I
yeah
beautiful thank
you I think I think that just in case we
can pass it out to to this okay yeah
I'll take three go this way you take
those
I'll
mat are you ready
all right
we'll call to order the uh special
meeting of December 18 2024 of the
Beckley Board of zoning and planning and
I apologize for the slight delays we're
trying to get all the uh statutes in
front of all the board members so they
have ready access to it and I want to
make a couple of uh announcements um one
gentleman came up and asked me to make
sure that everybody has their
microphones turned on if you're going to
speak can every everybody in the hallway
hear me okay out there all right if you
cannot hear at some point in time he and
I have a little signal he's going to
raise his hand let me know if it's not
getting to the back of the room if
you're speaking tonight you kind of got
to pull this mic pretty close to your
face and some of us are taller than
others of us and U you need to adjust
the microphone accordingly so that's
just so that everybody can hear
everything that goes on as everybody has
certainly the right to do so what that
in mind um I think we should call a role
of the members who are present
tonight Mr Kathy here Mr schik here Mr
King here Mr Levine here miss Dorne here
Mr echel Bruner here chairman
Beall I'm here as well thank
you
I don't I don't think this it's a
special meeting I don't think we have to
ask for comments from the general public
about the operation of the Bap do we I
don't think we
do so we'll do that at all the regular
meetings but not tonight um we also have
to make a couple announcements about the
fact that this is a
continuation of a hearing that was held
at the I think November 30th was the
date and we couldn't get all the
evidence in and there were some other
issues about notice so um we agreed and
the applicant agreed uh to hold a
special meeting in December uh giving
time to the staff to get notice out and
U so we are here doing that as a result
uh those members of the board that were
not here for the last meeting uh I've
asked them to review RW the tape of the
meeting or whatever you call it it's
probably not a tape but the review a
recording of the meeting you can tell
how old I am yeah anyway um uh so I want
to ask all those members who were not
here last time to uh affirm that they
have in fact read read and or viewed all
of the evidence that was taken at the
last meeting uh Miss Dorne you were not
here I don't think were you I was not um
and I did listen to the five or six
hours or what whatever it was on on a
long drive for work so yes I I listened
to it all and I also reviewed all the
materials thank you very much I
appreciate
that Rick L you were here Matt you were
here I was not ran you are not I was not
and I watched the same uh video that
Miss Dorne watched okay I hope I wasn't
too boring no that's all I gotta say
Patrick I don't think you were here
either I was not here and uh like Mr
Marsh and Miss Dorne I listened to and
reviewed the materials of the November
30th meeting thank you and there have
been some uh slight modifications so
there'll be some new evidence this
evening as well Mr shik you were here
just for the
record yes Mr chairman and I was here as
well so I think that takes care of
everybody so that's just to let
everybody know that we're not here
listening to some of the evidence we
have to listen to all the evidence
that's presented in order to make a
decision in this matter
all right um Kathy you might not have
much to add here do you have anything to
add in terms of what's before us or
Jason either one of you any from the
staff perspective yeah just to update
everyone um from the last meeting there
was a bit of um uh noticing confusion
with regard to the variances so uh we
want to clarify that and then just
update you on just some very small items
and then I know uh you've all reviewed
the tape but if you're happy I'm happy
to answer any questions as we go through
it I'm not going to go through the whole
staff report again in the in the
interest of not repeating everything
that was covered last time uh the most
important thing is that um you know you
are approving a certificate of
appropriateness by request or denying it
um you're being asked to to vote on that
and that would be for the overall
project which is the maximum
six-story uh building you know partial
five story additional housing commercial
uses parking garage Associated surface
parking lot um as part of that you would
be approving the demolition of what is
on the site now uh the reason that's
significant is because as you know if
there are buildings throughout the
corridor throughout the city that are
deemed to have some architectural
significance um we would always require
that we understood the final development
plan before demolition was to occur you
can decide whether or not that's the
case in this particular instance um then
the uh the other things to be decided
are variances and as you are aware and
as has been passed out to you by legal
council there are criteria for variances
that you have to ascertain as to whether
have been met the applicant will present
their evidence and you will determine
based on their evidence whether that you
they have met the preponderance of those
and I will leave any further discussion
of that to Legal councel that being said
I will explain to you what the variances
are for so you understand what it is
that you're looking at with regard to
the actual building uh as you recall in
this district there is a byright three
story uh limit with a five-story by
special permit which has a certain set
of criteria they have the applicant has
requested a six-story building which
then triggers the the variance which
means that you use those criteria that
are in the code in order to determine if
a preponderance of those have been met
the second is that we have a require
requ ired maximum depth on this on the
street basically um our code requires
that buildings in order to create an
urban vibrant mixed use atmosphere are a
minimum of zero feet and a maximum of 10
feet off of the uh rightaway line that
being said our code also encourages that
there can be some deeper areas that are
public private areas that can be used to
break up the facades of the building
create public spaces and create little
mini sort of parklets that allow to be
more vibrant we allow that up to 20 ft
uh the applicant in response to some
comments that were made at a previous
meeting with regard to the the shape and
and character of the building has
suggested a 50 foot depth for the main
entryway and Karen can speak to more
about how that evolved uh I really just
am here to explain to you how or what
the variance is about to uh then the
final variance the third one is they're
seeking a variance in according uh
accordance with the same section 12543
but this is about the primary Frontage
in this District in addition to the
minimum or the maximum building setback
we also have a requirement that 80% of
the lot width be essentially building
face that you can't you don't have
parking pulled up to the street we want
to encourage the fact that you've got
parking and other uh ancillary uses to
the rear of the building and that the
building itself makes up the the bulk of
what happens along the street front
this particular building uh due to the
fact that they have added a drive on the
on the west side which again we can talk
about with regard to Ingress egress
traffic study and we do endorse that
drive being there based on that drive
the overall width of the building is 75%
give or take it's you know inches and
it's not precisely 75% but it's it's
roughly 75% and the requirement is 80%
um so it's up to you again to determine
DET whether you think that that
variation of 5% is significant so with
that uh I just want to hit on those
couple of changes the highlights that
that are mentioned uh that I mentioned
earlier um one in particular is that
there is a new traffic study that has
been conducted and I will let the
applicant and the expert explain to you
any changes that have resulted the most
significant thing about it is that
counts were performed again due to the
fact that there was some concern at the
previous meeting with some uh
respondents that the original counts
were done when Capital wasn't in session
so new counts were done those are
inserted into a new traffic study and
the applicant can talk about what the
results are the only thing I want to say
about that is we have had a third-party
traffic consultant review that and they
find that the the results of the study
are to be accurate and um and complete
um the there will likely need to be some
future synchronization
discussion with regard to signals if you
do approve this and it goes forward that
being said everything in the traffic
study that was presented uh was found to
be uh done in the way that that that
traffic engineer believed was proper um
the other thing is that there is a
necessity in this project for an
approval by the cic and the City of
Bexley for the proposed alterations to
the parking lot that's right outside
this building uh as you recall from the
applicant at the application the idea is
to create a shared use parking access
point actually two of them from this
parking lot into the lower level of the
garage parking which is on the adjacent
site um can you call up the site plan
just real quickly Karen just in case
anybody has any questions on this in
having that um that modification and in
also removing the right out curb cut
which was a request of the city in order
to gain more public space and a more um
pedestrian and bike friendly entryway
into the building and to reduce
potential cross access uh conflicts
between vehicular modes there was a
change proposed to the overall parking
lot and the cic and the City of Bexley
have both uh discussed that and are in
favor of that uh there are still some
final approvals that need to take place
uh but that is basically in a sense uh
the agreed upon plan between those
different entities um other than that
there have been no significant changes
that have changed our staff report since
this previous hearing took place so I
will um oh I I should mention one more
thing uh earlier there was a a thought
that they may need to have a parking
variance that was due
to me personally incorrectly entering
the number of units I just put in 20
more units that they don't they didn't
have that actually don't have those
units when I when I did the calculation
it was going to be a very small parking
variance uh as it was recalculated they
do not need a parking variance um and
the calculations for that are in
included in your report they are
required to have 301 spaces and they are
providing
313 spaces um their parking variance is
considered on their site only and all of
this is contingent on the approval of a
shared parking agreement which is still
in process and not unusual for that to
be a process that takes place along with
many of the other things that have to be
done before official zoning approval can
be granted and that parking shared
parking agreement will have to be in
accordance with the um the wishes of
city of Bexley and the cic for the
adjacent parking lot in order to
accommodate uh that eventual Arrangement
and that will specify the ability to
co-use those same spaces as our code
intends in order to reduce the overall
number while still keeping the
efficiency and the effectiveness of
parking throughout the corridor so with
that I will stop talking with ask you a
question who who is the owner with which
you're going to have to have a Shared
Parenting Agreement with who who owns
that lot uh the applicant would be the
owner I'm sorry the the applicant
they'll have to speak to the legal
entity that owns it
okay oh ours are you talking about
ours that's gonna there be a lot where
City Hall is located yeah I mean for the
whole shared parking agreement there's
going to have to be an agreement between
the city of Bexley the cic and the owner
so does the city of Bexley own that
parking lot the the city of Bexley and
the cic own it yes correct together
correct okay well they own different
parts of it I believe but I'll have to
let the two own correct they're the two
parties that have to participate in a
joint parking Arrangement if one can be
reached that along with the applicant
yeah all of them have to agree I can't
say exactly what part is owned by which
entity we could find that out yeah I was
just wondering who because there are a
party that has to reach agreement with
the with the developer or the owner so
correct all
right question I'm sorry Jason does the
the 31 spaces only the include only the
public parking and the the shared
parking include the both parking lots in
the new development correct so the 313
spaces that are provided are all of the
spaces so the lower floor is 107 the
first floor is 157 and those are the
interior what you call parking garage
spaces and then the rear lot is 49 so
that is a total of 313 so that is those
are all of the spaces on the site
correct okay the public will only have
access to the North Deck correct that
will have to be determined as part of
the parking Arrangement that being said
the direct access will be into that that
one level
right so that would be as far as the
access from this lot now I can't speak
to what the the app or what the public
will have access to overall I'll let the
applicant speak to that but specifically
with direct physical access to this lot
they're going to be two physical access
points in order for people to get in and
out which would be the Practical place
people would most likely use it I'm not
saying people might not otherwise Park
in a different lot but it would be a lot
more circuitous to get there so really
what we're looking at is the lot right
next to us the that level would be the
place people would
go um I can't if I had a
pointer have
a oh sure that'd be great thank here it
is we got it okay yeah we got pointers
everywhere yeah
so a there we go point my hand yeah so
this access point and that access point
right there so yes that basically the
access point reached here and there
would be I think for all intents and
purpose the most practical shared
parking area the final agreement as to
what spaces those are would have to be
part of that parking Arrangement and
again I'll let the applicants speak to
what they've had discussions about so
far with the
cic
okay sure yeah absolutely so they are
proposing 33 spaces in total 107 on the
lower
floor 15 7 on the first floor and 49 in
the rear lot and that is the current
proposal and those are all marked on the
one of the site plans I know there's a
lot of stuff online but if you go online
and go in the folder it's marked in one
of the many many folders I know it's
hard to get through them all yeah
exactly all right um can I ask a qu
quick question while we're just on this
topic and maybe it's for the applicant
I'm not sure do we know if any of those
spots are like earmarked for residents
or are they all
public anything that's in the shared
parking agreement will have to be public
okay and there is also um you know an
additional financing component of that
those garage spaces again I'll let the
applicant speak to that agreement as it
stands now and then we can answer any
further questions thank you thank you
all
right Karen you want to give us a an
update here from the Architectural
Review Board perspective sure um there
is that mic a little closer
because can you hear me okay in the back
room can you hear in the lobby thank
you okay I I'm not going to go through
the history like I did the last time um
the staff report I'm just gonna I added
I did some additional um documentation
and images so that um might help the
public follow along the process that
architecture review board went through
in order to get to a um positive of
recommendation to this board I also want
to spend just a minute I won't spend a
long time on it um going through the
criteria the conditions that the
architecture review board asked for so
that all of you can be assured that if
in fact this board does um approve this
application and we recommend that one of
their criteria is to be remanded back to
the architecture review board to re to
to work over quite a few things and I
want to make sure that's out there and
that you understand what those things
are and we did go through this in great
detail I'm just going to quickly go
through some images that show the design
Evolution and really skim over how we
got to the recommenda a kind of I don't
know what you want to call it but a
recommendation or guided through a
design process through workshops um
neighbor
concerns combination of everything that
it would be good to squeeze the building
go up a teeny bit one you know in the
front a little bit and reduce the um
proximity to the neighbors and reduce
the massing which in the conditions
you'll hear that there still is some of
that that the architecture review board
would like to see done so just really
quickly I I put together some design
Evolution slides and I can blow them up
but I really think that this is just a
good summary we don't have to spend a
lot of time you all have been at these
meetings as long as they've taken place
but in August there was a proposal for
the top images which show that the
building was um uh for lack of a better
termin ology and I don't know how to
fight this terminology not Bexley enough
um in its materiality we hear it all the
time that description I don't know what
that means other than I think we
definitely got closer to Beckley looking
and I'll show that in the last slides
but but a major concern was how massive
the building was um in without any
breaks on Main Street which is uh the
response as you know from we'll go
through the evolution was to was a
result was resulting in asking for the
variance to provide um greater than 20
ft setback in some areas from the front
setback and um the other was that along
the neighboring properties the the board
wanted to see some relief or breakdown
of the massing there still the board
would still like to see a little bit
more but it definitely came a long way
there um was also an um some design
moves that really lowered the kind of
perception of the height which really is
the same as the Alexander in the back of
the building um with the exception of
that sixth floor toward Main Street but
some really nice moves were done that
the board really encouraged I think it's
very clear if you look at the images
from 10623 to
1122 um the designers did what they call
taking the cornice and lowering it to
the fourth floor so that perceptually
the building has more of a um fifth
floor kind of like the Alexander where
it is an occupiable fifth floor but it
is more of kind of the roof of the
building so that was the intent with
that so um I'm happy to you know answer
any questions on these slides but you
can see what what eventually was
this
um
became
this which the architectural View Board
was very supportive of the new use of
brick from top to bottom I think that's
really what they would consider more
Bexley looking a more um a more
traditional use of materials using
Cornus lines to to lower visually the
roof line um and really creating some
public spaces um I have on the website a
lot of the other elevations
comparatively there's some nice images
that we can talk about that show the
height where the sixth flooor does
actually pop up and where it's the same
as the
Alexander
um there are also some images that show
the breakdown in the north elevation
sorry I'm getting there um this was the
original which the board did not like
the massing of that didn't like the um
the E Line the heavy E Line and the
brick only halfway so they really re did
a lot of work redesigning it and ended
up not notching out these back Corners
to make some rooftops and decreasing
some of the units um in return for the
uh making it taller at the front and
also narrowing the building a lot so
that we could get um you know I think
everybody's heard um that the Alexander
is 5 feet from the property line so this
was an attempt to get this even further
back which I can't remember the final
number it's 46 fet something like that
um to give some relief for um for some
plantings in for some space I wanted to
just really quickly go over I'm just
going to read through these I can answer
any questions that the board might have
but the motion um was made at the
architecture review board to move this
to Bap with a positive recommendation
with the following conditions that the
applicant returned to the ARB with
material boards and samples so that we
can not just see in the drawings but we
can see the color of the brick we can
see the color of party plank stucco
whatever the materials are roofing
materials um there was a discussion over
where the garage faces the Alexander um
and the Rusty Bucket parking lot that
there was um that it' be screened where
any headlights could potentially shine
out of the garage so that was a
condition the West the West Drive um was
to be redesigned and enhance the green
space and allow substantial tree
planting um a little bit of that has
been done there's been some redirection
of traffic but there's also been some
submissions that I can pull up at any
time of exam examples of how trees um
can grow depending on the species but um
Ryan can also answer any questions to
