about our
safety as well as the safety of the
residents and bottom line it's a good
idea and I think if we do it it has to
be done in Bexley style I don't want
something on the threshold of my block
that says oh GE who is isn't actually
really sweet they put this building up
to have affordable housing but they
didn't build it so it looks like it
belongs so those people aren't really
welcomed into the village as long as
they stay night on there it's okay but
that's not a part of the it's not a part
of the of our our neighborhood nothing
I've seen yet in architectural drawings
says that they care that what they build
there really looks like time's up a
residential neighborhood thank you thank
you uh
next have to press something
just oh okay I'm Jenny schmidtz I live
at 9:30 Francis I've lived there 50
years my concern is to approve all this
without knowing what they're really
going to do on Livingston Avenue um you
know how they're widening that right now
if you come east on um Livingston Avenue
you cannot turn onto Francis Avenue
because there's no turn lane on onto
Francis or onto eclair because it goes
down to one lane there and there's no
center lane so until we know if they're
going to widen that do all of that I
don't know how you can proceed with this
until we know for sure what the exact
plans are for Livingston Avenue um it's
still no matter what you build there
when they walk out the front door
they're in Columbus they're not in
Bexley the sidewalks are going to be
Columbus the that whole area I don't
know I mean to compare this to Main
Street to me is ridiculous if you're
where are you going to walk to to make
this residential we're going to stroll
down Livingston Avenue where are we
going I mean I don't I've never seen
people very few people walk down
Livingston Avenue it's not safe it's um
there's nowhere to go if this were mixed
use building there was a coffee shop on
the first floor maybe somebody would
walk down the street and go to the
coffee shop but right now I don't see
any reason for any body in Bexley to be
walking down Livingston Avenue so that's
my opinion I think we need to find out
what they're going to do with the street
before we proceed with this project
thank you thank
you good evening um with all respect
chairman Marsh you excuse me Tim Madison
956 Pleasant Ridge and I think I am in
standing
um you gave difference to the applicant
you said 10 minutes um and they spoke
for almost 45 minutes so I would
appreciate the same type of difference
but I will try to keep it short um I am
here not as a resident of 956 Pleasant
Ridge this development will impact me
almost none except for a little bit of
of traffic I'm here as someone who has
been on Livingston Avenue for almost 60
years and I'm here more importantly to
advocate for the 45 children that are
going to live in this building now you
don't know about the 45 children do you
and I'll tell you why you don't know
about it because Mr sui didn't mention
it the developer didn't mention it it's
like a magic trick here there's 27
Apartments that's it it's just 27
Apartments but what they're not telling
you what the city's not telling you what
the developers not telling you it's 58
bedrooms it's 58 bedrooms intended for
45 children are you guys familiar with
Livingston Avenue do you live near
Livingston Avenue do you understand
Livingston Avenue do you understand the
constant racing of motorcycles and cars
on Livingston Avenue do you understand
that a woman was killed Crossing
Livingston Avenue within the last year
at this very
intersection if you understand
Livingston Avenue if you've ever walked
on Livingston Avenue would any of you
allow your children to live on
Livingston Avenue I'm going to guess the
answer is no you don't want children
it's unbelievable to me for five years
no one is raising the issue of why why
are we putting 45 children on Livingston
Avenue
there's no there's no explanation you
asked a good question is there a safety
study of course there's not a safety
study because there's no safety study
that the developer could produce that
would say that Livingston Avenue is the
proper place for children to live it is
not you're here today to make a decision
to put children on the first floor of
the building 18 feet or less from
Livingston Avenue I finally understood
how little this developer understands
Livingston Avenue when he when they're
putting patios on the first floor we
don't want children to be on Livingston
Avenue the second and third floor may be
set it may be what needs to happen but
you don't want to put children that
close to Livingston there was a monument
sign of that of the old funeral home
that was taken out by a car the same uh
and also the street sign there in the
corner was taken out by a car you have
to understand what what Larry was trying
to say is Livingston Avenue is now
excuse me the corner of Francis
Livingston is now much more dangerous
than it was before because the way that
the city of Columbus changed it cars
race from going Westbound from college
to get to the one lanane they race I'm
sorry I did that backwards they going
eastbound cars race from college to get
from the two lanes to the one lane
coming the opposite way the cars from
one lane now go to two lanes and they
race to get through the intersection of
college in
Livingston um there was a meeting in
this very room and I maybe Mr suudi
wasn't there but who was here was three
Columbus police detectives and they said
very clearly Columbus is never going to
patrol it they don't have the ability to
patrol it they also said and I think Mr
Clinger basically corrected Mr sui this
is not going to start until
2028 that that is at the very be best
case scenario when this funding will
occur um Bexley has no jurisdiction on
your your time is up if you could wrap
up okay I'm going to wrap it up and say
that this putting children on the first
floor of this development is a huge
mistake don't let it happen for the
benefit of those 45 children thank you
thank you
you could give your name and address
please I have to hit anything here no
it's on I'm Sharon nickel I live at 993
eclair and I'm five houses north of
Livingston I'm a registered nurse
retired luckily but I started my career
in Pediatrics so I have a great love of
children I have a great love of safety
and I can't begin to tell you how many
accidents I have gone down to on
Livingston when I hear the Act of the
car is hitting it is such a dangerous
Street I refuse to walk on Livingston I
take my car to Bexley carare I drive
down to pick it up and take it down my
neighbors do the same Livingston's
horrible I guess my question is I'm
really scared about the first floor
being residential that's my big question
why does it have to be residential why
can't it be more for the community and
keep children off of that floor the
second thing I kind of want to reiterate
what Jenny said why can't we wait until
Livingston becomes safe Street and wait
till the Livingston Avenue plan happens
and then
re-evaluate and I've had the house on
the corner of Livingston in new Clair
hit by cars twice since I've lived there
I moved in in 79 car's gone through that
living room twice so I've seen a lot of
bad accidents and I'm just really really
really concerned about the safety aspect
of all these kids this close to
Livingston and on the first floor thank
you thank you
lock
it I waited 50 minutes and like Tim said
my name is Leah
Turner um I live at 993 Francis Avenue I
share my husband and my daughter and I
share 211 ft the entire property line um
we share um will it impact Our Lives
probably a lot but that's not what I
wanted to start uh to talk about I want
to talk about um that I'm I was an
elementary teacher for 36 years I'm very
familiar with children I'm very familiar
when children get together and how they
play they're not looking around what
they're doing they're they want to know
where their buddy is and they're running
they're not
looking and I'm used to myself and my
partner going out on the playground you
know when I'm working and the kids would
be out there and they had plenty of room
safety wasn't really an issue on the
playground we just had to make sure they
W weren't doing anything too crazy just
like you know you would hope your
children do at school that they're safe
there uh I'm sure you all feel that your
children are safe at all of their
schools but what we're saying is we're
going to put children to play in the
parking lot and that was that weren't my
words that was George's words George
tabit's words we've had a lot of nice
discussions about our property line but