that can grow tall and full and screen
in three foot or five foot beds and we
have some samples of those the north and
west elevations should be reworked to
lessen the massing more and create
better connection to the ground
screening of the garage and use of more
consistent materials the board wanted to
see a little bit more brick wrapped
around on the North side as well as the
west elevation a reduction of height on
the west to North elevations toward the
rear of the site the West elevations
should have more variation in the plane
of the facade so we're looking for more
undulation even if it was just a foot or
two um to give it some
texture the ARB also um supports the
addition of a sixth floor
architecturally to allow flexibility and
lessening the overall mass of the
building um the outdoor dining
adjustments should be reviewed by ARB
when a tenant is secured and let me just
give you some context the um the app can
has is not in a formal agreement yet you
can correct me if I'm wrong with a um
tenant for that I know we've seen Hudson
29 all over the drawings but that may or
may not be the restaurant that goes
there when a restaurant when when a
tenant is secured the architecture
review board would like to see the
design of the patio every restaurant's
going to want to do something different
so we'd like to um see that that's in
keeping with the
architecture um and lastly the
application should be remanded back to
ARB for final design review and approval
that's just an umbrella to make sure
that it does go back to ARB for all of
these things and uh chairman be just to
also add um there were comments that
were received from the train and public
garden commission some of those were
unable to be included based on the fact
that um well one was for a special
permit which is no longer in place and
one was for a variance not oh I'm sorry
one was for a variance they're not
asking for um the other ones were
incorporated into the conditions
particularly with regard to um final
review of the exterior landscaping and
and the changes in the in the parking
lot out front the one thing that we have
recommended and this is up to you that
if you do make a motion on this um and
you do remand these this back to either
of the boards for further review we
would recommend that because this is a
large case and it is complex that you
would retain approval here at this board
so that you would remand it back to
those boards for their recommendation to
you and that you would ultimately make
that approval just to get it all in one
place so we we're sure we have sort of
one overarching board that is kind of
overseeing the entire uh operation
that's that's our recommendation up to
you to accept or not okay question other
certificate of appropriateness yeah the
variances are yours entirely yeah right
gotcha and and what is the timing on
what what would you anticipate the time
I mean that be a year from now I mean
when I'm kind of confused confused by
that just oh I mean it's it's typical to
remand the case back for further review
for TP specific items that you would
want them to comment on for instance the
specific architecture and changes that
are that you may recommend if you feel
they have more expertise than you do in
order to do that that could be as soon
as the immediately next meeting where
the applicant could meet the submitt
deadlines or it could be at some
subsequent time in the future um
regardless whenever that went back to
them if they then receive approval from
that board then we would recommend it
then come back to you for that final
approval on those additional items which
in this case there are going to be a
number of them which is typical in a
large scale mixed use building like
lighting and signage and all that other
kind of stuff so that could either all
come back at the same time or separately
once it gets remanded to say the
Architectural Review Board that they're
in charge of the timing of when they
have their meetings and when they feel
that they're ready to make make
decisions so but just to make it clear
here the Architectural Review Board
has considered this case on numerous
occasions I I think we should know yeah
how much work they did on this so we get
some idea of so I think probably
everyone in this room heard my timeline
speech last time you know staff report
I'm happy to do it again but I I think
it's a total of four official hearings
one that the the applicant tabled
themselves we came back for a workshop
that was attended by the public but only
the architecture review board literally
took a table here and we talked through
design issues how we could sensitize the
building to its neighboring properties
Etc so yeah it's been for five four four
official meetings and one tabling um but
I'm happy that that all of the timeline
is posted on the website and I'm happy
to go over it again if you need to at
any time okay and just to be clear in
terms of the
of
the procedural aspects the board of uh
the architecture review
board recommended that we approve the
request for a certificate of
appropriateness correct correct okay
with with conditions with conditions
yeah I understand yeah all right um
couple things now we're going to hear
evidence and that's the staff always
gives us a rendition of where we are and
what the what the cases about so that we
know what we're dealing with now we'll
give the applicant the applicant has the
first opportunity as you saw last time
we were here to uh present their case
talk about the differences and and their
arguments as to why their application
should be
approved because they're one one group
speaking uh there's really not much of a
time limit even though I'm going to try
to get them to move it along and and
number two uh when the uh people that
are here to speak either in favor of or
against the application uh I would ask
that those of you who already
spoke limit your comments to issues that
were not before us last time because
we've all seen and as you can you've
heard earlier listen to the testimony
and if you haven't been here before then
there are no restrictions but everybody
will have a three minute restriction
that you know I've got a little
stopwatch here on my handy dandy iPhone
and so I try to watch it we're not GNA
uh have a cane pull you off the stage at
the end of three minutes but we're
trying to keep things moving here so
that we can hear we are very interested
in your per perspectives on this thing
and your feelings about it so you're
going to help us vote by giving us
information and your opinions and
perspectives so with that I think we can
uh move forward with the applicant and
Mr Miller are you going to take the lead
here yes I will all right you're a
little taller than the average bear so
you're gonna have to raise that baby
up first for the record state your name
and your position here certainly I'm Joe
Miller with the Boris Law Firm I'm here
tonight on behalf of Mr Cass and
Continental real estate companies okay
thank you very much uh proceed Mr Cass
regrets as he mentioned last month but
he could not be here this evening but I
am joined by the team led by Jason Hawk
and Ryan Pearson we also have our
architect our traffic engineer Miss
balamo from whom you heard uh last month
my colleague Miss Alexander Liz
Alexander I think Miss balsamo I'll just
say at the outset would agree with Mr
sui there's been minor updates to the
traffic study to account for counts with
capital as well as a change in
directionality on site uh I I don't want
to put words in Mr sud's mouth but it
sounds as though he agrees those changes
were not Material the traffic studies
conclusions still remain sound and valid
uh I do know that there's been extensive
discussion there are many materials in
the file so I do appreciate the
opportunity to speak briefly uh
regarding the project the actual
variances requested and the factors
under bexley's uh city code uh Miss
boore I'm not sure if you're working
that but if we could turn to the next
slide please uh I know you're well
familiar with the site as well as the
project it's approximately three acres
it's important to note that this is
already zoned mixed use commercial uh
within the Main Street District in a
rezoning I would agree there is much
more discretion uh vested with this body
and city council versus variance where
the uh discretion of this body is is
somewhat limited uh I think uh the
existing buildings one thing perhaps the
proponents and opponents of this project
would agree upon is that the buildings
are unremarkable they lack historical
significance I'm not going to dwell on
those for purposes of certificate of
appropriation appropriateness or
demolition because it hasn't been an
issue to date of fact I think one thing
most everyone in this room agrees on is
that this site is prime for
redevelopment if we look at the next
slide this as you know is the current uh
building as proposed we do believe that
it's changed significantly and improved
significantly over time thanks to the
input from each of you thanks to the
input from the tree and public garden
commission thanks for the extensive
input uh from the ARB and from your
professional staff and frankly from
citizens at large and at each of those
hearings we're grateful for all of that
time and input leading us to what we
have here tonight if we look at the next
slide I know you're well familiar
uh with this Viewpoint I'll only explain
uh without the benefit of a pointer but
if you look at the west side of the site
um thank you iate
ity I think you're all well familiar
with this uh Lane which is wide enough
well wide enough for two-way traffic as
well as plantings and buffering from the
Alexander we have made a modification
that was discussed the evening of
November 30th um now we have limited the
directionality uh of this drive aisle on
the western portion of the site now it
is only southbound uh between that Park
View access point at the Alexander and
the parking garage entry and so we think
that will absolutely alleviate and
address concerns certain people had
about uh traffic going to park viw it
absolutely reorients uh traffic from the
site towards uh Main Street so that is
one change that is been made and
accounted for excuse me Mr M so at the
at the Main Street
point is that a a divider that says
you're either going to go right or left
onto Main Street cor it there is a
divider there so excuse me it actually
makes it right in right out
chairman say that again now I'm sorry
right here if you're referring to this
yes I am yeah it actually does not
permit a left turn that would not be a
permitted movement instead that would
happen over here on the east side of the
site this is a right in right out right
so
gotcha and so that is one change made at
least in terms of the functionality and
directionality of the site if we turn to
the uh next page uh the next slide um if
you would
please I won't belabor this point
because I think it's set out well in the
uh staff report but this development is
absolutely aligned with what the city's
uh goals have been and we think it will
derive benefit to this community it is a
tax exempt property today it clearly
will expand the city's tax base which
will attract new residents new
businesses those are stated goals of the
city and its residents in the city's
strategic plan and the city's land use
strategy uh likewise it advances the
concept of a doubl loaded Main Street
which is also set forth and and asked
for in the city's land use strategy
likewise uh in the next
slide this is again set forth a in the
staff report what is proposed is
consistent with what the city has
expressly said it wants and frankly what
its residents at large have said that
they want rental units you heard last
month uh from empty nesters young
professionals that this was absolutely
the type of housing they would like to
find younger and older residents alike
it's in keeping with the Southwest
Beckley framework Main Street
recommendation to have this type of
housing available it would allow new
younger residents to come into the City
and allow older residents to age in
place those same planning documents that
I've mentioned have allotted the
opportunity for modern medical office
space that is being provided as part of
this project and residents have said in
those same documents that they would
like to see more restaurant options and
larger commercial spaces we've listened
and we've accommodated those uses
finally parking I don't think anyone in
this room who tried to come here tonight
would deny there is an unmet demand and
need for parking uh that's been
recognized in each of the city's land
use strategy plans the Strategic plan
and the Southwest Bexley framework we
believe that this project will do much
to meet that unmet demand um so looking
at the next slide uh what is the
applicant's request what is being asked
of you tonight these are the very
specific requests we are requesting
approval of the demol and Redevelopment
of the Trinity Lutheran apartment
structures uh just adjacent to this
building we are looking for a
certificate of appropriateness for the
new six-story mixed use building as most
recently proposed to have that needed
housing to have those wanted commercial
uses as well as meet this demand for
parking so what does that mean in terms
of this board's action tonight there are
three variances that are necessary Mr
sui has ably explained why a parking
variance is in fact not necess under the
city code his math is well set forth in
the staff report instead the three
remaining issues before you tonight are
that we do want the six-story building
and frankly it's a modest six-story at
that um not obviously going over even
remotely most of the structure but
instead maybe a third at best uh we
would like a variance from Bexley code
12
5413 we've put there in the interest of
transparency toow a 55t setback staff
has short-handed appropriately so as a
50 foot plus or minus I just want to be
very clear that the current iteration
what we think is the best plan to date
does show at its farthest point 53 feet
uh from Main Street and so that's why
I've shorted handed it here as a 55 puts
set back but as you'll see it obviously
ranges uh and that depth varies across
the frontage of the building finally the
last variance is from
12413 to allow a building to be 75% of
the lot width instead of the 80% it's
actually just north of 76% as proposed
today uh Mr suudi talked about how
that's to prevent people from pulling
parking up but instead it should be in
the rear I think we absolutely meet the
spirit of that requirement and we do
believe that like the other two is the
modest variance um in the next slide uh
that very small print kind of uh puts
forth again what was previously on the
screen the ARB unanimously recommended
approval of the certificate of
appropriateness I'm happy to address
that and answer any questions you have
but it was very thoroughly vetted uh by
the ARB we are gratified to get their
unanimous recommendation of approval um
I think probably we could all agree the
main issues before you tonight are those
three variances and certainly uh if
those variances are deemed appropriate
in some ways the certificate of
appropriateness just simply follows from
that so
turning to the variances themselves in
the next slide I quote from the city
code because I understand that there's
been significant discussion of this
project and some members of the public
opponents to the project have said look
no variances should be allowed I know
this board I've Had The Good Fortune to
appear before you previously and I know
that each of you know this but it Bears
repeating the code specifically allows
flexibility for variances because not
every project can meet code requirements
and frankly there's projects that you
wouldn't want to just Hue to the code
but instead that kind of flexibility is
needed and recognized in this section of
the code you know I would even say from
my own personal experience and I know we
have a lot of design Planning and
Building professionals on this board on
a large infill project like this
variances are very common in my own
experience and yours may be very much
more extensive including in the city of
Columbus where their per their code is
more permissive than the surrounding
suburbs It's Not Unusual on an infill
project like this to have upwards of a
dozen variances we're proud that we've
been able to kind of narrow the issues
refine the project and improve it while
only talking about these three and and
while we take very seriously the
opponent's concerns I think that these
three modest variances are sought for
very good reasons so if we look at the
next slide
I want to address each of them uh while
we look at the requirements of bexley's
zoning code for a variance these are the
factors for a variance set forth in the
code they mirror what you've probably
heard called The Duncan factors under
Ohio law if you consider these factors
and think the variances are warranted
under bexley's code they're warranted
under Ohio law the factors are the same
chairman behall and your Council Miss
Cunningham hit the nail squarely on the
head at last month's meeting this is not
a checklist it is not required that this
applicant show and satisfy all of these
factors though I do think that we do and
I'm happy to answer your questions and
give you satisfaction in that regard but
these seven factors are simply to be
considered by this board to be balanced
and you Accord to each factor what
weight you think it deserves in light of
the overall project uh we have provided
to you it's been uploaded to the website
and available to the public what I think
is a fome explanation of how the each of
these factors are met that's part of the
record and I believe copies of those
have been provided to you tonight as
well um but let me just quickly at a
high level address each of these factors
in turn so if we look at the first
without variances the property will not
yield a reasonable return and cannot be
beneficially used in a manner that
aligns uh with the desires of the city
so if we take a look at the next slide
uh
please this is a unique site anyone
who's been involved in infill
Redevelopment knows that there are
challenges here the utilities need to be
relocated we need to appropriately
address traffic with the existing
neighbors with these new uses and
obviously providing a parking structure
uh is a very large undertaking but we
think that all of those can be done to
satisfy the city's code and the desires
of the city and those plans as as I
explained it Mr Cass I think explained
well last month that it is impossible to
develop the property in a way that will
meet the goals of the city and yet still
have this project pencil to use a little
industry
jargon we are reacting to aesthetic
concerns expressed by the city we are
reacting to what the city itself has set
forth and its plans that it wants that
has presented practical difficulties
this city has the power to regulate
Aesthetics and in order to meet those we
have had to change things about this
project that otherwise don't strictly
conform uh to the code we didn't just
say no we can build this uh Box by right
we want it to be something that
Community is proud of something that the
community and citizens have input in but
what that has done is created challenges
such that we need these variances to
conform to all those goals and
aspirations which are very worthy of the
city and its residents for this project
if we look at the next slide I submit to
you in light of the scale of this
project and and Mr Cass and Mr Hawk and
Continental real estate companies have
never run from the fact that this is a
large project this is a big undertaking
um but I submit to you that these three
variances which is what are before you
tonight are not substantial and the
neighborhood and adjoining properties
will actually benefit from these
variances let me explain uh that smaller
six story that I just described earlier
I believe that it is very minimal in
terms of both its size what it adds to
the project from the street it can't
largely be seen from several sides of
the building but it does reduce concerns
about a box appearance it does provide
buffering in terms of cutting down the
massing as it faces the Alexander and
other
elevations um so too the setbacks uh
they're not substantial they range from
20t as allow by code to that 53 ft I
talked about and the upside or the
benefit to the community of the pocket
Parks the dining space that will be able
to provide along East Main Street
absolutely provide a benefit and I
submit to you they are not substantial
as it relates to the scale of the
project itself finally building Frontage
now this is done uh to allow for good
movement around the site but also
provides a buffer uh from the Alexander
that large two-way Drive aisle in place
es but of similar width the whole length
as well as buffering uh from those
residents who are most concerned We
Believe actually is helpful and I don't
think going from a minimum building
Frontage of 80% along the Lots WID to a
little over
76% is substantial versus the benefit
that it will provide now I want to
digress for just a moment the
Condominium Association submitted a
brief alleging certain deterant that
frankly don't relate to these very
specific variances um talking about in
easement to enter and exit to uh this