when he said that I completely disagreed
I've disagreed with him about safety for
kids and for all residents because that
corner is crazy I saw I didn't see
actually I I heard a car run into the
stop sign at Francis and Livingston and
went through that so this is where the
housing will be I went through that sign
then I went to the sign that Tim
mentioned and took it out and now today
there's still a mark on that curb where
they have that middle
drive
now a couple of rocks aren't going to
save people you're going to need a lot
more um to support and um there's so
many things I have to say but important
thing is about safety and I'm going to
cut short
to um hold on a second to other ideas
for housing I don't think this is good
Urban Design I have had to research on
Untold hours about this kind of stuff
which is very
annoying that I have to know as much as
you do and I know that there's better
design there's a guy I think named keys
from the Wharton School and he was on a
PBS and he was talking and he didn't
suggest that you jam lots of people into
a small space that is never good design
nothing I've seen and in Minneapolis I
grew I was born in Mano Minnesota where
our almost vice president uh lived and
um in Minneapolis they have started a
2040 project and I suggest that it's um
they've gotten rid of inclusionary what
we have now is inclusionary
zoning we're not saying put it down at
North Beckley put it at Commonwealth
Park no we're going to make a park there
Land We own your three minutes is up
good that's the land we own and we chose
not to so we have excl we we we should
not be excluding people but instead to
bring down the cost of housing you have
to build more but to do that you have to
do four plexes or six plexes in infill
spaces ma'am your time your time is up
we're gonna let someone else speak I
heard you I don't think I deserve three
minutes 21 feet and they got 50 minutes
I think that's unacceptable that's the
rule the rules we set up well well they
stink
okay uh is there anyone else that wishes
to
speak you could state your name and
address yeah hi my name is Jake Turner
I'm at 767 Mantra AV um a couple blocks
down the street from this development
um so I just wanted to come out and say
that I fully support um what we're doing
here um I think it's really good that
we're building affordable housing in the
area
um one thing that's been brought up a
lot tonight is the fact that children
are going to be occupying these spaces
and I don't know about the the 45
children number that's been thrown
around a lot um but if your if your
concern is the welfare of these children
the inability to build affordable
housing puts those children in much
worse conditions um
homelessness um lack of of of Housing
and and safety um I think that if if
your main concern is children um you
should be thinking about getting them uh
under a
roof furthermore um just as someone who
lives in the area uh I think it's great
that uh we're building affordable
housing from a perspective of like
social cohesion um when we look at like
strong models of social housing around
the world Vienna is a really strong
example of where we um should draw
examples from the mixed income that's
split between their their social housing
programs uh really Builds on one of the
most successful programs in the world
and I'd really recommend people look
into it if they haven't um and finally
just to make this quick because I've
been here for so
long um I I don't really get the safety
concerns about first floor housing
versus the other ones everything else in
the area is first floor housing because
it's all you know family residential um
I think this is a really good place to
build um first floor residential as it
Bridges the gap between what is going to
become the Livingston plan and the the
rest of the neighborhoods in Bexley um
and so you know as a resident uh I I
would strongly support that the uh board
go forward with
this thank
you is there anyone else there we go
hi Lisa rner I'm at 978 Montrose um so
again just a few blocks from this
development and also um less than a
block off of
Livingston um again I'm very very very
supportive of this development very
supportive of having more affordable
housing in Bexley um I'm a mom I've
raised my almost 16-year-old daughter in
that home just you know a few houses up
from Livingston there are many many
other children on our block and if
people are worried about the safety of
their children or the you know
hypothetical children that are going to
be moving into this development it's not
for us to
decide we need more affordable housing
and if folks with children are concerned
about the safety of their children
that's for them to decide it's not for
us to to make that decision um we need
to put this affordable housing there as
the gentleman before me said you know
the safety the children where you know
for folks who want to move in here who
do have children they get to go to
Bexley schools why do most people you
know choose this community really you
know highly rated schools safe you know
neighborhoods It's a Wonderful community
so it's not for us to decide you know we
think it's too it's too unsafe to have
these kids there that's not our decision
so again very very supportive of this
development and I know I'm um one of
many in Bexley who's very very
supportive of this development so thank
you thank
you hi my name is Ellen Evans I live at
965 Francis Avenue on the corner of
Francis and Pleasant
Ridge what concerns me
is the density you can call it first
floor housing you can call it the number
of children you can call it a lot of
different things but you're putting 27
Apartments you're talking 60 some odd
people on the corner of Livingston and
Francis it that's entirely too dense of
uh a building for that location you're
adding traffic Livingston and fr Francis
getting off of Francis Avenue onto
Livingston half the time you take your
life in your hands trying to get on from
turn from Livingston I've had people
Screech on their brakes behind me
because I have a turn signal on trying
to turn and you're gonna add 25 30 more
cars to what's already
there um if you're talking about you
want to create a a a walkable Community
that's not the place you want to put
people that going to be walking now let
me also say I think that my my problem
is not with affordable housing I think
if you talk to anybody who's spoken here
tonight that has questions about it or
to anybody in Beckley nobody has
questioning that we need affordable
housing and can it be on that site yes I
think it can be on that site I think
it's too large a project for that size
property thank you thank
you uh my name is Molly Turner I also
live at 767 mantes Avenue just a few
blocks north of this proposed
development and I also am someone who
likes to run and I have a dog that I
like to walk and I have both run as a
myself by myself as a woman um on
Livingston Avenue multiple times and I
have never found it to be especially
concerning for my life more so than it
is just to exist as a woman so I would
like to put that forward I just want to
express my support for moving forward
with the development I think it's an
opportunity to provide underserved
members of our community with housing
that as stated previously is much more
valuable to them to have a roof over
their head than it is to have it in the
most optimal and perfect location
possible um I think that there's a lot
of wh ifs and fears about safety being
proposed tonight but I think that
especially in the current political
climate it's more important than ever
that we put aside our fear of change and
our fear of imperfect situations aside
and really Embrace compassion there are
children um I don't know how many 45
perhaps for entirely reasons out of
their control they have never had a
stable home they've never had a stable
School they've never had a stable group
of friends the opportunity to be a part
of the Bexley community and to establish
those here would truly be the moment
that separates their life into a before
and an after a very good after and that
is something that is indispensable for
these children children who could
benefit enormously from this area um I
also am a hybrid worker I commute on um
on Livingston Avenue three times a week
um for me personally the traffic is
nothing especially obscene I don't think
anywhere in Columbus the traffic is
especially obscene personally um and
it's I really find it hard to believe
that air 27 cars would create a
noticeable uptick in traffic and even if
it did uh even if it added 10 20 30
minutes to my commute I truly believe