development which is no longer an issue
the road running along the Condominiums
Western Edge which allows for good
circulation around the site and the loss
of natural light uh to the Eastern units
frankly that isn't really affected by
the sixth floor in any event so I feel
that none of these alleged concerns
actually go to the variances themselves
for height for set backs or for building
Frontage and because the third Factor
was invoked by several neighbors um
whether the neighborhood and adjoining
properties will suffer a detriment and
because certain people expressed and I'm
trying to be considerate here an
unfounded concern or speculated about
property values if you'll indulge me Mr
chair I would digress for just a moment
and say look the best evidence of that
is what is the market telling us the
most recent sale of a unit unit 408 in
the Alexander closed on Friday afternoon
last week uh it the prior owner held it
for two and a half years it appreciated
over 11% having been bought in the
summer of
20121 for
$71,500 and sold last week with full
knowledge of this project all in the
public domain for
$779,000 I have copies if I approach uh
Mr chair of those public records and
I'll leave one with Miss boar to put in
the public
record again I know that was something
of a digression but I do want to address
uh the concerns of uh the residents as
well as this board if there are any
lingering on each of these factors and I
think that well says uh what the market
thinks of this project as well as having
reviewed as I know you all did if you
weren't already in attendance last
month's meeting there was a woman who
came to the podium she was the only one
who came as a realtor speaking from that
Viewpoint presenting her expert
testimony as opposed to unfounded
concerns or speculation and you recall
she was very much in favor of this
project um so we do submit to you that
the neighborhood and adjoining
properties will benefit from these very
specific variances and they are not
substantial uh if we look at the next
Slide the fourth and fif fifth factors
have you simply consider and balance
will this uh negatively impact
governmental Services there's been no
evidence that these three requests Ed
variances Building height the lot width
uh Frontage um as well as the setback
from Main Street in any way impact
governmental Services um the applicant
has not yet purchased the property um
but that fifth Factor did the applicant
purchase it with knowledge of the
restrictions I think you know this as
well as anybody the applicant is seeking
to purchase the property in order to
meet as many requirements goals and
aspirations of the city and its
residents as it can so that's why we're
seeking these uh variances is to meet
asks that were made of us by the city to
meet those legitimate goals of the ARB
and the city's residents those are what
necessitated these variances uh the
sixth
factor is whether uh the requested do
whether the arb's requested design
changes can be implemented without the
variances uh they cannot the six story
is required as you heard not only to add
height variation not only to reduce any
box appearance that the project might
have as well as to provide buffering
from the Alexander to create that step
down uh that Miss boor explained earlier
but also Mr Cass explain to you that he
was being asked to reduce units reduce
units while the cost of construction
kept going up and that just doesn't work
unfortunately so to accommodate those
changes the those design excuse me those
design changes the variances are
necessary including that six store uh
six story excuse me the distinctive
entryway and the pocket parks that are
in aspiration of those cities of this
city that's required uh by The increased
setback or that's what will fill that
setback and then of course we spoke
about uh the reduced building Frontage
actually allows for safe uh entry and
circulation in the property as well as
additional buffering so the seventh and
final factor and I am almost finished um
talks about whether the spirit and
intent of the zoning requirements will
be observed and substantial Justice will
be done in granting the variances you
need no look no further than that zoning
code section that we've quoted uh on the
screen in fact the Main Street overlay
district is supposed to facilitate the
implementation of plans and vision for
the revitalization of the Main Street
Corridor it's supposed to present
diverse mix of land uses and promote
Redevelopment on Main Street that's
what's happening here um I've already
discussed how this meets the Bexley
strategic plan this project meets the
land use strategy plan as well as the
Southwest Beckley framework uh I've Had
The Good Fortune to appear before you on
other supposedly controversial projects
frankly projects uh by Mr Cass even um
but those projects in our experience
Giant Eagle the gram Mercy have come to
be enjoyed by the community I submit to
you that this project too will become an
asset of this community with needed
housing medical facilities restaurants
and Retail it was short-handed last
month as a77 million investment in the
city you know what flows from that the
taxes to the city the necessary housing
and homes that are part of this project
the jobs that will follow as well as the
continued Redevelopment of Main Street
from which we have all
benefited um I respect very much the
opponents of this project here tonight
Mr Cass and his team respect very much
the concerns of the opponents here
tonight but I don't want to leave this
unsaid I am grateful that this board
represents all Bexley residents not just
those who live closest to a project but
you also represent those residents who
might not be here tonight but but trust
that you will do what's right for the
city as in my experience you have in the
past and I know you will continue to do
so in the future so for those residents
and all the residents of Bexley I thank
you for doing tonight what I believe is
the right thing for this city and for
this project and these variances which I
believe meet the necessary factors with
that chairman I'm happy to answer any
questions or defer to what procedure you
think works best this evening sure thank
you very much Mr Miller I appreciate it
uh members of the board do you have any
questions of Mr Miller or would you
rather have are you going to have an
additional presenter at this time I
think it might be good for us to hear a
little bit about the revised traffic
flow that would be something I'd be
interested to hear
about certainly I'll Mr Hawk and Miss
Bal on that
sure Mr haw would you raise your right
hand state your name please uh Jason
Jason Hawk count real estate 150 East
Broad Street thank you sir do you swear
or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give this evening will be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth I do thank you very much you
heard kind of my question and maybe it
would be good to have a site plan up
there so you could and you have a
pointer there that would be helpful too
but make sure we understand the because
there's been several modifications show
us all the ins and outs please and the
traffic directions that are currently uh
in place in the plan yeah no problem um
so really the the Eastern portion of the
site hasn't changed since the last
meeting that we had that you know the
upper level has two access points that
are both in and
out uh and with the intent of trying to
get the majority of the traffic flowing
to the signal operation out here for for
the overall area the west side is where
you'll see this the most significant
change what we have done and and I
believe is a discussion that Frank had
with the Alexander uh HOA board that we
have now agreed to limit this West
portion of the drive to a one-way
southbound traffic so effectively what
has happened is any traffic associated
with the lower level of the parking
garage now is effectively required to
exit out at the main street or circulate
back through towards the signal to go
eastbound on Main Street we worked with
the fire department uh to get that
approval if you remember last time we
raised a concern that the fire
department would not be willing to uh
limit this to a one-way Direction that's
since they have agreed to that given and
hearing the community's concerns for the
area what it what it has done then is
that these 49 spots now are the the only
true real reason for anyone to come into
the site from the Alexander driveway um
now what I should just as a reminder
what has happened with the fire
department is they still will require a
Northbound component for their piece
which hence is why we keep the the drive
a little at at the existing width which
is what width do you know uh 22 feet
okay thank you and you know what the way
this will be signed is that it will sign
it do not enter on the South End uh with
the exception of emergency vehicle
access only for Northbound otherwise
everything is limited to the the Main
Street connections out here so let me
ask you just make put your pointer just
above the entrance way there there's an
arrow below below now toward the bottom
right there no below right there that
Arrow seems to be pointing correct so
let's just to clarify that so if you're
a a driver and you enter in the site
here you you can get to here to enter
the lower level okay I see um but beyond
that you know you can circulate within
interal to the garage and then you would
exit back out and have the ability to
drive back up the ramp to this side or
come due south out to the intersection
and head westbound on Main
Street okay so you know I don't dare to
project the numbers but what it has done
is it's limited this entire garage from
an opportunity to go back through the
the north which I think was the biggest
concern that we heard from from the
Alexander folks so if I'm headed south
on that street and I get to the exit and
I want to go eastbound on Main
Street isn't there a traffic divider in
in Main Street right there that has
trees growing in it correct but what you
would have to do is go back in through
the garage and out to the signal here
it's not the most convenient of routes
so if you were coming down Park VI you I
don't think this is a wise maneuver you
would come down to the signal at Main
Street and head east I see so we've
always thought I'll try to keep my voice
up that this project is absolutely Main
Street oriented and the average driver
would always be looking towards exiting
via Main Street as oppos the more
securious route along Park View but
certainly the movement you just
described once a driver does it once
they're always going to go to that
signalized intersection I think in your
in your own experience you know once you
learn the best way in and out of
something that takes care of
it so once you get to that point at the
bottom on Main Street you're going to be
directed if you're going Southbound
you're going to be directed you have one
alternative there and that's to make a
right-and turn correct the other part of
the triangle is strictly inbound off of
Main that's correct okay I just want to
make sure I understand it because that's
changed a little bit in the various
iterations so I probably didn't explain
it very well Mr chair but for the
members of the board when we talk about
southbound only we're not saying the
entire drive lane all the way to Main
Street because this does allow people to
make that right turn in and enter the
garage they can't go beyond that that's
a prohibited movement so between the
garage entrance and Park View it is
southbound only thank you that was
confusing me a little bit and I
appreciate the clarification so at least
we know what what we're looking at
here he and explain to us a little bit
about the traffic on
the uh Drive North of the Alexander how
how is that going to
work um is that going to be one way only
or is that both ways that's got to be
both ways yeah that's still two-way okay
for the benefit of their their access so
when they come up that street they can
either make a left and park in one of
the parking spaces that are not covered
back there correct or they can make a
right and enter into the parking garage
in the mid level there corre correct
where the hand is located
now there is a maneuver here that allows
him to go to those 49 spots yeah to
those 49 but you can't get into the
parking garage from the northern wall
correct cor garage okay correct so once
you get into that parking lot you're
going to be uncovered parking but it's
still 49 more spaces correct and when
you exit that loot you have to go down
the
westernmost and you could either make a
rightand turn that way go through the
Alexander Drive just for those 49 spots
or southbound and just to point out I
want to make sure we there's over 90
spots in the existing lot today yeah so
we've reduced that by 40
spots because the building actually eats
up some of that back parking lot that
exists that's correct there there is no
exit
from the garage out the north side of
the building to those 49 spots correct
there's no connection there at all it is
completely
blocked and though people have said
something that you could get to the 49
spots from the city hall parking lot
that is only true by pedestrian cor
methology you would not be able to get
there so if you wanted to gain access to
those you would have to go back to main
street and around right again probably
not the easiest
route frankly you'd probably park over
here before you would make that maneuver
if I may ask a question um having worked
in the bexi Gateway for a couple years
I've had an office and I would go up the
steps on the back side of the Alexander
uh for some overflow we know how that
lot is just it could be disastrous
during the day will this impact any
other existing parking easements that
the Alexander has no okay thank you the
only connectivity is in that that
easement to Park
View can you share the same traffic flow
if you are entering um driving eastbound
on Main Street and then if I wanted to
exit going eastbound on Main Street how
would I how would I do that knowing that
the main goal is to shift people towards
Bexley Square well the only real way to
go eastbound on Main Street is through
the signal so however you enter the site
if it's through here at the right in
right out or in the main entrance would
you would have to come back out to the
signal to go
eastbound so then entering from
eastbound on Main Street you would have
two options in that scenario you would
be able to enter here or
here but you can't enter there well
eastbound Main Street oh so apologize
eastbound on Main Street you would come
to the signal and make the left in and
then once you're in the parking lot how
do you get into the garage what is the
flow of that so we're still so working
out this entirely with cic and and their
maneuvering but generally it's a
counterclockwise Mo movement around the
the parking lot um you would be able to
either come up here to the the northern
entrance point to get into the garage or
if you wanted to get into this access
point you would come back around and
circulate in and with that
counterclockwise movement in relation to
exiting that same intersection correct
do you feel like that will hold up with
the amount of cars well I'd probably
want to turn that over to Gina she can
talk about the stacking but we did
increased the amount of stacking here at
this intersection from the current
design so you know I'll let her speak
through that okay thank
you was there any consideration given to
pedestrian traffic and how the increase
in traffic would affect crosswalks
people walking on the side walk I mean
if we're hoping for a more pedestrian
Main Street I think I would like to see
if that has been taken into account well
what we've done is we've encouraged
pedestrian Crossings at the intersection
with Main Street and at the signal or at
the right in right out on the West Side
assuming they're going to the West um
otherwise the the parking lot itself if
you were to go to City Hall or Orange
Theory or any of the other businesses it
in this Bexley Square it would be your
traditional walk through the parking lot
over to the the the building itself I
can speak to that from the response of a
code evaluation and a design guideline
evaluation which I just didn't touch on
today but it's in the staff
report there is actually a code
requirement that you are not allowed to
add additional curb cuts on Main Street
in a project and so what they've done is
they've actually relocated a curb cut
they've removed the right out only which
has frankly been a concern of the cities
for some time um you know we've been
fortunate enough that nothing we haven't
had significant conflicts there with
vehicular movements that being said um
it's sort of uh it's a it's a planning
practice not to allow free Move Free
Flow movements of traffic across a
parking area without sufficient
visibility and we've always been a
little concerned that that may be the
case in that particular location uh by
moving this to the other end I don't
think it necessarily uh alleviates that
but it it makes it better in the fact
that we can start to control that right
and right out by creating some sort of a
center pedestrian Island that is as
you'll see in the the conditions of
approval still something we have to work
out in specific detail in part with
input by the tree and public garden
commission that being said we want to
make those as narrow basically as the
fire department will let us make those
two uh those two route directional uh
lanes and then try to augment that so
that it's very easy as you're walking
down there to have a better visual
connection to where the where the cars
are moving um so that's one way um I
think the from a bigger site standpoint
the one thing that um is different than
it is now and I would say an advantage
from a pedestrian and bicycle linkage
standpoint is that they've limited that
movement up to Brian road to being
non-vehicular and so the actual access
in to hear from the neighbors that are
to the north you can more quickly get
off of the roadway Network and sort of
into the center more pedestrian oriented
spine now you're still going to have to
cross you know an entrance to a garage
and unfortunately vehicular pedestrian
bike conflicts are inevitable we just
want to try and reduce those and make
them as safe as possible and then I
guess the last thing and admittedly it's
a little ad hoc right now but we sort of
have an evolved sort of connection
between that lot you know these days
between this lot over there you can see
that that's going to be a distinct
pedestrian linkage um and so
theoretically um there it would be a
reduction in the way that pedestrian
vehicular conflicts are happening now
within the rear portion of the lot so
from a from a a standpoint of that it's
I think at least a neutral along Main
Street but potentially better throughout
the entire site Miss Dorne all I would
add on on the connectivity I was going
to mention the uh pathway from Brien
without vehicular traffic as well as
consolidating the signalized access
point in the beex Square property
without the right turn out does help the
connectivity and giving pedestrians
clear understanding of what they must
cross rather than separate Lanes of
traffic this isn't directly related to
connectivity but I would point out that
one of the uh variances before you
tonight this variation of up to
certainly I apologize this variation uh
in the buildings massing in the front
from 20 feet to up to 55 does help
obviously
uh reduce The Pedestrian scale of the
building and The Pedestrian experience
with the pocket Parks okay and then as
far as the parking lot is concerned I
mean it seems like it's almost a little
bit of a throughway now taking out some
of these other access points so I mean
that parking lot is going to become your
access road to the parking garage so I
just want to make sure that there is
adequate pedestrian safety measures put
in there because I mean if you walking
from Giant Eagle parking lot or this one
and there are cars just circulating
through that to get in and out of a
parking garage I think we really want to
make sure that's appropriately taken
care of we can absolutely do that
because the agreement is still in the
works with the city and with the cic and
and this may go to Chairman Beall's
question earlier Mr Hawk reminded me
that the southern portion of the parking
lot out outside uh is cic property to
the North in front of City Hall at city
of Bexley and I think think those
priorities can be a point for the city
and the cic in negotiation to which
we're very open and responsive so let me
ask and I don't know who to this
question goes I'm sorry did you have
another question okay cool we're not
that polite around here um and this
might be Jason question it might be a Mr
Miller question might be Mr hawat
question but uh two questions if I'm
parking in the we'll just call it the
city hall lot right out here and and I
park on the west Western extreme of it
and you know I'm going to walk across to
Orange torture across the street uh do
how do I get there I mean is there are
there some pedestrian marked walkways
across that I'm sorry I didn't I didn't
mean to say anything bad about orange
therapy so so what we we have introduced
and of course some of these details
still need ironed out with the city and
El but a much larger pedestrian path
along the we're increasing the sidewalks
width on the uh store Frontage the store
Front Frontage and then of course
there's a larger pedestrian path here
for Access but you know in general it
still will be some type of Crossing
through the parking lot that'll have to
be navigated and just to to kind of
answer the uh another concern M stor
raised was uh in regards to this entry
Drive I think what what the mayor's big
concern had been when we had our initial
discussions was trying to create uh a
traffic calming area basically with the
concern of The Pedestrian Crossings and
that's all parallel parking there so it
it will slow down traffic with a narrow
drive and the and the parallel parking
on both sides of the
street all I would add and I think it
goes to your question is you know for
instance at those narrow points you know
should a crosswalk uh be striped and
signed uh to miss doran's Point as well
probably and that's absolutely something
should be discussed with the city and
the cic yeah those discussions are still
avable that's I'm not sure that's a word
but absolutely all right so then my
second question is along these same
lines
is is the city uh or the I guess the
city um going to do something about how
it is that you get into a left turn lane
so if you're coming eastbound from
downtown say toward whiteall and you're
going through Bexley and you want to
make a left to go to the restaurant
that's going to be there and you're
going to park in front of City Hall
someplace or into the parking garage
there is a traffic divider once again
with trees in the middle of which looks
beautiful and they're all lit up and it
looks fantastic but it makes that
left-and turn lane only handle about I'm
guessing now but I'm going to say three
or four or five car cars at the most and
you know you it would seem to me like
you need a some concession there yeah to
allow a larger left-hand turn lane which
might mean you have to get rid of the
median in the in the street if this
passes tell me I think I'll leave that
to Gina to answer because she's
answering that from a technical side but
in the traffic Port she's encouraging
some modifications to the timing of the
signals okay speak to that g all right
you would you please state your name and
raise your right
hand Gina Balo traffic engineer with
Carpenter Marty okay do you swear or
affirm that you're going to give
testimony this evening to the panel that
is the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes okay thank you would
you want to address my question yes and
it's a it's a very valid question you
know driving in there tonight I
experienced that myself um and I will
say the traffic study in that um we do
have
turn lane length calculations and those
are following OD do standards with the
updated traffic counts that Jason had
mentioned um in our revised study and
I'll also say this really didn't change
from the last iteration um the results
and conclusions were the same um but
basically what we're showing is that the
existing eastbound left turn lane at
that traffic signal is 95 feet
long in the no build scenario so
assuming this development does not
happen um it needs to be 150 feet long
so we're saying you need that
Improvement now without any development
um that is the responsibility of the
city to do and then with the development
added on top of that the turn lane
length is the same the the needed length
is the same 150 ft so it's a city
responsibility that does not change with
the addition of the development
traffic
okay along those lines now I have a
question for Mr Miller that you might be
able to tone in on here but you
indicated in your presentation that the
parking needs of the central Bexley area
need to be met in some fashion
but or parking demands need to be met
but aren't we creating additional demand
here as well oh absolutely and I I
wouldn't run from that I wouldn't try to
make you suspend disbelief but I think
the city is appropriately interested in
this shared parking agreement to allow
for an alleviation of uh some of the
congestion and some of the parking uh
concerns that frankly some of us faced
tonight in the as as is situation so you
had asked a question or I'm sorry it
came up during Mr sud's report you know
how many spaces are going to be reserved
for residents how many will actually to
be available for public parking uh TBD I
mean certainly there will be some
reserve for residents I want to act as
though that that wouldn't be an amenity
provided to Residents but you can see
with the connectivity from this parking
lot to that I'll call it the first floor
of the parking structure rather than the
uh sub uh
Subterranean uh level spaces available
to accommodate those needs and demands
no I don't I don't want to lead anyone
to believe that we're just doing this to
be magnanimous and creating a parking
for the city and its resid but there are
upsides and benefits that address
directly that parking need described in
those various studies I itemized
so one thing that has impacted me as
I've been thinking but I've been
thinking quite a bit about this
regrettably um is um the raw number of
units you know if the units were bigger
and there were fewer units uh you'd have
fewer residents maybe I don't know how
that all works out but but I'd like to
hear you know an 800 SQ foot unit as I
understand maybe 150 of them are and you
correct me if I'm wrong folks because
I'm I know I'm ballparking that but uh
seems to me to be you know one person
maybe a couple and maybe one or two cars
the 1200q foot
units you know could possibly have two
different roommates living in there but
some of them will only have one
I I I'm having a little rough time with
somebody who's lived in a Beckley house
for 42
years downsizing into an 800 or 1200
foot unit I'm I'm a little queasy about
that uh so I I'm just a little
bit uh well I'm concerned about
everything but I'm asking you if you
could help me understand better how you
think that the number of
units there go therefore the number of
inhabitants work in this situation and I
I pose that question to both of you I
may pull Jason up here as well let me
take a swing at it and see what you
think okay this project getting to the
best result involves a lot of competing
tensions we heard people come up here
and question well who's going to pay
these level of rents well there we also
heard people saying I'm ready to sign up
now I want to sign a lease and we heard
some people say I would like to downsize
to this size and so there is this
tension of the number of units the
sizing the rents I trust this national
uh company and their development
experience that tells them that this mix
is acceptable and that to take away more
units or squeeze this site even further
when I think we can all agree the land
costs are enormous the costs to develop
and build are enormous
uh there is a tension in all of this
that we think we have reached the best
possible result is it going to be
perfect in terms of everybody in this
room and up on this dis getting what
they want absolutely not we've already
seen that with the ARB and some of the
strong feelings that people have about
this development uh last month before
this board but we do think with three
variances before you tonight with the
best possible iteration in an iterative
process as staff well knows because
they've been on the front lines of it
has gone on for months and months we
think we have resolved those tensions in
the best way possible for this city and
some may say some in the in the audience
may say or even up here some may be
thinking well why don't we hold out and
see who comes up with an even better
product who's going to invest $77
million not the average home flipper
what we have before us is a reputable
Builder someone who cares deeply about
the city willing to make a major major
investment and has worked with this city
not just said here's what I can do by
code but instead said tell us what you
want we're going to do our very best but
it still needs to make economic sense
and so I hear what to get back to your
actual question I hear what you're
saying about sizing but it's also
balanced against rents number of units
availability of financing and
construction costs so we've tried to
resolve those all of those competing
tensions in the best way possible for
the city of course one thing that is
hard to do in this environment in this
kind of a quazi Judicial uh setting is
to say
um and and one of the requirements of
the code is you know that the property
in question will yield a reasonable
return or whether they could be any
beneficial use of the property without
the variance right and one of the
questions is you know what if there were
some
um 1,200 squ foot units combined with an
800 foot unit to create a 2,000 square
foot unit the rent would be higher you'd
get the same amount of rent you'd have a
greater variety of units available I'm
just curious how how did the de and see
we can't say developer show us all your
numbers I know he doesn't know how much
it's going to cost to build the building
he's guessing but I suspect there's a
little bit of a buffer zone there that
he's got that probably going to ensure
some profitability yeah it's not just
guesswork obviously it's educated
performers based upon decades and
Decades of experience and real
experience uh in and around central Ohio
near this Market um you know I don't
know that what you have before you is
the structure is it appropriate what you
have before you are the existing
structures uh should they be demolished
and what you have before you are these
three variances I do understand why
you're asking about the number of units
because it influences traffic which I
think we've dealt with well and address
the city's concerns but by the same
token when we start tinkering with the
building uh layout internally the range
of units and
sizing I don't know that that's
necessarily the province of the City
versus developer to make sure that their
investment is sound or the provins of
this board other
than we're we're being asked in other
words you could build a three story
apartment complex here and not even come
talk to us right so to get to five you
have to meet the requirements of a
special permit to go to Six you need the
variance right so I think our province
is we're going to put six stories up
which allow so many units which allow so
many inhabitants and are we creating a
structure that is that would I think we
all agree that some development here
would be a spectacular thing and some of
these amenities would be spectacular
things for
Bexley and we're not here to make
decisions about tax bases or any of that
stuff that's beyond our purview but I
think that the the size meaning the
number of
units and the number of
inhabitants is quite important in our
analysis of whether this is beneficial
and and no Project's going to be totally
beneficial with no downside or totally
down no you know terrible with no upside
we got to balance the two I want to make
sure you know I completely agree with
you that that is the province of this
board and not not trying to act as
though it isn't um we do s submit to you
that we need this small and it is small
when you look at the building's
footprint this small six-story to
relocate units that we've taken out to
accommodate other concerns and competing
ideas of the city um so absolutely the
number of units and the number of
residents matter but I think as a
practical concern what is that mean for
infrastructure what does that mean for
traffic what does that mean for services
for the city we've answered those
questions I believe to a reasonable
person's satisfaction uh and then
anything that happens within that
internal footprint I think we need to
let the market decide let the residents
decide and let this developer act based
upon their
expertise thank you I have another qu I
have a question then how how many total
units are contemplated in the current
application 232 232 thank
you questions Mr Mr yes I have two
questions um one uh Mr chairman he
talked about the empty nesters I'm I'm
thinking about the single units and
those who are coming in to try to build
their nest um considering that there's a
restaurant and bar and if it's Cameron
Mitchell we know there's going to be
good copious amounts of cocktails um the
single units and the medical office what
consideration has been taken to um what
I would call a ghost parking like for
Ubers and lifts where Jason can speak to
this and it's also I know that there's a
lot on this plan sometimes it's
difficult to read but it is actually
contemplated on the plan
itself uh there's a couple ways that
we've contemplated that uh specifically
you know in this area here adjacent to
the pcka park we would ex anticipate
that being either Uber Eats or or
whatever as a means of picking up food
um there's also some on street parking
that is is available that could be
limited for short-term parking um
secondarily I know that a lot of the
details associated with the garage
itself and internal workings are still
in the planning stage but we would
anticipate similar type of uh spots
available within the garage if I could
just add one thing um the applicant did
indicate when we were uh checking
through when I was checking through the
parking numbers and make sure I had the
right uh Square footages they indicated
that there could be the use of two of
the on street parking spaces for valet
Uber so I eliminated those as far as the
on street parking credit
so um basically we reduce that down to
only eight spaces that we're considering
that are like public parking spaces on
the street because some of those could
be used for for those other uses and
that also doesn't include any spaces we
would gain by closing the other curb cut
since that's only partially on their
site and that you know the spaces we
would gain would actually be next to
that so we didn't give them credit for
that and I you make a good point Mr
schik I would just amplify it by saying
yes there will be young professionals
who are living here who do make use of
Uber who will be working from home uh
and who want to have a carless
experience all of our parking
calculations in the code are based on a
different time and a different age and
frankly different Generations I mean
there's a young lawyer at my Law Firm
who doesn't have a car in Columbus Ohio
and it to me it doesn't even register
but I think frankly because I'm me uh
but to the younger generation who may
take advantage of this to them that's a
great lifestyle where I could work from
home have walkability to all these shops
and restaurants on Main Main Street and
not have to worry about a car you're
definitely over 40
definely all right I have one more
question yes sir I'm sorry this is for
you Mr biller um I think I may have
overprepared for this so forgive me for
this question but in your application
documents she characterized the
additional height variance is not
substantial however a six-story
represents a doubling of the as of right
three story allowance could you please
elaborate further for us for us on why
you believe these variants are ins
substantial in nature as opposed to
Major deviations that could fail to meet
the Duncan Factor test yeah absolutely
I'll take that six Story one first and
then if you want me to address the other
two I'm happy to do so miss boore it
might be helpful to look at the
elevations that show the dotted lines of
the neighboring properties and in
particular the uh west elevation as it
faces the
Alexander
so recall I'm not hiding behind what the
ARB asked for but it has made this
project much better in my personal
opinion and I think in the opinion of
the developer um and that we would say
to you to substantiate the investment to
ensure a return necessitated that sixth
floor look where the sixth floor is okay
first of all it covers not even a third
of the building I exaggerated when I
spoke earlier there it is pushed towards
Main Street where obviously there is
massing where we do want more dense
development but not even probably
visible from either side of Main Street
uh from the average pedestrian or car
are then look at the red outline where
the Alexander is they mirr each other in
terms of height about 66 feet uh and
obviously the Alexander while I
understand their concerns about
neighboring development and an
additional five-story building next to
their five-story building the fact of
the matter is they are very comparable
in height that six story is pushed
forward uh to the South um and so I
think that it is modest when compared to
the entirety of the site I think on the
building with uh um I'm not going to
just you know keep harping on this but
the idea that we're going from 80%
required to
76.4 it might be I don't think that is
substantial just as I don't think the
six stories presents a substantial
departure from what we could do with a
special permit for instance um and then
in terms of the third variance it's Sor
uh in terms of the oh the depth from the
from Main Street I really do see that as
an advantage to address anyone who who
is concerned about the density of the
development along Main Street who is
appropriately concerned about pedestrian
scale and pedestrian experience I
absolutely see that as a positive will
still allowing the high density
development that this city has
repeatedly said it wants in the Main
Street
Corridor so we can't
have we can't take questions from the
audience I'm sorry but I'll ask
it is it on the next page Miss
bore
Main Street elevation oh the north I'm
sorry so the North Street that as you're
looking at it from perhaps those homes
on on Brien that is a great reason why
it's pushed forward towards Main Street
not only do we say we want that
experience along Main Street here at
least for the single family homes along
brighten it is uh at least as far as
this rendering goes and I think just as
a matter of Art and Science and
visible
and oh I'm
sorry are we looking at something no so
um as
for
the balconies on the east side of the
Alexander I think each of the stories
has a balcony and there are several
units two or three units help me but
something like that that face
East if you were to build a three-story
unit
here there would be some disturbance of
the privacy on those lower
balconies one way or the other oh
absolutely if you build a five-story
unit which is all it is where the where
the there's no stories where the AL
where the Alexander is as I understand
it the Alexander is back here I'd have
to look at that red
uh map again I'm sorry to do that to you
Karen there you go so basically every
balcony on the east side of the
Alexander is now going to be I mean
there there already is an apartment on
the other side of the of the Alexander
balcon or east side balconies it's the
smaller units there are only two or
three stories whatever they are over
there there and uh they're not exactly
up to the edge of the of the lot of
course this is it because you narrowed
this a little bit too as I understand it
but uh I just want to make sure I I
understand that yeah I'm didn't mean to
cut you off there but no I want to
understand it
that just what the facts are are there
balconies on that side I can't really
tell and I looked at that Westerly uh
elevation a couple times but
I sure will have our architect come up
and address it but I would I was simply
going to make the point there's a lot we
could do by right that isn't very
pleasant for the Alexander or for the
citizens in terms of building the build
to line and the setbacks all of which
we've tried to be very respectful of in
terms of not only that true two-way
drive a but buffering step Downs Etc but
speak trees as well
absolutely all right sir if you raise
your right hand absolutely tell me your
name uh Brad Pauling ph7 Architects 48
West Nationwide thank you do you swear
or affirm the testimony you're about to
give will be the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth I do thank you
please if you want to address that
question are there balconies on the west
elevation that bank up to the Alexander
there are there are balconies uh
scattered across all four of the facades
of this building and so along our West
facade there are um there are balconies
on our property that look into uh the
Alexander um if you can find that
elevation
yep
um yeah the west elevation just the
rendering probably from there's a
rendering that's probably seven or eight
pages in that might be the best one to
look at keep going keep going keep
going keep
going keep going keep going that's North
yeah that's you can St you can pause
here for a moment so so what you're
seeing on this is the West facade of the
building and there is the uh the balcony
that's you see on top of the brick
structure that's the uh third floor of
our piece that's a large balcony for
those residents if you look further down
that facade you'll notice there are a
couple of indentations those represent
uh the balconies that that are along
that facade if you keep going one more
view the building on the right is the
Alexander that I was looking at correct
okay here we go in this view these These
are balcony structures along our West
facade so there there's I know you're
not seeing the ones that are further
down but there are a series of them
scattered about some of them are a