that if this could bring a little bit of
security and safety to families in our
community that is worth it um over minor
inconveniences that I and others like
myself could face thank you thank
you
sure I'm Bill farell I live in 972 UK
Clair Avenue and I live just a few
houses up from Sharon
um I always said when the ordinance
thing was going on and I know it's a
different issue but my point of it is I
said then and I'll say now in anything
it's location location
location and this is not a good location
for this it never has
been now I agree that there's a problem
with
homelessness and we need affordable
housing and everything
and I also believe it is the city's
responsibility to put people in an
environment that is
safe it's not up to everybody else it's
up to them you know you have people that
protect
people and to just say well it's not our
concern that we're just going to put 45
kids or whatever ends up in
there it
is and that's basically all I have to
say you know this this thing could have
been built somewhere else or it could be
downscaled and it could
work thank
you there is there anyone else wish
speak on this
item all right with that we'll close the
comment public comment one
more hi I'm Lor scano cats thank you um
there's way too much what's your address
please oh 299 South Rosevelt thank you
and um there's way too much to say on
this but um I want to suggest that
everything that um has been said by the
city
officially and by the builders is
probably excellent I do not share their
lens at all I hope that before more
decisions are made that the people who
are making making the
decisions understand at least the
wordings specifically what's affordable
housing what's section8
housing um what does it mean by going by
the I I think the wording is something
like the average income of the area
percentage of power of poverty rate
[Music]
um things like that and uh I was told by
the lawyer for Beckley that we don't use
the word section 8 housing 25% of this
is going to be Section 8 housing excuse
me for people who are Income eligible
for Section 8 housing it doesn't get
that complex but it's more than what I
can explain here um Section 8 is a HUD
word and it is used in the project
proposal
that at least I saw for the original
project um that was started a few years
ago perhaps it's changed but my big
concern is that these decisions are
being
made um by people who are good people
and think they know what is
involved but it takes it takes some real
digging and um so please just ask some
ask other people who know these design
practices are probably right by some
people by many people and especially
academics in my limited experience but
longtime
experience there are lots of design
flaws in this uh the Community Builders
has from everything I could see an
excellent reputation in affordable
housing and zero experience in what I
consider a community like ours they have
been in very affluent
communities um but for example I think
it's Martha's Vineyard they did building
but it was on an island it wasn't on the
14 mile long Martha's Vineyard and so I
I don't know if we should do it or we
shouldn't I think if we go through with
it let's just make sure we have a really
good plan B when these things don't work
out and also that the residents who have
to pay the price which is largely going
you know primarily people who are on
Francis Etc um we've got to give them
some support to just say they're not
supposed to affect the
neighborhood well right when they're not
supposed to but what's your three
minutes is up if you could wrap if you
could wrap up thank you is there is
there anyone else in the audience wishes
to
speak all right seeing no one we're
we're going to close public comment at
this time uh additional board
discussion one question are we allowed
to make conditions like I don't know on
the I know like when we were doing this
project over next door we could make
conditions like as to the parking like
flows and things like that are we can we
have like a turn lane there can like a
be a turn lanane in Livingston so they
could turn on to
Livingston or turn off of Livingston
into the onto Francis in this particular
I would recommend not ad hoc making
decisions based on traffic engineering
overall however even more so in this
case it's not in the city of Bexley it
the Livingston is in the city of
Columbus the map showed it that I looked
at Happ yeah the the public right away
ends at the North side so oh I see in
fact if we get a curb
uh proposed over the many decades we
have to go through the city of Columbus
to deal with that process so we
recommend like if I'm I'm just based on
what I've heard I'm just curious if like
a stoplight like study can be done or
something just so people can turn in and
out or there's a crosswalk or something
so so I I I'll tell I can tell you this
as part of that project um there is
going to be a full public process to
make sure that we are meeting the intent
of the plan as best as possible uh there
is also a very huge interest in slowing
traffic through things like medians and
decreasing uh those kind of movements so
I I would probably say they we're going
to reduce that kind of Mo movement more
than increase turn Lanes those are not
good for people those are better for
cars and with everything we're trying to
talk about as far as slowing the speeds
and again this is speculative right now
because we're in a different
jurisdiction and we haven't yet
finalized the design even though you
know getting pretty close we know that
everything in the Livingston joint
Livingston Avenue plan speaks to slowing
the traffic and making a pedestrian
environment and for us to kind of like
throw out this turn line that turn line
it's really not that useful the one
thing I will say that I know which I can
speak to with authority is that the
amount of cars generated here are going
to have absolutely a negligible effect
on any of the operations of the way that
intersection works and you may not
choose to believe me and if we if we
could ask people in the audience please
be quiet and and you know if you think
back to the traffic study that was done
for way way way way larger amount of
parking spaces next door um I've been
involved I'm not really focused on the
parking the cars I'm just talking about
like people crossing the road oh sure
yeah so like that's what I'm talking
about a light or a pedestrian Crossing
for people to cross like can we make
that we can't no we this is not in our
jurisdiction we can't make a criteria
that another jurisdiction makes an
improvement and what the whole intent of
that plan is to increase safety in every
way possible for The Pedestrian and the
biker and reduce the ability of cars to
have free reain at what they do now when
you go down Livingston five years from
now whenever this is constructed you
will likely not be able even if you want
to to drive as fast as you do today and
if you're disappointed by that too bad
if you walk down when I walk down there
or bike down there it will be easier and
that's what the outcome of that plan
will be but no we can't put criteria on
um a different City's Republic right
away answer question was on that I I I
mean I
don't
yeah excuse me hold on I'm I'm not lying
about anything in the joint Liv
plan I don't I don't think she's asking
this question to the to the general
public she was asking the question to
okay let let's please
please Mr Mr Madison we're having a
we're having a meeting right now the
public com com the public comment is
over the public comment's over should
there be any changes or no changes to
that intersection
the overall plan is to reduce traffic V
traffic speeds and to increase The
Pedestrian environment I don't know how
you misconstrued that I was lying I
don't know what's going to happen at
that intersection but I do know that the
overall Corridor has a mission to follow
the tenants put forward by the plan so
sorry just I'm not usually called out as
a liar for no reason from the I just
want I want to remind this board we have
two things tonight to vote on we have a
conditional use permit for first floor
residential and we have a fence variance
those are the two things that this board
has been asked to decide on tonight um
so those are the items that we should
focus on uh those two items Mr Marsh can
I just comment on one thing from a legal
perspective on altering public streets
or this board making a condition on that
usually that's a function of traffic
engineering and it's based on traffic
studies and statistics IC data and
really not within the purview of