little deeper than others but there's a
series of different vocabulary of
balconies along that facade okay um and
I think the other thing that I I would
point out specifically as it relates to
the Alexander on that side is that you
know we have pushed the building back
and as part of the 80% reduction is
giving buffer to the Alexander along
that facade and um you know we have
we have pushed our building back farth
enough that the distance is it's similar
to other developments in this area but
by right if you were to build three
stories and correct me if I'm wrong but
there's no definition of height in your
zoning code as far as what a story
is so if if I said we're going to put a
three-story office building in this
particular property an office building
Florida floors or 15t 18t sometimes
they're they're not defined as
residential so by right we are buil
allowed to build on our property line
right to it and that could be a 45 foot
high office building on the property
line now the that is just by W as far as
I understand The Code by pushing this
building back we are we are trying to
understand and trying to appreciate that
these two buildings have to live in
harmony with each other and it's it's
that's that's the nature of what's going
on here so um when you say push it back
you mean easterly I'm saying that by
right a development could be built on
the property line point facts though
yeah how far back when you say back
which way do you mean this distance is
40 I think it's 42
46 42 yeah so this distance from the
property line to the face of the
building is 42 feet and from the
property line to the Alexander we have
another yes so the the Alexander is five
feet from the property line right here
and I think I I I calculated I can't
remember the exact number but I think
it's 15 feet from here so when the
Alexander was built they were they by
code had to take into account windows
and openings and a zero lot line
condition so their drawings and their
building had to take into account the
amount of percentage of opening knowing
that a building could be built at zero
lot line you have other examples of that
up and down your Corridor you've got the
one Dawson place that has a five-story
blank facade on the back facade that
that was built because there's the
potential for a neighbor to be built
five stories tall that that happens up
in down your Corridor for other reasons
so the fact that this building is near
the property line there's always been
the understanding in the that that
something could be built we do not want
to do that that is not being neighborly
in any way and so pushing the building
back is appropriate for not just the
Alexander residents but also the
residents of of this potential future
building so um yeah I I can go into more
deep can you tell me how far it is from
the the north property line um yeah so I
might need help from Ryan on this one 66
feet from the property line to our
facade here and I cannot remember I I
actually looked it up this morning I was
looking to see what these these
buildings are set back as far as depth
uh from here but the distance from our
facade of five stories to the nearest
residential single family home is three
times as far as the distance from the
Alexander fivestory building to the
nearest residential home that distance
versus that distance so I mean we we
again we we're trying to be as
respectful to the surrounding neighbors
as possible with a building that is five
stories tall in the back we understand y
thank you
y all right if there aren't any more
questions do you have some questions
Rick please a common criticism that I've
heard in the community is that the
proposed development is simply too
massive for the
site would would you address that and
second has there been any conversation
about whether swapping the right out for
the right in right out is not really
moving the curb cut but really is it
adding a curve
cut we have done this with the this I'll
take the second question uh first you
are not allowed to create new curb cuts
and we take this sorry we take the
swapping to be thank you curb cut
neutral and so with the city's uh
understanding and discussion uh not only
with this board previously but with the
other two boards as well as City staff
over the process of months that's been
deemed
accessible has been deemed uh allowable
and I believe does conform uh to code as
far as doing
something less
massive uh I would just go back to what
we are told by the city itself and of
course so much of that was based upon
feedback from the citizens that the Main
Street Corridor as Redevelopment
opportunities present themselves wants
greater massing along Main Street I've
already kind of explained and don't want
to repeat myself as to why I think the
six story is not a significant
alteration to the building but obviously
your code does contemplate five stories
does contemplate uh developments of a
certain uh larger more urban scale uh
and we've have elements that we believe
and our architect could obviously speak
to it better I'll defer to him that we
do believe soften its appearance while
still achieving those stated objectives
of the city for the Main Street Corridor
yes
uh so to to speak to mass I mean I think
that mass is is a subjective thing um we
are certainly taking steps to reduce
Mass along this building I mean the
building the cuts that we have made
along the front of this building are
doing that and you can see that in this
site plan when it comes to where is the
potential building versus where is our
our actual facade on the fifth floor and
so you know the carves that have been
made and the levels and the tiers of
that that is working towards reducing
Mass we've done that in the back Corners
as well we've removed units in these
back Corners to sort of carve away the
corners um the one thing that ARB is
asking us to study is what could be done
along these back these facades here that
that do I think similar things to this
that that's the challenge that we are
trying to work through um those are
moves that fundamentally will not change
the height of the building they're going
to change the perceived appearance of
the building we have tried to do that
through our elevation tactics by
lowering what is a perceived roof line
by bringing that down and making the
materials along the top
story less masonry less just being a
little lighter that's going to help with
perception um it's still a fivestory
building I'm not gonna stand here and
say it's not and that and along the back
but the things that we can do
architecturally to lessen the massing
are they're visual tricks they they are
they is but we are doing things that are
appropriate to the type of building that
it is is and I think you have to
remember at the underlying answerers
that there's still a parking structure
underneath this that parking structures
are generally very Square they don't
like cuts and nuts and and takes out of
them they they have they function within
a module of a car and how they circulate
so when this building is for the all
intense purposes from this line right
here all the way back that entire thing
is a parking Bay module we have we have
certain we have certain things we have
to work within and then build on top so
that's what we're looking at carving out
and taking away if we can um is what can
we do to continue to try to soften the
appearance of this and I think that's
the heart of the arb's comments um I
would argue that you have other
buildings along your Corridor again one
Dawson place these are buildings that
have flat facades that have no
articulation this building has far more
than that in other in in other places
that are five-story buildings in your in
your on your street so there are there
are things that we can do but they are
uh they're architectural gestures that's
that's what what we're using to try to
help change what is perception and mass
if if you were building a lot line
project of three stories would you have
to show up here tonight I don't believe
we would yeah there's still certificate
of appropriateness but that couldn't run
contrary to what the code permits
correct okay I think I'd like to if if
you don't have any other presenters that
we need to hear first I'd like to give
some folks in audience a chance to uh
ask questions or make comments thank you
if and simply to wrap up on on your
question sir uh not only do I think what
we have done here meets the spirit and
intent of the Main Street uh District
guidelines I believe it meets the letter
of it for curve Cuts as well so in all
three in all three respects I believe it
meets the codes requirements so
everybody remember to speak into the
microphones please can I ask one more
question I I had a question for the
traffic engineer okay may take a maybe a
minute okay um about I think um there
was a mention of the signals and how
pedestrians can cross Main Street like
from Capital because obviously that's I
think what we're trying to attract their
Capital students to come here as well
are there going to be changes to like
traffic signaling and is that part of
your
study so I would I would say the overall
oper ations from a pedestrian standpoint
are not changing from the existing
conditions we did in our study recommend
some optimization of the signals that
Jason had mentioned um and that could
come into play with pedestrian
accommodations um but overall the
traffic study was focused on vehicular
traffic sorry um okay I'm just concerned
because I know right now to cross Main
Street like from Capital it is maybe 10
seconds there's no left turn signal I
mean there's a lot of issues that will I
think be compounded by additional
vehicles and traffic and pedestrians so
I just like I want to make sure we get
it right and we're not coming back you
know in two years saying geez I really
wish we would have thought about this so
I don't know if that's something you
take in a traffic survey or if it's
something we do somewhere else but I
just want make sure that we're doing it
right the first time and we're not
coming back in a couple years saying boy
we we really need to re configure things
yeah I would believe that is something
that the city could look into okay as a
separate item and they can use our
traffic study as a basis for that um and
that optimization of the signals um
maybe adding in some leading pedestrian
intervals there's different ways to
improve The Pedestrian accommodations at
that inter section for sure yeah that's
a great question I'll just add to it by
saying you know we had that exact
discussion this afternoon in our office
that part of that kind of overall
blanket discussion of signalization
optim you know signal optimization
really is thinking about what are the
tradeoffs that we think are most
appropriate as a community and that may
be changing the level of service
slightly in different directions based
on how long and what pattern you want
those signal timings to occur in and I'm
not a traffic engineer so I'm just you
know saying from the planning side that
being said you know if we as a community
feel like there are lack there's a
lacking ability to have safe pedestrian
Crossings in some spaces on Main Street
then really what we're saying is we're
willing to trade the speed at which a
car can go down Main Street by having
longer signal timings or those delayed
um you know through movements in order
to have more traffic or more uh
pedestrian Crossing movements and that's
all part of this and we completely agree
and that was really the the point of my
comment earlier is that we believe that
the traffic study as it's been done is
accurate and accurately reflects the way
that cars would move in and out of the
site which is then now incumbent upon us
to understand how we want that balance
and trade-off to be with signalization
prioritization I should also mention
that there may be some significant
changes coming to this entire Corridor
in the future and so if that should
happen as part of the larger
Transportation network of the of the
region with regard to Transit all of
those would be Revisited in a very
rigorous manner um so we really just
want to make sure this works the best it
can possibly work under today's
conditions and is safe in case none of
that
happens all right then she may have
better a better traffic weight answer
then no your spot on it was a good
answer you agree with what he just said
yes all right thank you very much since
it's three minutes till eight let's take
a eight minute break uh and we'll be
back at 8:05 to reconvene thank you
please let's get started here again in
in about a minute
please
stand
than
yeah
that's a very good
idea all right let's uh reconvene
please on a procedural basis I was going
to ask Jason uh the the conditions that
were um applied by the
ARB can you make sure that we as a board
understand what they are sure please can
I do you want me to read them right now
yeah can you do you have absolutely okay
um so the motion was made for approval
with the following conditions there were
nine conditions um and we've included
the first eight in our staff report as
recommended to you to adopt and the
ninth one with just a very small tweak
in it which I'll get to it when I get
there uh so the first one is that the
applicant returns to the ARB with
material boards and samples two
headlight screening be added to the
parking lots where needed three the West
Drive on the site be redesigned to
enhance the green space and allow
substantial tree planting four the north
and west elevations of the proposed
building be reworked to lessen the mass
and create better connection into the
ground screen the garage and use more
consistent materials number five the
height on the west and North elevations
toward the rear of the site be reduced
six the west elevation have more
variation in the plane of the facade and
the height seven the ARB supports the
addition of the six-story
architecturally to follow to allow
flexibility in lessening the overall
massing of the building number eight
outdoor dining adjustments be reviewed
by the ARB when a tenant is secure so
all eight of those we've recommended
that you use use as part of your uh
approval should you act to approve
should you move to approve and then the
ninth is that the application be
remanded back to ARB for final design
review and approval and issuance of a
final certificate of appropriateness and
as I mentioned earlier in this
particular case since it's a complex
project and there'll also be likely a
remand to the tree and public garden
commission we would recommend that that
would be remanded to them for review and
and um and you actually would take that
back for the final approval and issuance
of their certificate that is at your
discretion and really was just an effort
because it is complex it'll be going a
lot of places we could just bring it all
back here at the end to make sure
there's one cohesive approval um I just
want to mention for the record that that
is from the decision and record of
action November 29th 20123 I would also
mention for the record that Karen's
gonna have a lot more information about
this than I do I just happen to have it
in front of me so I read it and it is
available on the city's website under
the November 29th 2023 architecture
review board minutes right okay thank
you very
much um also one thing that was stated
by Mr Miller that I'll certainly let you
address it was that if the three
variances are granted it sort of
automatically flows into a approval of
the certificate of reading a certificate
of appropriateness I'm not sure that's
precisely the right legal conclusion I
think we have to consider the variances
certainly if one of those doesn't work
the rest doesn't matter but if the
variances pass then I think we have to
make a a separate decision that a
certificate of appropriateness as
recommended by the ARB is is also
appropriate and this board has the final
say in that regard right Miss Cunningham
okay I'm not clear on what the point is
of us voting on a certificate of
appropriateness with all those
conditions I mean are we improperly
delegating our Authority that's question
number one
and question number two is it is it
right for us to consider at this time as
to delegation of authority you have your
code provides that you could choose to
deleg you you have the choice you could
completely delegate all authority to
them and relinquish your right to do the
final certificate of appropriateness in
this case which staff uh planning staff
is recommending against and City staff
is recommending against because of the
size of the project so there's no
improper it's provided for in the code
you could do it um and I'm sorry Mr Le
could you ask me the second one
again is it
right oh okay so typically um it this
certificates of appropriateness as the
final design gets finished and
construction plans are done and
materials may or may not be available
and things that were discussed get
tweaked as the final development goes
forward
um often very often as those are
happening the certificates of
appropriateness come in with tweaks and
adjustments and are they in substantial
compliance or are there other things so
normally we see um a conceptual the
approval of the design as presented but
if there is any kind of change in that
um it's very typical in um AR in
architectural approval that the final
final certificate of appropriateness is
issued when that's done um also very
much like the I think one of the other
things in here was um discussion early
on about Demolition and Redevelopment
and a demolition approval and even if
you give demolition approval in the city
you cannot they cannot pull a permit
until they've gotten the final
construction plans in with the final
certificate of appropriateness with the
final everything done so it all sort of
Builds on each other and it just allows
flexibility in the process what you
would be approving is subst in
substantial compliance with kind of what
is shown and if there are tweaks and
changes which inevitably there are in
every project and we've had that many
many times in the city then then it
comes back to you for that which is why
um I think um staff and Jason is
recommending that the final certificate
of appropriateness be done here staff uh
design staff and both Karen and Kathy
review all of that and if there is a
discrepancy between what was proposed
and what is happening or a material
discrepancy between design materials
that come in they're they're the Gateway
that take them back to ARB for further
refinements in this case it was just a
little bit different because ARB was
asking in this case they were not they
wanted to maybe have some more design
alterations on I believe Karen help me
the West facade and the the north facade
of that building again for aesthetic
collaboration with adjoining properties
um so that's why they they asked that it
come back they just thought that maybe
some more refinements could improve it
if they didn't then it would come back
to you as is so that's very very typical
and it's critical I think with these
certificates of appropriateness that the
developer knows that their General
concept and design is approved because
that's what allows them then to get the
construction plans and move forward with
the project Mr Miller very briefly
because it goes directly to your good
question and your point Mr line we need
these variances to move the project
forward so those are very much ripe and
they are staged appropriately with the
certificate of the microphone Mr I
apologize and they are the variances are
staged appropriately with the
certificate of appropriateness has as
has often happened before this committee
anything we do has to be in substantial
conformance with these conditions and
the conditions you would set forth
tonight and it allows this project to
move forward as fully entitled as you in
the industry know that's important to
even pass go as it relates to lending
construction construction documents and
Engineering so all of it is
appropriately before you tonight I would
submit thank you all right um I'd like
to hear from the audience and I've been
told by staff that we have somebody who
has a medical condition and would like
and cannot uh I I'm having a medical
condition here myself but um and that
would be a m Rothman is M Rothman
here okay I might have outlasted her
already all right with that in mind Mr
Hunt do you want to uh come forth and
once again enter your appearance and
state who you are here representing
thank you very much I appreciate it uh
my name is Brian Hunt legal counsel for
the Alexander Condominium Association I
did have roughly about three minutes of
comments prepared and have a couple more
now so if I could get maybe just an
extra minute or two of time certain
appreciate it um I will talk very
broadly about um where we stand tonight
a lot of testimony has been provided a
lot of details have been gone over over
the course of several meetings and I
don't need to delve into those as it
pertains to the variances it is
noteworthy that tonight is the first
time the Continental has substantively
argued that the factors are met in way
in favor of granting the variances this
is of course talking into the microphone
please yeah you got to get it right up
to your mouth otherwise it's that better
lot better all
right
I'll start over I
apologize so um as it pertains to the
variances it