planning commissions to do unless they
receive traffic studies and reports of
their own engineers and Consulting
Engineers on whether or not it's merited
because typically you can't force that
on a development if the development
itself is not creating the need for that
so um just so I think when Jason's
reaction is you can't do it because it's
not your jurisdiction well that's not
the only reason it's because it is
within the function of traffic
engineering and it would be within their
parameters um and I have never seen ever
any uh you know a 27 unit building even
rise to the level of creating the
criteria necessary for a traffic
engineer or a traffic engineering
department to require a traffic study so
it really is engineering and Science and
with planning that's a little bit beyond
your purview um for a reason that's part
of the city's traffic engineering so
just to sort of put it all into
perspective about who does what and when
it would be a function of traffic
engineering who could require a turn
lane if one was necessary but um that
would be part of the public
infrastructure of the city of Bexley or
the city of
Columbus thank you thank you any other
uh board discussion
do we want to hear the findings of
facts I definitely think we should vote
on them separate
yeah
okay
so separately we should figure out do we
need to have the demolition granting the
demolition in fins and
pass I don't I don't think so either
okay
um findings and facts and conclusions of
law for application bcap 2449 for the
property located at 2300 Livingston
Avenue based on the testimony presented
the board finds it appropriate to Grant
conditional use a conditional use permit
for Bexley code section
12540 n to permit first floor
residential use within a multi-family
building in a mixed use commercial
district with the conditions can we read
the conditions um please do do you have
this pulled up I'm sorry
got um how do you want to phrase this
for the the remanding back to the ARB
you want to use the old that we did
previously well you think about that
I'll do the other
ones that's true okay this is just for
the conditional use yeah okay
um now hold on just give us a second so
which of the conditions do we need to
put on the conditional use versus that
didic appropr stuff sorry we thought it
was going to be all W the one we're
ready for such a sudden events
yeah and and do we need decide decide as
a board if we want ARB to issue
something or if we want it to come back
to us yeah
yeah the certific of appropri does the
board have that we typically have it
while they're working on that I can
clarify that accept it um many times on
the residential property if you
guys approve something for zoning and it
goes back to ARB or appr of a
certificate of appropriateness that's
kind of where it ends but on a project
that's in commercial district and has a
lot of complicating factors and a lot of
public hearings we would prefer that um
they the ARB ultimately recommend the
certificate of appropriateness and you
all have an opportunity to to vote on it
like we did with 2200 no that's that's
fine okay so I don't we don't think any
of these criteria apply to the
conditional use these are specifically
to the um certificate of
appropriateness okay for the final
design since those you're really
deciding the certificate or the
conditional use based on the criteria
that were presented before you that's
right okay was what just quickly you
mentioned the one condition was the 10
foot setback is that part of the
conditional use or is that part of the
ARB what we're that's all having to do
with the site plan for the for the
certificate of appropri correct yeah
except if you want the
the compliance with their plan it should
be as the conditional use here
I'm yeah
yeah okay okay all right so yes we will
include that the streetcap frontage
being conformance with the selected
design for the Livingston Avenue
streetscape project as the condition of
approval for the conditional use
permit can you can you repeat that yes
at the streetcape frontage being con
with the selected design for the
Livingston Avenue streetscape
project okay but I thought the
streetscape project wasn't finalized yet
it's not yet but it's going to be very
soon so we're gonna you're asking us to
base this conditional use on something
that yeah we think is gonna get done but
it not going get done well we think I
mean there's things happen all the time
so we I I I mean as we can see with
what's going on let's say a 10- foot
sidewalk
expanding the 8- foot sidewalk to a 10-
foot sidewalk to be in conformance with
the likely selected design for the
Livingston Avenue streetcape project
okay I'm just saying with the way the
world is right now things things are out
there shut down every minute so we're we
are within we're we're very close to
having Columbus signing off on this
regardless of anything else so okay yes
but that's fine I think that
clarification is great so let's just I
mean the whole point is to expand the 8
foot sidewalk to a 10- foot sidewalk to
be in conformance with that plan so
that's all we're trying to
do and then and then another condition
is that we're only would only be gring
this with a recommendation for approval
from the ARB well that is a separate
issue so what we're dealing with right
now is the conditional use so we have a
conditional use we have a variance and
we have a certificate of appropriateness
aren't we saying that that aren't we
saying that no we wouldn't or the
recommendation was we wouldn't give
conditional use permission or fence
variance or anything without them coming
back so where does that language get
back no the certificate of
appropriateness you would grant them if
this passes the conditional use would be
granted the fence variance would be
granted the certificate of
appropriateness would not be granted it
would be sent back to ARB and that's
what Karen was saying in residential
cases you guys typically say ARB you can
grant the final certificate
appropriateness because you're the
higher board you could say ARB upon ARB
recommendation and that's a condition it
comes back to us and we will grant the
final certificate appropriateness which
is all in your purview got always and
then I have one other question so
widening does widening the sidewalk
affect the site plan uh it I I'll defer
to the applicant to if they believe they
can accommodate that it looks like it
could easily be accommodated
but want to study that with our our
design team I would assume we
can yeah I mean if you take a look at
the at the site plans it is right now
there is additional setback area that
could be used to accommodate that
so and just to ease some of your minds
because I've heard a lot about we don't
know if the funding is there that the
design portion of the project is funded
so that the design will be will be done
I I believe you guys but I'm just I'm
just saying I I don't I don't like from
a legal standpoint basing our basing our
decision on something that's not decided
I agree I'm just I'm just trying to get
that out there so so you guys are all
aware of where we're at because I'm on
that committee I'm on that working group
we could also have it where they final
that final design is coordinated with
the city
staff if if that makes you more
comfortable yeah that's that's fine I
just like I said I don't that's fair
that's that would I would probably
prefer that yeah with the goal of is
that's complying with right so coordin
City staff with the goal of complying
with the with the Livingston Avenue
streetcape design there's a lot more
steps that this is gonna yeah that that
will be evaluated sorry both both in in
ARB and pre and public garden commission
so just be because it is approved here
with that addition to
there's a lot more steps that it's going
to be reviewed with staff with other
commun
boards I think it's a good clarification
though so let's let's do that to the
satisfaction of Staff the street skate
fundage uh will be Pro will be um
determined in to the satisfaction of
staff to be in conformance with the
selected design for the Livingston
Avenue street skate project um is that
does that
work with the intent of
meeting yeah
WR down I'm gonna write it right
now I don't think
so
okay got it all right can we have the
findings of facts and conclusion of law
read then
yeah not quite sorry I was distracted
I've got he's drafting
than okay got it
now okay the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application bcap
2449 for property located at 2300
Livingston Avenue based on the testimony
presented the board finds it appropriate