is there we go it is noteworthy that
tonight is the first time that
Continental has substantively argued
that the factors are met in we in favor
of granting these variances this is of
course most likely in response to the
issues raised at the prior meeting but
more importantly it also contradicts
also contradicts the Abundant evidence
and testimony that has already been
produced showing that the variances are
not appropriate the record shows that
the factors that should be considered
weigh against granting the variances and
that the design of the building is
solely in response to the design
recommendations from the ARB Continental
admits this in fact as it states that
the arb's requested design changes
cannot be implemented without the
variances in its arguments again it's
important to stress that these designs
changes are a product of Architectural
Review and the arb's attempts to
mitigate the harmful effects of this
massive building they are not necessary
to allow a permitted use of the the
property or to avoid the effects of an
unreasonable or unjust zoning regulation
which is the actual test the fundamental
question for this board is whether the
zoning requirements as applied to the
applicant are reasonable other
properties along Main Street have
complied with these regulations without
issue so granting these variances will
feel more like preferential treatment as
opposed to avoiding a practical
difficulty which now feels manufactured
by the applicant therefore these
variances must be denied and we would
like to re raas the point that a
variance is required from Bey code
section
12413 JJ which prohibits any additional
curb Cuts in the Main Street
District as for the certificate of
appropriateness there has been
relatively little meaningful and
directed review of the many
considerations that are pertinent to
whether a certificate of appropriateness
should be approved this review includes
among other things considering whether
this application properly balances the
ex the city's existing quality and
character against Redevelopment whether
the development maintains the quality of
residential neighborhoods and commercial
corridors and whether the architectural
style and building composition are
appropriate ultimately this board must
determine that the site and the design
plans for the buildings so it's not just
the buildings it's also the site plan
and also the structures and spaces keep
with the purpose and intent of the Main
Street district and the Main Street
guidelines and that the plans would not
have a substantial detrimental impact on
neighboring properties and that would
apply to any Redevelopment it's been
said this evening and I'm I'm glad that
board caught on that even if this were a
three story building they could not just
throw up whatever they wanted they would
have to come to this board for review
you have heard hours of testimony from
concerned citizens about this
development which proved that those
factors are not met and the arb's
recommendation provides little guidance
this board should know that the ARB was
very concerned about this development
and unhappy that the number of units
actually increased when the north side
of the building was altered with a
six-story from what was said by the ARB
is likely that major alterations are
possible this goes back to them
therefore the certificate of
appropriateness must not be approved at
this
time as it relates to the parking it
appears that the current view is that a
variance is not required for parking
this view however does not apparently
take into account that the Alexander has
a right to use 16 parking spaces on the
pro property pursuing to an easement
likewise The View does not take into
account that the parking garage will be
open to the general public so it would
seem that a variance is required but how
can this board determine whether
sufficient parking is being provided
when the number of users which will
include the general public has not been
determined the fact is that parking
demand will be an issue and any
approvals made without a study or
without an actual parking agreement in
place as required by the Bexley code
would be arbitrary and
unreasonable finally as it relates to
the easement we have discussed the
easement that crosses the Alexander's
property many times and which is
intended to act as a primary Ingress and
egress to the
development part of this process is to
ensure that the interests of the
community and neighboring property
owners are being balanced with those of
the applicant we do not feel this has
happened to date and this issue has not
been addressed by the city or the
developer and to clarify something that
was said earlier there never was an
agreement between Continental or the
association so we are providing notice
that a civil action in the Alexander's
name was filed in the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas today for the
purpose of protecting its interest and
the interest of its unit owners in the
common elements burdened by the easement
I say that again I'm sorry last sentence
we have filed a civil action in the
Franklin County Court of commment place
today regarding the easement so with
that we thank you for against whom
continental and Capital University okay
thank you for your time and
consideration for all the foregoing
reasons we request that the certificate
of appropriateness and variances be
denied thank you did you request any
kind of temporary uh restraining orders
or injunctive relief no it's um well
there is injunctive relief yeah
permanent injunctive relief and
declaratory judgment pertaining to these
men okay all right thank you I have a
question so if the court grants an
injunction I mean what's the point of us
ruling it all and making any
decision I well I guess the question is
how do you have to speak into the
microphone so what's the purpose of us
sitting here tonight hearing testimony
making a decision if you're gonna have a
court and join this whole process I mean
well we we don't know what the ultimate
outcome is going to be we feel there's a
good case here the fact that don't know
what the ultimate outcome is going to be
tonight
correct well the other thing is this
injunctive relief is not granted quickly
temporary restraining orders are granted
quickly injunctive relief requires
hearings evidence uh a showing that
there is a likelihood of success on the
merits uh and also uh irreparable harm I
mean I don't know if I'm overstating
Katherine you you you know and we think
I mean there there are a lot of bases
for the action but as we've said before
the issues are that people will be able
to use our easement to come into this
property and then basically go wherever
they want this is going to be a public
parking garage which means the general
public is going to be using this
easement so it's going to be transformed
from a private drive into a public Drive
which is defined under your own code as
well as the Ohio Revised Code and there
are other reasons as well it's laid out
in the complaint that we believe that
the easement do we have the easement
that we could enter into record because
I think council's being a little B
disingenuous with the terms in the
easement is the
association is the association a member
to the easement or are they just a
property
interest they are the successor to The
Grand Tour under the easement does the
easement run with the land yes
okay all right so I I have a question
for you
sir Carpenter Marty City staff and as
affirmed by a third party have
demonstrated that have under oath um
stated that the traffic studies
conducted have not shown detrimental
effects could you please elaborate on
the precise severity frequency and
longevity of harm that rises to the
level of substantially altering
essential neighborhood character rather
than just subjective a desirable change
so the burden is not on us to prove
these I'm asking you so well we don't
have that in effect there no parking
studies been done either I'm voting
tonight
so I don't I didn't hear the answer to
his question that you just uttered you
have to go more slowly for me okay I'm
on social rep question one more time for
me please I'd be happy to could you
please elabor on the precise frequency
severity and longevity of harm that
rises to the L level of substantially
alterating um altering essential
neighborhood character rather than just
subjective undesirable change so you
want me to talk about the harm to the
neighborhood character that's being
created from this massive building
objectively not
subjectively no I cannot satisfy to that
tonight thank
you all right um let's um yep I mean I I
would like to get some people in the
audience going but you you certainly
take notes you'll be given a chance to
rebut his commentary as well and even
ask him questions if You' like thank you
Mr hun I appreciate your the brevity of
your remarks oh you have a question well
I just have a question generally is what
was the applicant aware of this
injunction prior to five minutes ago and
is
it there's not an injunction I'm sorry
the the the the the filing that occurred
and is it appropriate to have the
applicant respond in any way shape or
form to that I am not a lawyer I don't
think this law suit has any bearing on
what we're doing okay that's
understood Mr Levine I would like to
hear that from somebody else I would
agree appreciate and understand what is
going on here the direct answer to your
question Mr King is no that lawsuit is
news to me and my client we spent the
past several months including the last
last however many days since November
30th making changes and improvements to
address concerns of the residents of the
Alexander only to find out that they
have very prematurely and in my opinion
very illegitimately sued us so the fact
of the matter is to miss doran's
question why are we here tonight because
we have rights too and so what I'm
hearing is no temporary restraining
order was sought no preliminary
injunction has been sought correct and
instead the only thing before you as
correct ly pointed out by Mr line is our
application uh and we have rights in
that easement and apparently we'll be
contesting that in court though none of
us wanted that on our side of the
caption in this lawsuit and we would ask
you to proceed as we are entitled to
under our private property rights this
evening
uh any motions and down line the court
will take hopefully appropriate action
one way or the other and we'll see how
it goes but we have a job to do and I
don't think lawsuit affects that
unlesss no and that hasn't happened and
I'm not I'm not stating that it has but
I'd also just like to bring up the fact
and this is just an aside an observation
from my point we've been playing catch
up this entire process there were things
that were filed just recently I think
even today that believe a uh PowerPoint
presentation was filed this afternoon
there's always been information that has
flowed to the general public at the last
minute and with very little notice at
times and we've rolled with it and that
wasn't the purpose of the lawsuit it
wasn't to sabotage anything but like I
said we've made it known several times
publicly that this easement is an issue
and that we were not going to stand by
and just allow it to be abused like that
two two wrong terms don't make a right
you're sitting here arguing that well I
just I just want to say I just would
like to say the record Mr chairman that
I think there's one individual that's
been operating in good faith
here way you want that but if we had
waited we'd be hearing how we should
have brought it
earlier it it way to the system and they
s s they it right
indeed wow all right thank very thank
you how many do I have that wish to
speak now with the idea that you didn't
speak last time you have a little
priority but if you want to speak for
the second time I appreciate your
limiting your comments to new issues how
many people would like to speak we'll
start with against the
application how many people would like
to speak in favor of the
application
okay I don't know in what order to take
anybody here but that lady right there R
first letter come up on the basis of
swiftness of
reaction my name is Peggy hen I live at
409 South Parkview
Avenue
I
do I have a question rather than more
comments I made my comments last week uh
I no the the question of the board as to
what is actually
true that the board member over here
asked whether there were going to be any
reserved parking spaces and the staff
person said no it's all public parking
the attorney for the the applicant said
there will be reserved parking
spaces thank
you and the reason I'm concerned is
because I can't imagine anybody spending
several thousand dollars to run an
apartment they can't get a parking
space chairman do we do we swear
everyone
she was sworn okay
sorry all right now can I have your
yes I don't recall you swearing people
today he he swore the
last except the two how about that I'm
keeping track of that you'd be
surprised Janie blank
I
do okay I have two
issues uh one and I would love to go
back to the picture that it has the
West uh view with the Alexander and the
parking which I know is far down on
the uh list here but I want the next one
the one that had the easement well might
not be the next one but the one that has
um the Alexander
easement okay well it was the one that
had the red but
anyway I think she means the outline
outline of the
building no it has the easan in the
picture
that one oh well no I guess
not okay yeah right there okay I'm sorry
there okay so Mr Miller said that our
easement would only affect the 45
parking
spaces
however well he said basically it's
going
right all right but you can come in and
then you can make a right turn because
it's One Way South and then you can go
into the
garage now if I am a resident and I am
coming from the the
West am I going to turn left on Park
View go through there and go into the
garage or am I going to go up there and
fight that inner inter section no I'm
not you know to get into the garage that
way so I think the amount of traffic
that is going to come in and go behind
our building both ways the you know both
the North and East side of our building
is going to be tremendously more than
just those parking spaces back
there oh well there's no question it
could it could be no I think they they
could come in and make a right and go
into the Bon garage right as I
understand it right and then a left
right into the garage okay okay I mean I
think that's valid point that could be a
tremendous amount of traffic because if
these people work downtown or coming
from that direction or they're coming
Broad Street they're going down Park
View I mean whatever they're not going
to go around to the Beckley Gateway
intersection if they can find a get a
workaround and that would definitely be
a workaround yeah okay that was my first
first point my second point is has
anybody made any comments or
consideration about the Giant Eagle
access right now you cannot exit the
Giant Eagle and go to Drexel that's one
way uh coming West when you pull out on
to Main
Street if you don't go to the Bexley
Gateway if you just come out of the
Giant Eagle that is has you know hours
where it's a right turn on four to six
yeah or whatever so you would be four
to come through
MH this Bexley Gateway MH or Gateway but
uh what's whatever it's called Bexley
Square yeah Bexley Plaza whatever
um and so you know again the the it
totally makes the getting in and out of
the Giant Eagle much more difficult than
it is today it's already complicated but
anyway I just hadn't heard anybody
mention that either so I you can already
get out the Giant Eagle by going through
the city hall lot right yeah but now the
city hall lot is going to
be incredibly crowded well it's already
incredibly crowded well okay and so
we're going to allow 230 more understand
what you mean yeah yeah no I get it yeah
all
right in the very back row how's that
you my dear with the mask on that's an
easier identifier sir I'll get you next
here
um Mary Connor Mary I was sworn in last
time but well you know yeah we're gonna
do it again do you swear Mary Conor Mary
2170 brighten brighten yes you live on
brighten I recall that much do you sp
affirm the testimony you're going to
give this evening will be the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth I
do thank you tell us what you think here
I just have um three comments I oh yes
sorry is this good now very good okay um
I still am trying to get my head wrapped
around the fact that if nothing
else this was just this apartment
building there will be you got to put
right into the mic there there will be
um between
232
and 600 or 700 more people in this
neighborhood AB budding this residential
neighbor and they'll be using the
sidewalks and they're entitled to it
sure that's a lot of people to impose on
this area just right there in my opinion
I still um I did have a question as to
whether the developer currently has
title to the property I know he's well I
know he said he paid 7.7 but I don't
know what the answer is but they're
probably in contract and contingency
would be that they could get these
variances okay and then um Mr M I'm I'm
still wondering why the board can't ask
the developer or work with the developer
about putting both parking garages
underground even though that is an
additional expense it it's a
compromise for some of the neighbors and
the height and all of that um and I to
the last Lady question or comments this
Bexley Square parking lot seems to me
that this plan puts a lot of pressure
it's a lot of Reliance on the
availability of this parking lot
and which is used by multiple businesses
I mean people going to the Drexel people
going to jeis people going to you know
where all these businesses I I cannot
see
how the size of this development when
talking about medical offices or
restaurants and everything how
um the parking is going to be
accommodated and I wondered whether the
um city had ever discussed with the
developer possibility of moving City
Hall into the building so we could have
this for parking
um it it's just there's so much pressure
on that Beckley Square lot that it just
no that's a legitimate concern sure is
you know that's all I have to say thank
you very much thanks for coming tonight
and and giving us your
perspective
sir your name please my name is Jeff
LS Mr LS would you raise your right hand
and be sworn do you swear or affirm that
any testimony you give this evening will
be the truth old truth and nothing but
the truth I do thank you very much tell
us what your perspective on this matter
is thanks very much um I came here
tonight just to learn more about this
development um I've uh I grew up in
Bexley uh came back recently and uh I
love the city and I love uh all the
things that uh have been happening on
Main Street and I was really excited to
to find more uh about this but the more
I've learned the more uh this word
massive that you used Mr LaVine is kind
of confounding to me there are so many
units so much traffic uh so many
uncertainties uh and really so much risk
and I think that the risk is quite
massive for the city for such a big
development and so um I would say that
you know the granting of these variances
is one issue and I think that it should
be they should be declined simply
because there's too much risk and too
many unknowns uh and if anything goes
badly um I think there's just going to
be uh you know a lot to answer for and
it's going to be too late uh to do
anything about it so I really uh wish
that the um the board would reconsider
this okay well we we haven't considered
it for the first time yet so yeah um oh
well if you could consider and uh and
vote it down V it down yeah I hear you I
understand your position thank you very
much okay
sir your name rule sorry rule V Bronson
530 South Park View okay thank you sir
and do you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give this evening be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth I do thank you very much tell
us your perspective and you're as I said
last time taller than the average be
you're going to need to get that baby up
there so we're divided up between
opponents and proponents but I think we
all want the same benefits that this
particular project uh is going to offer
us however not loud enough not loud
enough there you go that's lot better
you go maybe it is um however um the
opponents are of course very much
concerned with the elevation and the
mass of this uh proposal Karen can you
do me a favor and go to the ARB uh
package and it's page 21 full sight
section but it may be one page higher or
one page lower because and for the
architect if you could number your pages
in The PDF it would really help us
um so here we've been talking about the
West Side elevation I want to look at
the um Main Street elevation so the
Bexley Gateway three stories and a half
the turret is half a story but there is
no mess between those turrets if we take
the corners and take it over then to the
proposed building you will see that
indeed there's three extra stories and
then poor Brasa if we give them credit
for two stories then there will still be
a four story difference so from the Main
Street elevation we go from three
stories up to six stories and then down
to two stories again that's a
significant
difference Karen can you go to the page
number three The nollie
Plan Three did you say three yeah page
number three
please
and one
more thank
you so here are two blank spaces which
are the entrances to the garages um but
above these are five uh stories of
Apartments so this really should be
black then you have these two interior
Courtyards well nobody will see that
from the outside because it will all be
hidden by the walls so when you take a
look at this particular particular
rectangle and compare that to the backi
Gateway the Alexander park arms and then
the backy square you can start seeing
that this is quite disproportionate
compared to all the rest that's the only
point that I want to make thank you okay
thank you you know what I would like to
see as a followup to that question is do
we have a view from Drexel to the west
of what the massing looks like from
right around the Drexel thing in front
of the drexal theater front of in front
of jeppe's there how does it look going
that
way that way being
West
yeah yeah I mean I I like I don't you
might not even have it but a view of if
I'm standing in front of the drexal
theater what does it look like going
that or not the drexal theater CU that's
right there but if I'm staying in front
of jeppe's let's just say you can okay
well and it's not urgent and so I will
I'll move it right along here how's that
uh other speakers that wish to speak
ma'am in the back room back there in the
lobby
please yeah you're not as tall as last
guy no do you your name please I'm Susan
Brans and Susan where do you live
um I live with Jeff LS um on Cassidy
Avenue okay you got any other problems
you want to tell me
about just joking Jeff do you swear or
affirm that any testimony you give this
board tonight would be the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth
including anything you say about Jeff
LS all right um so first of all I wanted
to say that I'm very much in favor of
increased densification I really like
the idea of seeing more residential and
Retail and diversity of building along
Main Street so I really appreciate the
work that the city has done and this
board and so on um having said that um
like jefff I'm here to learn about this
project tonight and I do now from what
I've seen and heard from others it does
seem just like a really massive blocky
huge building with a lot of people and a
lot of cars and a lot of traffic so I
would not want to say that there
shouldn't be a building there and that
we shouldn't have some ful residential
and mixed use in that spot it's just
from what I'm seeing tonight I agree
with some of the concerns that people
have about it just being a little bit
too much so that's all I wanted to say
thank you thank you very
much yes ma'am oh
okay yeah except I want to see where I'm
building I want to see from there to
what it looks like yeah there you go
that's what I'd like to see thank you
let's just move move a little farther
west yeah can we just go a little
farther west there you go
perfect so there's the it's probably not
going to be that visible the sixth floor
is going to be behind the you're looking
at that's that's the view
currently okay you don't have one with a
mockup of the building back there you're
not that good okay I think you're pretty
good though I want you to know all
right get
all right ma'am
[Laughter]
please all right your name and I think
you spoke last time is Angela Yak 2240
Briden Road okay Angela and you're one
of the houses that the backyard of which
faces the north you're on the other side
of the street that's right you're on the
other side of Bride right I'm on the
North side it's e even numbered I should
know that yeah okay do you swear or
affirm I thought I did already no do you
swear or affirm that any testimony you
give this evening will be the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth I
do thank you very
much yeah I just have a lift of of
questions um one is um I believe at the
last meeting there was a Sean Turner yes
okay so I was under the assumption that
we're trying to keep consistency between
the meetings so right he had a death in
the family and he had to go to a funeral
out of 10 so no that is a obviously
wishes family well I'm just asking
because that was what we were told as
Citizens that we're trying to keep
consistency um so then is are and
Patrick's taking over his vote
then yeah Patrick is taking over
Patrick's vote as an alternate voting
for anybody okay thank you for you
didn't Converse about this with anybody
else okay no I did not Converse about
this with Mr or anyone else um and then
um I was aware um because I saw the
equipment for the traffic study can you
clarify who requested the traffic study
was it the city or was it the applicant
well there was a a criticism last
meeting about when it was taken so I
think that the proponents decided to go
out and do it again with the capital
students in session okay and was
brighten Road included in that the new
numbers well we'll address
that make a note of that and and answer
that question if you would I don't and
then when will those results be posted
on the city website that I don't know
they're on there now on there now okay
great thank you um another question I
have is um how many days um does the
city have to give notice for a meeting
to its residents two weeks I think okay
and then again I do want to show this is
my letter that I received in the mail
with the incorrect
information it had the lot of
confusion but the right date right but
there was a lot of conf confusion that
several individuals could not come
tonight because they thought the meeting
was on Thursday because that's
traditionally when the okay so let's let
me say you can't tell us what somebody
else told you because that's here saying
we can't cor but here's proof you are
here how did you get notied let me ask
you that how did you figure it out
because I went back to the website okay
thank you because I have time as a
stay-at-home mom good um the next thing
I have is um excuse me I I would like to
address that there was a second notice
sent out that indicated the same date
but corrected the day of the work okay
and that was notified on my post on
Facebook today but thank you um I just
want to make sure that there's no
conflict of interest between the mayor
anyone on this board with Continental
realy that everyone is
independent does anybody work for
Continental Real Estate or care about
Continental Real Estates is anybody's
finances in any way related to conill
real estate's well-being okay all right
valid question um and then um teran's
list for the ARB uh there was number
seven uh the item number was in regards
to the six floors on the south side and
in the Arab meeting it was talked about
um you had given them that leeway in uh
consideration for them to reduce the
north side um which they did not act in
good faith you're three um so okay but I
just want to know I just want to make
sure that that number seven is more more
specific that is what that's a condition
okay I just want to make sure um and
then I just want to say in closing um
that the decision that is made tonight
will have a precedent of all future
development not only on Main Street um
but uh North the development on the
North and the South Side that Jason
alluded to and this is just too large of
a project that has so many questions
still unanswered it doesn't need to be
pushed through just because of the
pressure we can't keep on building
things and figure it out like reflectors
on dexel a firet truck couldn't come on
brighten
um we got to we need to plan um better
you're three and a half minutes I'm
trying to be cool here but you know
thank you thank
you all
right Mr
Diamond Steve Diamond 500 South Parkview
thank you sir do you swear or affirm
that testimony you're about to give will
be the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes I do thank you sir
please proceed Angela is a tough act to
follow I must
say uh I just want to cover four things
and I will be brief to talk about
compatibility balancing interests
preserving character and last of all
Community
protection consider that the decisions
made today will shape the landscape for
future Generations approving a
development incompatible with our
surroundings risks a legacy of
discordance in bexley's architecture
balancing interests I urge you to
prioritize the lasting interest of our
community over short-term gains for
private entities this decision Echoes
beyond our times here impacting the
well-being of those who will call Bexley
home in the years to come preserving
character preserving the unique
character of Main Street is an
investment in our communities enduring
identity approving a development that
deviates risks a future where Bexley
loses its distinctive charm impacting
those who will walk these streets in the
years ahead and finally Community
protection and before I talk about that
I do want to give kudos to the board I
know that you have had uh a very long
process in this and I believe you have
asked very difficult questions on both
sides so I commend you for that and I
know this is not an easy decision one of
your colleagues mentioned a couple of
meetings ago that the attendance at
these meetings has been a rarity and one
of the few over the last 20 years since
I believe CSG was thinking about moving
to New Albany and the amount of people
that came uh in opposition of that and
apparently obviously it won so this is
truly in fact I believe a generational
decision that those of you were not
obviously there during the CSG times and
this will be a decision that will affect
Beckley for many many years to come so
you have a very difficult responsibility
and I know that you will make the right
choice regardless of which way it goes
so preserving the unique character of
Main Street is an investment in our
community's enduring identity approving
a development that deviates oh wrong one
the duty to protect the community
extends far into the future let's ensure
we don't leave a legacy to harm to
neighborhoods your decision tonight
safeguards the prosperity and harmony of
Bexley for future Generations thank you
thank you very
much all right anybody in the okay yes
come on
up I'd say come on down but that's a
different
show all right please state your name
name Brittany foron I'm sorry Britany
foron Miss foron do you swear or affirm
that any testimony you give this evening
will be the truth and the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes thank you
please proceed um two comments one on
the size density elevation sight lines
footprint and two on the parking and
traffic so my home is at 2201 brighten
so I am one of the homes that is um up
against the North
side can you speak into the microphone
oh yes so against my home is against
property line is against the north side
one of those that that they're being
circled up there yes exactly thank you
um from the Main Street guidelines on
the Beckley City website and I quote
streets as wide as Main Street achieve a
better scale when the buildings are
between two and five Street stories tall
you still have to talk louder three to
four is
ideal the fact that a variance is being
requested for this site tells us that is
not appropriate for this
space five and six-story structures does
not allow trees to block the sight
line and will forever impact all of
those homes on bridin and on Park
View you could say then well you'll
plant some
trees mature trees are not going to
block the site of that building and
mature trees take anywhere from what 10
to 40 years to
grow the
privacy of any Resident on Brien is
forever
impacted which is
concerning are we looking at one of your
houses here or one of neighbors
yes it's it's just a concern that's hard
to even put into words that a
development of this size and of this
scale is being considered but here we
are the parking and
traffic is the second point and it was
interesting this evening hearing an
explanation that this development will
ease some of the parking burden uh that
exists
today now Google was my
friend looking up don't know much about
parking but I found an article how many
parking spaces does a mall need from
December 4th
2022 so one of the problems with reading
some something like that is I don't know
who that wrote it we can't cross-examine
that person why you just tell us what
you think as a result of what you read
so if there are 232 units up from the
original
218 let's say at a minimum there's one
car per unit yes which I think is
unreasonable I would say that would you
would at least have half of the units
have two cars or two
drivers and then if you take into
account commercial space commercial
retail space this article just gives me
some sort of guideline stating that at
least one parking space for every 200
square feet so let's say that's roughly
110 at a minimum with 232 planned units
110 s estimated for retail space you're
at 342
minimum if you take into account that
I'm assuming most units are going to
have more than one
driver you could easily say you would
need 436 parking spots for the 232 units
reaching 546 parking spaces so however
you do the math it just feels like 300
parking spaces which was reduced from I
believe the original
320 proposed because that's what I had
in my notes from many meetings ago uh
doesn't feel adequate okay thank you
very
much I didn't forget you back
there your name please my name is Mary
Kendrick and I live at 464 South Park
View 464 South Park do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give this evening will be the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth I do thank thank you please four
four points one is crosswalks another is
the number 150 density and parking so
crosswalks we already had one lady that
was severely injured at the corner of
Drexel in Maine and that person was in
the crosswalk when it happened and that
was reported on the news it can be
looked in the archives so I highly worry
about um the safety of people in
crosswalks and the foot traffic for
sure number two the number
150 the traffic person I think it was
tonight said that right now it is a 90
foot left turnl left turnl yeah and that
the city needs to come up with the extra
60 ft to make it 150 so rather than them
fixing it they're asking the city to pay
for that but then they're saying that
they're going to bring in 232 units and
that it will somehow be neutral and that
they won't need to increase that anymore
that might be true I just that seems a
little unrealistic however my third
point is density when I come home and I
work at Riverside Hospital so I come in
on 70 and I get off at Alum Creek
Drive there are times that it is so
backed up that I can't even turn right
onto Main Street I have turn and I see
you nodding you guys know I turn left on
main street I go down Nelson com across
broad to come all the way down to
Parkview and Brighton the traffic we
can't handle more traffic not every now
this is not every day some days if I get
off at three I can do it but at 5:00
there's no way there is no way how are
you going to add 300 more
cars and my final point is parking the
architect who very kindly said that they
could build
18t height floors right up to the
property l
line
um also said at the last ARB meeting
that they needed to carve out more
parking and yet the ARB wants to notch
out more to make the north part of the
building more interesting much like the
South aspect of the building but they
can't do that because people can't drive
in notched out
areas so we have a lack of parking we
have an inability to get the parking and
we have a personality that's not going
to allow for that parking thank thank
you very much appreciate you're coming
down and telling us your perspective all
right I did I run out of hands I think I
did no I've got one more okay my here
come on
up well you have to be in the microphone
because otherwise the microphone won't
pick you up and this is all being
recorded be careful what you
say okay Nancy marzella and misss marzel
do you swear or affirm that all the
testimony you give tonight will be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth thank you it's just a question
and it's about the parking okay
questions to us questions to you and
then we'll ask them can ask them okay
okay I I have not heard the word
handicap parking okay and I know that
when you that many parking places
there's the law says you have to put
aside certain percentage and I'm just
wearing wondering where are the
handicapp people going to get the park
and and that has to be reserved and
preserved and whatever so it's just a
question yeah that's a question they
they should address that they did
address it at the last meeting slightly
but they they'll have a reconfiguration
so they probably should tell us about
that uh thank you very
much all right is there anybody else
that's Pro or con here that would like
to speak tonight if not I'm going to let
Mr Miller come up and give us some U
answers to some of the questions that
were asked Mr
Miller thank you Mr chair members of the
board members of the audience you've all
been very patient I would I would like
to do that to the best of my ability
relying in part on the team and then if
the the committee indulge me just to
share a few thoughts based on what I've
heard
um uh the first question was regarding
uh parkings there was confusion and I
apologize for it I thought Mr sui and I
were speaking consistently the idea that
someone was confused or wondering is it
all public is it all private it's
neither of those things so all I was
suggesting to you is there are will be
spaces earmarked for residents I don't
want people to to think that but that
there won't be but as part of any shared
parking agreement to ensure that parking
is available to the public there will
also be spaces that are freely available
um so too uh Miss yach asked about the
traffic study did it include brighten it
did not uh it is not a major
intersection dictated to be included by
its standards many of you frankly more
often than me probably work with these
traffic studies and it standards are
what's used not only for planning in
Bexley or Central Ohio but through out
the United States um so as it relates to
uh those standards there is no variance
necessary uh for parking there are over
300 new spaces uh provided uh so too
when Miss Kendrick uh asked about the
stacking Lane we are using those
internationally accepted standards uh to
perform that study and 150t of stacking
would adequately address uh the issues
that may be dictated by uh this
development um there was a question a
good question about going into the
garage uh whether someone would actually
use the Park View uh easement area to
then head south to get into the garage
that is why our traffic study is
suggesting that the sequences of the
lights be changed I believe that'll be
under review further by the city as this
development hopefully progresses but
we've actually tackled and addressed
that issue by suggesting you can keep
people on Main Street the lights were
more favorable allowing people to make
that movement so I feel as though we
have uh addressed that Miss
Yak also raised the issue of notice and
I just want the record to be clear and
people people to know this city is
absolutely always striving to do the
right thing your rules and regulations
at section six notice of public hearing
uh the failure of delivery or any defect
in the notice shall not invalidate any
action of the board the notice is waved
if a person shows for is an attendance
at a meeting that is not a concern or an
issue tonight and I applaud City staff
because when that error as to the day of
the week was uh found it was addressed
immediately there are no defects and
notice that prevents you from acting
tonight and in fact you need to act
tonight consistent with your rules and
regulations um the Westerly view I agree
with Mr uh LaVine that this building
won't be that visible looking to the
east it will be obscured somewhat not
only by The Market District but think of
that great elevation as well um and so I
think that when you take into account
the grade change and what's there today
uh this will not present an imposing
view from the Westerly view that you had
asked for chairman ball um as it relates
to to uh handicap parking there are
standards that dictate its location but
I'm happy to bring Jason up to address
that
issue Jason you're already under oath so
just to remind you can you answer that
question yeah I can and I think we
answered it once before but there are uh
Federal obligations based on the
percentage of parking uh it's pretty
clear on how that's outlined we will
meet those requirements and provide
those spots internal to the garage uh
the exact number will be calculated I
don't I don't know what it is off 300
spots or whatever but there is a number
that will be assigned and we will
reflect that in the
drawings and wasn't there some
indication that there was going to be
some parking in the Bexley Square lot
here too some some handicap spots here
too correct that that the way that's
looked at on the federal guidelines it's
a separate lot that would have its own
requirements and those spots were again
shown on that draw okay yeah okay that's
right I'm sorry good good point and let
me let me me make this offer I'm
speaking more to the people behind me
than to this board Mr Hawk and I and the
team will stay afterwards hear concerns