to Grant conditional use permit per
Bexley code section 12 24.09 to permit
first floor residential use within a new
multif family building in a mixed use
commercial
district with the condition that the
streetcape frontage will be to the
satisfaction of Staff with the intent to
be in conformance with the selected
design for the Livingston Avenue
streetcape
project that work that work for
everybody that's fine does the applicant
understand the findings of fact and
conclusions of the board is read
any any further discussion or do I hear
a motion to vote for
approval so moved Rosen are you're
second seconded L Us St roll call
please Mr schik yes Mr Levine yes Mr
Turner
no Miss
Dorne
yes Miss
leack yes and can I just add one thing
our expertise was called into question
um and we were told that people who have
actual knowledge should be making these
decisions and actually they are I have a
PhD in public health I have 15 years of
experience knowing that housing is a
human right and there are less than 26
affordable housing units in Columbus for
every 100 low-income households right
now and homelessness is projected to
increase 68% in the next few years our
housing crisis is comparable to Seattle
or New York city so I find it a bit
disingenuous to be calling into question
the expertise of members of the board
and people who are Consulting with
us my vote is
yes uh Mr Rosenthal I vote Yes and
chairman Marsh I vote
Yes motion passes 6 to one
all right I think we're ready for the
other issues now sorry for the confusion
at
that
okay the findings and facts and
conclusion of law for application bcap
2449 where property located at 2300
Livingston Avenue based on the testimony
presented the board finds it appropriate
to
Grant a variance from section 264.0
5A to allow the required property fence
to step down in height as it approaches
Francis
Avenue with the conditions with the
conditions that the applicant returned
to the ARB to receive design review for
the details of the
fence and that the site modification
design and materials be in substantial
conforms with renderings and plans
submitted for today's January 23rd 2025
border of zonum planning meeting unless
otherwise modified in collaboration with
the ARB and
staff does does the applicant understand
the uh variances read by Mr
uh by
Matt any any discussion on the
variance do I hear a motion to
approve I'll move Doran second Turner
roll call
please sorry I'm just trying to make
notes sorry
chairman Rosen
yes Levine Mr line yes Mr Turner yes
Miss Dorne yes Miss leack
yes uh Mr shik
yes and chairman Marsh
yes motion passes
70 sorry I was trying to take notes
there no no problem
um and certificate
appropriateness yes yeah so one more one
more uh def findings of facts and incl
conclusions of law for application bcap
2449 for the property located at 2300
Livingston Avenue based on the test
testimony presented the board finds it
appropriate how
I that the
design
for presuming that's what you guys want
to come back
yep and that pertains to both of the
Motions we
just well the two motion yeah we we've
already proved those two things so this
is the certificate of
appropriateness you're remaining back so
so ARB will come back to a Rec make a
recommendation to us and then a future
meeting we will decide to
answer that was just for the
fence just for the fence you had three
oh want to split out yeah three separate
issues before you one was the
certificate of appropriateness one was
conditional use one was variance um and
Jason just for clarification some of the
original conditions that he talked about
when in his report and I'll ask him to
repeat those here so just so you can
recall really related to the certificate
of appropriateness which is why when he
said what conditions do you want to put
on here and I said well you don't put
the cons conditions for the certificate
of appropriateness onto the variance or
the conditional use those would go with
the certificate of appropriateness
you're going to get that back the whole
package whatever ARB has and Jason if
you want to recommend and I don't know
if those recommendations were made to
ARB or what that no I mean really the
important thing is if you're going to
remand then these aren't what's
important now if you were going to act
on it then we wanted to make sure that
you added those so the conditions that
that were sent to so arb's findings that
they said they could the reason they
couldn't positively or negatively
approve that's what they're going back
to decide then when we remand it that is
that correct they will review the
architecture and determine if they think
it's appropriate and then recommend to
you whether they think you should
approve the architecture I see but
they're they're approving the
architecture based on the the the items
that were noted in's report yes yes okay
just
um the reasoning that just to give you
the reasoning and and by the way the
last one is and anything else we talked
about it's not a checklist it's just it
was support for why we sent it to you
without a positive or negative recomend
okay I just thank you and that just to
be clear when they when you sorry when
you remand it back to them for uh to
allow them to continue on it and make a
recommendation it may come back changed
from what it was originally for that's
typically they work through that process
it's a little bit of a chicken and egg
because if you're not going to get a
conditional use permit you know they're
going to spend a lot of time on a
project that's not moving forward at
this point in time if it looks like the
project can move forward then they will
roll up their sleeves um get answers to
questions you know um work with staff to
get input and the developer may make
some choices to make modifications based
on community input and staff and the
whole ARB process that's why we have't
come back to you typically on these
larger projects as Karen says on the
commercial projects they typically come
back to you so you have the holistic
project before you on the residential
projects um often they do not it's just
you remand it to them they do issue the
certificate of appropriateness but
that's your choice on how you choose to
to approach that got it thank you do I
do I hear a motion to uh vote on
remaining it back to
ARB so move Dorne second Shi a roll
call Miss leac yes Mr Rosenthal yes Mr
Levine yes Mr Turner yes Miss Dorne yes
Mr schik yes and chairman Marsh yes
motion passes 70 and chairman Marsh if I
can just for clarification that's remand
it back to them for a recommendation
back to you correct yeah that was the
discussion thank
you you don't we we have to do a
demolition uh that'll be part of the is
that part of the okay of appropriateness
uh next item on the agenda is Bap
24-50 which is 420 North Cassidy think
the applicants here
we could have it's gonna be a lot
shorter this time okay sorry for the
confusion on the uh on the
um on the conditions I should eaten the
other half of my fig bar or during the
break but I will after I give this
report okay so um this one has a lot of
similar issues however um not quite the
same because we are dealing with a
little bit of a different variance other
than that though the conditional use
permit for the first floor residential
is basically identical the difference
here is that they're not requesting for
the entire floor to be residential
they're requesting a portion of it at
the rear of the building and the rest of
it would then be uh available space that
could be utilized for a commercial use
uh notably for the senior center is the
specific use that would be identified so
it's sort of commercial institutional um
in addition the applicant is Seeking a
variance for
uh the side yard accessory structure
they want to put a Pergola in the sidey
yard which is typically not allowed by
our code so that would require them to
meet those variant requirement then
there is also a request to wave the
fence
requirement similarly but different from
what we just saw in our code we're also
required to have a fence on the interior
side of an alley if it's across from
residential and the applicant feels that
based on the way that the site is
configured and um the usage of the site
that would make it a little more
difficult for users and particularly
Senior Center users in order to access
the parking so they'll address that in
their variance criteria so I'm not going
to bager this too uh long the the one
thing I do want to mention is that this
is in an mu district and it does not
have an overlay so we're using the MU
District standards um and that's uh
12541
I've got those in here similar to the
last project they have met the vast
majority of those um there are some that
still have to be determined specifically
ground mounted or ceiling or roof
mounted Mechanicals if they're ground
mounted how they be screened um also uh
lighting for the parking lot you know if
they're going to do any how is that
going to be with regard to height types
of fixtures um and then there are also
some factors where they would need to go
back to tr public garden commission for
the streetcape other than that um I
wanted to point out the parking
circumstances um this is uh similar to
the evaluation we did for the previous
proposal here uh they have residential
at one per unit There are 16 units so
that's 16 spaces um it there is it's a
little unclear in our code AS exactly
what this should be there's a sort of a
community use but it really pertains to
like um large scale halls and
auditoriums we didn't feel like that was
quite the right thing so in discussions
with the applicant uh we determined that
sort of retail sales service or office
uses really with the service or office
use sort of being the appropriate one
for that which is one per 300 square
feet they need another 10 spaces in this
District we also allow a reduction of up
to 25% if there's significant on street
parking which there is um and one of the
nice things about this site plan is
they're actually protecting the on
street parking on North Cassidy uh with
bump outs which is something that is
likely to be uh uh in the Strategic plan
for North again we're still finalizing
that document uh that's likely to be a
recommendation that we try to protect
parking on that side of the street as
much as possible this is a great first
step there's also parking along Columbus
Avenue adjacent to the site so because
of that they're allowed to subtract six
spaces which means they only have 20
spaces required and the onsite provided
is 24 so they have four in exess um if
you have any concerns about that
category with regard to the office um
and uh service uses we also have more of
a high-intensity version and that's one
for 250 and with the math they still
meet that criteria so whether or not you
think it should fall into either of
those two categories they meet the
criteria and they have the required
parking on site so they're fine with
that um other than that you have all the
same stuff uh I won't go through each
one uh the applicant will probably go
through why they meet those criteria and
then it's up to you to determine the
variance based on the criteria in the
code so with that um I'll stop talking
and answer any
questions does anyone on the board have
any questions
did you want me to talk about this at
all oh yeah sure I'm sorry I almost
forgot too um this was this the the
architecture review board was very
pleased with what they saw in design um
you if you if you remember what was
proposed before they just have taken it
and gone on with it so this is a a
positive recommendation we would still
like a back for details um and then you
can do the same thing with the scale as
project um do a final approval here but
um this is a little bit different
circumstance there the board was very
pleased to see that they had continued
the design um along the same lines that
it was
before got
it y
Mike so you said there's a a social
Center or hall or what you said there's
another type of zoning yeah har let me
grab for you real quick just what's the
parking standard for for that uh it's
funky hold on let me grab a head up here
oops wrong one that's
fencing yeah quasi public I'll just go
right into it hold on let me grab the
parking
section yeah it's uh it's always been a
little weird that one how I can't get
the right section oh here we go sorry my
brain shutting off here we are got
it uh
so yeah the technical term for that is
low
intensive no that's not shoot where am
I qu public and quasi public uses one
per five seats in any public assembly
area or one space per 400 square feet of
net floor area if no assembly area
exists so that would actually be a lower
standard um if we went with the no
assembly area part um and the assembly
area at least in our history of
interpreting this has been truly for
like some kind of seated performance
space whether it be a theater or a I
don't know Auditorium or something yeah
I just I mean I drive by that a lot I
when I went by today just after lunch
there are 11 cars in the parking lot
yeah so I mean it is a social area
that's probably going to use more than
the required parking
but that's a good question
additional
I most places I wouldn't be as concerned
about parking but given this is like
specifically being designated for
seniors and it's a senior
center like especially in the winter if
you think about it them getting out they
need to have like a lot of times they
are not as comfortable parking on the
street or something to that effect speak
for my own parents um I'm just curious
if we have more Des can we designate
more like handicap spaces can we
designate something I just don't want
seniors in the community not to be able
to go or not want to go because they
can't you know find a place to park and
that's that's my only concern with this
everything else I love on this building
I will tell you but that is my
overarching concern is they won't be
able to get there yeah great question um
because they are in excess by four
spaces based on our interpretation if
you agree with that interpret of that
District they could um combine you know
two of those spaces to make another
handicap space and or two of those you
know they could create two more you
would just have two fewer overall
parking spaces so that's definitely you
could talk to them and request that they
do that so it's an interesting
suggestion so it's
possible other
questions we could have the app can't
come up and present
please I'm not uh uh I don't necessarily
want to go through as much as we did
before um but since the parking question
came up maybe we can um what I want to
hit on is you know we did um worked with
Kristen swier from the city um and Megan
um we had um I'm gonna say a super user
focus group um two or three two um um in
uh meetings with the entire um
membership of the senior center invited
and then a big public meeting that the
entire Community was invited to and
which was well attended by the seniors
um the the parking was really probably
the number one concern we heard making
sure we have enough parking I think um a
lot of what we heard is people are
actually very what they love about the
current facility is it does the Mar
situation is as it is now which doesn't
have a lot of handicap spaces but has a
lot of spaces was the most important
criteria by far so in terms of um
creating more handicap spaces I don't
think that's necessarily the that's not
the feedback we heard we I think the
feedback we heard was maximize spaces
and maximize accessibility in and out of
the building um we had some extensive
conversations about we actually started
at a point of like do we want to erace
reserve some spaces for uh senior
resident senior members reserve some
spaces for um uh aart people that live
in the apartments and the discussion and
it was all credit to um Nate green and
Sarah from the cic I think they really
said look you build community by you
don't build community by saying this is
yours and this is mine you build
community by having a a resource we all
share together and we TR you know we
don't presume a problem
going in we we assume we're going to
work it all out and so um I guess uh I I
would just offer that context um for for
how we landed at the parking situation
we have today so um other than that I'll
leave it to David for um the conditional
use
stuff is is the the senior center the
only is there another commercial space
in it no so um um if we if we saw the uh
the the side by side yeah there go um
the original concept um was uh uh before
the senior center had really taken root
that's what you see on the left um and
we had in 2021 proposed a building that
included 2500 square feet of retail that
maybe would be a senior center um and
then in the time since the senior center
really has taken off that space today
functionally offers about 1,700 square
foot of us usable space it's not enough
um that was another big piece of the
feedback we heard and in particular City
staff really wanted to have the ability
to offer two programs um and two
different spaces instead of just one
space that they were constantly setting
up and tearing down um so that gets us
to the uh the version we have on the
right with two um the presumption with
the city and I'm going to defer to Megan
on our everybody's working towards a
solution where all of that goes to the
um a senior center but Megan will
address in more detail what the um
conditions to that might be thank you
for that and I would also point out that
we do have our senior programs
coordinator here Kristen and so um I
know programmatically she is the expert
I'm simply looking at this from an end
use um standpoint but I can say that the
cicc um is and the City of course have a
vested interest and both of those spaces
being used as the combined Senior Center
space with of course the flexibility in
the future um to convert that back to
other commercial space we've also
discussed a contingency plan should for
some reason let's say a different
property come up that is a better use
for the senior center the cic is still
fully committed to ensuring that that
commercial space be leased out to a
desirable and and tenant um and so that
is our intent um but right now we're
really going down the senior center lane
ass assuming approvals of course um
Kristen do you have anything you want to
add about the pram uh programmatic use
of this
space yeah could you could you come up
to the microphone
thanks all right so the room has cleared
because George and I think everyone in
this city who has a vested interest in
seeing the senior center Thrive has
talked about this ad nauseum and none of
my seniors are here because they are
thrilled with the new plan we know and I
keep trying to educate that there will
be times where there is not enough
parking but as it stands right now our
current little humble Senior Center does
have the best parking in the city of
Bexley and um we are just thrilled that
they have made so many accommodations
for us to get us to 24 spots that we
will be sharing with the res
now I do think that there might be some
growing pains and maybe we do figure out
that we need a couple more handicap
spots and I think that's something that
we can work through in the
future anything else all they really
care about is parking so none none of
the seniors are here right no they're
not Mr Marsh what's your opinion MERS oh
well listen there were a lot of cl to
all just walk over I won't need any
parking at all all right for 50 years I
did have one member here who lives on UK
clear and then she left oh all
right the the one thing I should say
maybe wasn't clear they have 24 off
street parking spaces in addition to the
on street parking spaces I just wanted
to make that
clear I'm gonna be very brief David
Hodge attorney for the applicant um I
guess before I get started I'll I'll say
that um a zoning attorney's dream come
true is an empty room behind him and so
I'm glad that uh several of the folks
have left regarding this particular
application I I'd like to do this one in
Reverse of the last and start if we just
stay in the previous
page and and um uh do the do the
variances first so the code would
technically require that the Far Eastern
side of this parking uh lot be have a
fence and all of you use Main Street all
the time
Starbucks
Banks um Cobb whatever and and you know
that the character the character of of
our commercial corridors has the fencing
not on the property it's it's across on
the other side of the alley and so the
variance that we have requested with
reference to to that fence is to allow
this property to use the private fence
that's on the other side of the alley
consistent with the way that this is
typically done in the in the uh city of
Bexley so that's that's that variance
the next is the the bottom of the screen
on the site plan where you see am minity
Courtyard uh we would like to do a
Pergola in the sidey yard it's um uh we
we think it makes that amenity Courtyard
more usable it provides some shade it
provides just an an appropriate location
for that uh certainly not detrimental to
anybody to the South or any place else
in fact as you're Northbound on Cassidy
it's going to be uh you know add to the
overall Aesthetics of the
building uh the last is the uh
conditional use and that is as we
discussed in great detail on the
Livingston Avenue project that is to
allow the uh first Flor uh residences uh
even though uh Sarah gold may come up
and smack me I'm not going to I'm not
going to um go through and address and
make an argument on each of the
individual criteria I'm going to do a
little more akin to what Jack Reynolds
did on the uh on on the reuin property
or the plaza property and take the
position uh and and and state to the
board that uh this first floor uh uh
residential uses meets a throughh of
section
12543 uh as such the conditional use
should be granted if anyone has a
specific question related to anything
there in a through H we're certainly on
hand uh to address those
thank
you any board
discussion all I will ask even though I
don't know if there's anyone in the room
is there anyone from the public that
wishes to speak to this uh this item
stayed long enough might as well right
there you
go Carl yeah we we'll swear did you get
sworn in earlier I did not well we'll
swear you in then all right name and
name and address please Carl Holman 2729
Columbus AV do you swear from the
testimony you give this evening will be
the truth I
do I just say go for it I mean I I
really I mean I moved here two and a
half years ago and that's right when the
Senior Center opened I've seen the
impact that it has and I want to see a
bigger Senior Center and I also want to
see the the apartments as well I mean I
think I have grander plans what's going
to happen on Cassidy and and and and
with you know the other hat I am on the
beex area Chamber of Commerce board as
well so I have Ved interest so I'm kind
of the North Beckley spokesperson so I
really want to see this happen that's
really all I got to say and I I think
you know with the parking that they have
and what they've come up with I mean
makes a lot of sense you know it's the
best use of that area I mean if at some
point you have to go over to the yoga
spot and ask if you can have six parking
spaces for overnight residents maybe you
have to do that but you know that's what
we work out
so I want to say I'm all in favor of it
thank you and thank thanks for thanks
for staying throughout the whole meeting
yeah you get the perseverance
award yeah
remember I I remember you as Mr schwarma
I did too yeah Mr
schwarma yeah what uh any other board
discussion so what's the nature of the
edge being proposed where there's not a
fence where code would require a fence
is there
any Landscaping is it the drawing kind
of cuts off there and
then do we get to that side by side yeah
uh yeah really I think is we went
through the process and gathered the
feedback from the seniors and really how
do we um find a solution that balances
Aesthetics the need for affordable
housing identified in that strategic
planned update and the need for a
permanent report of senior center also
identified in that strategic Plan update
from uh
2023 what we realize is we've the only
solution that would yield enough parking
would be a double loaded parking lot um
with a center aisle such as you see on
the right and we really just um uh
solved around making that happen and and
really looking at every Dimension and
and how do you make that happen and
really um uh We've stacked from the left
to the right you know um really
essentially at minimum tolerances and
that it effectively pushing that that
that right um Bank of parking up against
the property line an advantage we think
for the seniors is that it it it does
give a lot of flexibilities and and how
they maneuver that parking lot um and
relieving congestion and it's also um
not dissimilar to the um the plan that
was approved in the first iteration
where where parking was directly off the
alley of the property
today will those spaces be accessible
from the alley or will there be wheel
stops um right now we're we we we don't
have um wheel stop proposed um I think
you know as we as we've discussed it
with staff and um Everybody the idea
that um it could be accessed in either
direction it again it facilitates more
flexibility for the senior center users
um to be able to to get in and out you
know pull in one way pull out the other
um it's just less maneuvering for for
for the Target
population I I hate to even bring this
up but does it make sense to get rid of
one of those islands or both consolidate
those islands and pick up
parking honestly I'd say um you know
maybe that's something we'd come back
back for if we find it's a problem yeah
it's good you know we could come back
for that I I actually think we we've got
enough parking okay um our studies show
that um for a we believe this is going
to skew very senior the the apartments
it's not technically age restricted but
um
uh the nature of the location the design
it's going to be mostly seniors and
Senior Communities I see about a half
space per unit occupied we've got plenty
of parking got it the one thing I would
uh mention is that the ability to sort
of control the the the use of that by
having those islands is probably a good
balance if we don't put a a fence up
because that way it does kind of doesn't
turn into ad hoc it still maintains some
sort of a a regular use and you can
still get through an easier way so I I
think keeping the islands in is probably
a good move without that fence that's
just my take does the city I mean I'm an
architect not a traffic engineer but
what I know about traffic engineering is
options make accidents and fewer options
is safer so is there anyone in the city
who has an opin a professional more
professional opinion than I do about or
or could offer one about idea of wheel
stops versus not I mean to me if I live
there I think I would cross the alley I
think I would vote wheel stops just
because I feel like it creates a more
predictable traffic pattern and it you
know I I don't know so to me the idea of
giving people lots of choices that are a
little bit weird feels like maybe not a
great thing but it's a good question
it's an argument you can make I think
either way um you know one it's a low
ideally should be relatively low speed
um accessway and due to the Target
population pulling through probably
helps with safety and on the other hand
exactly as you say if there's a lot of
options then people contend and be a
little more confused so you know I don't
think we could sit here and absolutely
say one way or the other for sure I
think that's part of what our
determination is as a as a group of
people who can think it through and kind
of work it through now we can certainly
go and ask for an opinion from a traffic
engineer about that more specifically if
that would make you what about if they
were angled and then basically the
people pull in and then they pull out
and pull straight ahead into the alleen
maybe we'd have to look at it yeah
there's the option too we just leave it
as is and if there are problems they can
fix them
right if I may that's to that point the
what we've uh the discussions with the
cic are that um the first floor would be
a condominium interest U that they would
own um and so we are in Partnership
legally bound together with the cic and
and effectively the city and so I do
think that um to your point if there's a
problem we we'll we'll resolve those
issues
together no matter which direction we
may
choose any other board discussion
are we ready for findings of
facts wait one quick question is this
the same where we're gonna get the C the
certificate of appropriateness comes
back to us too yeah okay you would like
that what's that if you would like that
as the board yes yeah yeah I think so
given the scale of it I agree
I Bings and facts and conclusions of law
for application Bap
24-50 for the property located at 420
North
Cassidy oh are we doing these all
together I think we can do all these
together however you were must
[Laughter]
prepared and then
Vari based on the testimony presented
the board finds it appropriate to Grant
a conditional use permit her Bexley code
section 1245 4.09 to permit first floor
residential use within a new multif
family building in a mixed use
commercial
District the applicant understand the
financing fact is read any discussion on
that do I hear a motion to vote for
approval no move
Turner roll call
please miss leack yes Mr schik yes Mr
Turner yes Mr Levine yes Miss Dorne yes
Mr Rosenthal yes chairman Marsh yes
motion passes
70 number
two findings of fact and conclusions of
the law for application number bcap
24-50 for property located at 420 North
Cassidy based on the testimony presented
the board finds it appropriate to Grant
a variance from Bexley code section
12541 7 to allow an accessory structure
Perla in the side
yard does the applicant understand the
finding of fact is read any
discussion do I hear a motion to vote
for
approval so move Turner
there a second second Dorne roll
call Mr schik yes Mr Turner yes Mr
Levine yes Miss
Dorne yes Mr Rosenthal yes Miss Lett
stack yes chairman Marsh
yes okay third
one yeah third May yeah well the third
and then we got to do the shipping
appropriate last
yeah findings of facts and conclusion
conclusions of law for application
number bcap 24-50 for property located
at 420 North Cassidy based on the
testimony presented the board finds it
appropriate to Grant a variance to wave
the fence permit or the fence
requirement her Bexley code section
12645 can can we add would it be
appropriate to say that we ask the
architecture review board to evaluate
specifically the nature of that
transition in the
paving not just limited to barriers but
just period so is it just asphalt H
asphalt is there a row something are
there blocks there I guess my point is
just that that that that's something
that gets talked about at ARB about
that no no well but I'm just asking that
they include that in their review
and if they say it's just asphal Asal or
a landscaping standpoint or a traffic
engineering what where are you coming at
because it could be City staff it could
be tpgc it could
be trafficer what do you I think it's an
important design detail and they're the
only people who are charged with
thinking about design so and some of it
is to do with driving through it but
some of it has to do with is it just
Paving hitting Paving or is there a row
bricks or is there there be those only
buildings they don't deal with site yeah
why why don't we just I mean I think
this is another one we could just say go
back to the City staff for final
condition appr final details that's fine
we do have a landscape architect
consultant that we can have them that
they do more of the site develop site
stuff that's a condition and so to be
clear yeah it's not just wheel stops in
my mind it's also right what's the
nature of that transition I gotcha okay
so that's the condition
that um staff approved the nature of the
transition staff approve
nature of
parking lot alley
transition
okay uh do I hear a motion to vote for
approval so move do I hear a second
second
turn is Andrew the First on that yeah
yeah roll call
please let us
yes Mr schik yes Mr Turner yes Mr Levine
yes Miss Dorne yes Mr renthal yes
chairman Marsh
yes all right the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application bcap
24-50 for property located at 42 North
Cassidy based on the testimony
presented the board remands back the
design design review from the
architecture review
board to approve the final certificate
of
appropriateness do I hear a motion you
want for final recommendation back to
the
board
oh the board uh the board remains
back for final recommendation from the
architecture review board to approve the
certificate of
appropriateness do I hear a motion to
approve so move sh do I hear a second
second L Us St roll
call Mr chick
yes Mr Turner yes Miss leack yes Miss
Dorne yes Mr Levine yes Mr Rosenthal yes
chairman Marsh yes motion passes 70 and
then miss I know sometimes in the past
we've after we've voted for something we
come back and and put something into the
record as to why we voted to approve it
do we need to do that for this for this
one yeah I think that's more one that we
disapprove
I for I think we do it for appeal so I
don't I don't think they're gonna appeal
a positive vote but got it I mean that's
my that's what I think right A lot of
times that relates to if there's
controversy and here there's nobody was
standing to appeal your decision at this
point got it
perfect uh any other business
tonight
um I would like to say that this meeting
was four and a half hours shorter than
the last time these two things were on
the board so congratulations to that I I
do have one item chairman
uh a lot less people applicant uh for
bcap 24-30 249 South casting ham it's
tabled uh they have um requested to be
to close it out they don't want to move
forward with the project so do we need
to make an action on that no no uh we're
just the ster
truck no no no no please don't don't
that could inside a riot if we don't
have schwarma so and then I and I I have
not heard from the Food Truck applicants
in quite some time I've reached out to
them several times on Viewpoint and I'm
unsure of their future they'll know
what's going
on with that we are aduring thank you
everyone