answer
questions to any that remain we've tried
to be as transparent and forthcoming
with information throughout this process
over the many months as we could be but
certainly if there remain in people's
minds questions or open issues that
they'd like to discuss with us I'd much
rather it be handled that way I
understand Mr Hunt
has deemed fit to initiate litigation
and wants to do the talking through
lawsuits I'd rather talk to concerned
citizens outside after tonight
okay all right members of the board do
you do you have those brief comments I
wanted to address those questions and
then really make comments and reactions
that I had in hearing uh the valued uh
thoughts of members of the of the
community very
briefly this is a great City you all
know that very very well you also know
from serving on this board change raises
concerns but this is an inner ring
landlocked city and what makes me so
proud of the city of Beckley is you all
on this board and your Council over the
many years when this landlocked ining
suburb has faced challenges is you have
chosen to innovate not to
stagnate I suggest to you that you are
presented tonight with an amazing
opportunity a $77 million investment in
this in this city if not greater that
will present needed housing medical use
restaurants retail space that people
want with a developer who's known who's
trusted who's developed in this city has
cared about this city for more than 70
years I invite you to do tonight what
you have always done in the past and
that is innovate not stagnate because
this is a great City because it has such
a rich history and great traditions this
city can't close its doors it can't
close its doors to new residents it
can't close its doors to change it can't
look over the sector of the community
that would love to age in place but
can't find a way to do that here you
have before you three variances tonight
and frankly I think they're dictated in
part to help alleviate the concerns that
we've heard we want to be further to the
east to impact many of these residents
in the Alexander Le less these residents
who I'm not trying to be unkind who do
live in a fivestory building and always
knew that at least a five-story building
could be built next door to
them that's six story helps to buffer
and helps to soften this building away
from the Alexander it is modest and it's
a change that's been dictated by
concerns Raised To Us by the city I'm
not sure what law Mr Hunt is reading
he's not reading the law of Ohio a
practical difficulty is created when you
try to address the legitimate aesthetic
concerns of a city and that can entitle
you to a variance
likewise the remaining variant the 55 ft
that will help soften this development
that helps the neighbors that helps the
people in the room but it also just
helps the everyday Bexley resident in
their pedestrian experience these are
modest
variances that do meet the factors
before you
tonight I've discussed changes that have
been made they've been raised here
tonight by City staff over the many many
months that this project has been on in
under discussion respectfully I don't
think this has been spr rung on anybody
in the last 2 weeks or the last 30 days
there have been discussions related to
the massing the materials the layout the
format the shape the number of spaces
closing access to Brien pushing traffic
towards Maine in each and every one of
those instances this developer has
listened this developer has made uh
changes and
concessions this is a great City in part
because it is not afraid of change it
recognizes what you have here and what
it is is so special but you can't be
afraid of change and Innovation to avoid
stagnation and so I love that this city
is ready to help address the housing
crisis to be inclusive and to be
welcoming and to help those people age
in place while still helping your
businesses and tax base that are so
important to continuing city services
and the quality of life that we all
enjoy in
Bexley
um the these variances are necessary for
this very complicated very complex
infill development I'm proud that
they've been made minimal that they've
been reduced in number to merely
three there will be opponents to all
major land use decisions all major land
uses in the city there always have been
and yet as I mentioned before at the
outset this board and the city's Council
has always been willing to make the
right choice for all of the city you
know that people will turn out to say no
to something much more than they'll turn
out to say yes and in fact there are so
many residents hoping you do the right
thing for this city and be sure to set
this P City on a path for continued
success and Redevelopment consistent
with all of your carefully planned
documents consistently with all the
objectives you told developers you want
maybe Mr Diamond's right maybe this is
generational but you have a generational
opportunity with a developer who
genuinely cares about the city and has
worked so hard to get this right Thank
you thank you Mr
Miller all right members of the board
before we get to the point of a protocol
here Miss Cunningham I think I would
like to ask your advice I think that any
voting should occur on a variance by
variance
basis and the certificate
appropriateness on a on another basis so
I think we we need to have separate
votes on each of the variances do you
agree with
that or do you think that's too
cumbersome sorry yes you could certainly
approach it that way as to whether or
not each
variance um is met I think one of the
most important things certainly under
the code and as appeals have come to
city council one of the issues is making
sure that all of the factors are
considered and addressed by the board M
um so that there should be discussions
of the seven factors and how the board
weighs in on each of them you can do
that um separately as to the variances
or you can um do it collectively if you
think the variances are integrated to
each other some of the factors I don't
know that you'll have to separate out
maybe you can consider them together or
or you can certainly do it one by one
and there's that's a a legitimate way to
go and maybe the most Clarity for the
record so if that's the way that the
board intends to go I think that's okay
you have also the H certificate of
appropriateness as you mentioned um with
some
proposed uh conditions I think both from
ARB and um Jason staff report on that
and also and um Jason I don't think he
did and typically does not recommend to
approve a variance or not although that
did you it's just typically your
decision based on the evidence presented
to you in terms of the variance factors
the other thing we had was the request
for the demolition on this one and again
I don't there aren't any specific
factors I don't think that you have to
have on that and Kathy correct me am I
wrong because we're a Main Street
district and it's a commercial District
so the factors that you often consider
if it's residential don't apply in this
case right however um know that if you
do approve uh demolition nothing they
cannot get a permit until we until new
construction plans that staff has
certified approve it should an approval
be done that staff has certified approve
meet the certificate of appropriateness
and the variances that were granted if
any thank you very much uh to the
applicant uh do you care if we vote
individually or I mean I guess if you
get two and don't get the third that
isn't going to help you very much I
don't know but I think they are
interrelated I think they make for the
best possible development I also think
your discussion as it relates to the
factors probably shows that they're
interrelated I would say and I think
your Council would AG notd an agreement
as I look to my right if in
consideration of the factors you want to
refer to the PowerPoint presentation and
say for the reasons itemized they're in
that's fair as well that is a discussion
of the
factors I think everybody that's going
to vote is going to have to State the
grounds for their for their vote and
their considerations
um do you think we can combine them and
just vote on all the variances or do you
feel like there's distinctions between
the variances that you would like to
address I mean you could address them as
you vote uh
but uh any feelings Mr line anything you
think okay does any I I agree with that
I think given the fact that they're uh
largely in response to the
ARB they are not unrelated and
and in my mind at least seemed to be a
package uh yeah and I think from a
practical standpoint if the applicant
got two variances and didn't get the
third one we were just kind of wasting
our time so uh Ryan any thoughts no no I
agree I think they should just be voted
on as package Matt I know you're the
Newbie but you have any problem voting
them all together no I don't have a
problem with that
I I agree okay then we'll take them all
at once um so we'll need findings of
fact and conclusions of law uh and I
don't know Jason are you going to give
us the finding of fact and conclusions
of law that will be considered and just
so the folks know we have to couch our
decisions in terms of uh what legally
required so what happens is the based
upon the
application the staff will read a a
finding of fact and a conclusion of Law
and we'll either vote Yes or No that we
there'll be a motion I hope in a second
to approve whether they might vote no
after they make a motion to approve but
there'll be a motion ordinarily I can't
make that motion because I'm the chair
so motion that comes from a member of
the board or it doesn't and then we vote
either in the affirmative to approve the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
or we vote in the negative and then
there is a requirement that we have see
there's seven of us tonight so we need
four positive votes to for the
application to be successful correct
Karen okay may I ask a point of
clarification much more typical would be
to vote yes or no on the variances and
then provide findings of fact and
conclusions of law to avoid any
contradiction between the two and and
that may be what you're saying but if
you were to take a finding effect Fact
one at a time a conclusion of law one at
a time and then vote on the variances
and there were inconsistencies that
presents problems frankly for everyone
in the
room
right they run out of juice
yeah now hold on for one second please
so often we you have done it one of two
ways um in terms of discussions of the
factors um sometimes board members like
to hear what other people are thinking
because it may influence the way that
they are perceiving the case and and the
information that they received so you
can discuss them in in advance because
it could affect your decision on how you
view whether the criteria have been met
um the other way that we have done it
sometimes is just to vote Yes or No it
but in I think it's hard for staff to
give you proposed findings of facts and
conclusions of law until they hear the
discussion of the board to for the board
to at least discuss the factors and
whether or not they think that they're
met and then you if you want to have a
motion on that that will do it either in
advance and then we would expect that
that however the motion went it would be
supported by that or the other way
around but I I would say I disagree with
Mr Miller because it's a problem whether
you articulate that first or second um
in terms of uh if it doesn't match the
ultimate decision and that is the you
would have to make findings and
conclusions based on the majority board
you can discuss it first vote on the yes
or no and then vote on the factors as
you see fit and that may be the way to
do it but I would encourage a discussion
in advance of just a straight up out
okay well
let's let's proceed
with
um you you to findings a fact the
question the questions are as to the
variances you know they're they're not
um what is the financing of the project
there is a variance request for the
width of the building for the depth of
the indentation on Main Street off of
Main Street I should say and the fact
that there's six floors which requires a
variance so in terms
of uh findings by the board the the the
applicant has made an application
asking that
application is
meritorious I died
there's some who probably wish I did but
we'll just go from there the
um the uh concept is that the applicant
is asking us to uh agree that the all of
the considerations that we must take
into into consideration that are listed
in the city code are
lead you to a conclusion that you
believe the requests are legally
appropriate and are
factually uh based
so or that you don't think they are one
or the other right so maybe we could go
around the hor and get some idea of what
you believe the facts that are the most
relevant and and how they relate to the
zoning
code uh considerations for variances and
then we
can formulate findings of fact and
conclusions of law how about
that Mr Miller are you okay with
that I understand your council's advice
and the chair's prerogative okay thank
you all
right you know Mr shik I was wondering
who I was going to ask first but I
always feel like I can always go to you
first because you're ready to rumble
well I I would like the record to
reflect I came into this tonight I
prepared statements in both directions
I'd like to thank staff I'd like to
thank most importantly the public um I
mean we put in over 12 hours many of us
you know the diamonds sitting in this
room together and we've heard one
another out um but after tonight one
thing is abundantly
clear for the easement usage I would
note that this the Ean access has been
used for multif family residential
traffic for many years um I believe that
the increased usage as supported by the
traffic study would be incremental not
excessive I also believe that the
developer will do everything um to
respect proper eement
rights I believe that the setback
um helps to buffer impact with regards
to building size and
height parking I've heard a lot of
interesting um perspectives on parking
tonight my background is in Economic
Development small business
attorney the parking meets code minimums
for density proposed it's a walkable
urban area traffic impacts should not
overburden street parking although we
have some things still to address but
from a commercial perspective I do
believe that parking spillover will
actually help patronize businesses in
this
community I do believe that in
addition again with the caveat of the um
cons concerns that many have expressed
tonight with um pedestrian traffic I
believe that the building it's
incorporates high quality materials it's
detailing it's elevated Aesthetics I I
really like that and the mix use concept
Pro promotes continuous retail and
invites pedestrian traffic keeping uh
the character of our community
vibrant and lastly compatibility we're
in a commercial
Corridor um commercial corridors are
meant for high density
development um I believe that this is a
gradual transition between intense
commercial and residential uh excuse me
I believe that the gradual transitions
between commercial and residential are
inevitable
um while larger in scale than adjacent
homes it does transition their scale up
from Main Street as intended by the code
thank you Mr chairman thank you
appreciate it I knew I could go to you
first we'll switch the other side of the
room uh Mr L what do you
think into the microphone there yeah
I'm persuaded that the variance criteria
have been
satisfied and I plan to vote Yes okay um
how why you've got a microphone right
there why don't you grab that it
back um so sorry so I think you know
obviously we've heard a lot of different
people's opinions and I think our job is
to try and balance all the factors that
we have before us um it is a
reasonableness standard it's a balancing
of needs and preferences of other people
surrounding our community or in our
community um about H habitability
quality of life these are things that I
think go hand inand with what we're
doing um I I think it speaks volumes
that I
mean the number of people who've turned
out but we also haven't had as many
people come to say yes and I think
that's something if they opposed it they
would be here and I I do wonder you know
a 100 people coming is awesome but we
have thousands who aren't here um and I
that that I have to think about too as
I'm considering these factors
um
I you know and no one said they're
adverse to this development um I think
that's important to consider as well um
what happens I mean this is you know
thinking out loud but what happens if we
don't bite on this developer what
happens if someone else comes in who
doesn't listen to us at all who doesn't
work with the community to try and make
this a development for the community I
worry about that um
because I think that that's a real
possibility um we might not have someone
local we may have an outside company
come in um that is a possibility um and
so that that is a question that I think
is important um another factor I think
is important for us to look at is the
parking um and traffic studies I think
it you know some of it is not in the
control of this applicant it is in
control of our city and the cic who owns
the parking lot right behind us um so I
think that is something that you know
may not be 100% in their control so um I
I don't know if we can vote alone on
that um and I think it sounds like
everyone is trying to take all of these
into
consideration additionally I don't think
it's really relevant for us to consider
an easement I think that's a civil issue
um and whether or not we can or cannot
use that I think that is an issue that
will be decided by the courts and not by
us um it would be nice if it could be
decided outside of the courts but you
know it it's not our purview um so I
think you know it's it's important we
consider and looking at the factors the
reasonableness and making sure legally
we we have support for each of these
factors um
okay and that's what I have to say thank
you very much we'll switch sides of the
room Mr King are you prepared to move
forward here I am uh I I I uh would
would Echo Mr Levine's sentiments I
think the uh the the variant standards
have been met uh I am in a position to
vote Yes I do not find the variances to
be substantial I think um being sent
from
ARB uh in my opinion carries a
significant amount of weight uh the the
the the process to getting to this point
has been uh to make this building as as
good as as it can be and I keep coming
back to the concept
of we could have a three-story building
effectively from lot line to lot line
that everybody in this community would
dislike and it would be an expedited
process what we have gone through what
this community has gone through with
which those of us who live on this part
of of of this city have have will
experience and and have uh seen
information about uh we all know this
has been challenging and I think this is
a a good solution and the uh a good
development that will move our city
forward so thank you
Patrick Brian how about you you're been
on this board for a long time what do
you think yeah I mean my my comments are
similar I mean CH you know change is
painful uh but change is also constant
and um so you know I remember when uh
the gramarcy came through you know the
the traffic was going to be horrible it
was going to you know ruin the
intersection when the you know Giant
Eagle came through the the traffic was
going to be overwhelming there wasn't
going to be enough car parking all these
things and and think it's just you know
changes very hard for people to um the
unknown the uncertainty about it causes
discomfort but um you know when I look
at this what's been presented to us
today I think it's a great a great
solution and if you look at you know the
short North you look at Grand View you
look at other places this is this is
what is you know feasible economically
for a community and and again it could
be something very different that doesn't
look nearly this good and I I want to
thank ARB for everything they did
because you know this version compared
to the first version to me is is a
tremendous tremendous Improvement and
not that you know not not that our job
is to is to you know we we're to make
the variance but I do think their
variance request uh you know I think
they satisfy all the criteria all right
thank you Mr eel brener
I'll let you go last since you're the
newest one thank you I appreciate that
welcome um I would Echo some of the
earlier comments where I believe the
standards for two of the three variances
have been met I think the variance
regarding the setback um allowing 55
feet is in the best interest of the city
um I think the variance allowing 75% of
the width is also in the best interest
of a lot of the concerned citizens here
as well as the city um I think that for
variance number one regarding the
six-story height I think that there I
put a lot of trust into the ARB
recommendations and knowing that that
was something that they recommended
holds weight in my book and I think um
to some of Mr King's comments earlier
talking about how you know what could
have been um in Mr Marsha's comments
talking about um the progress that we
have made
um give me a lot of confidence in how I
will vote um I
do hope that I can ask a few more
questions that I that I felt like
haven't been answered yet but feel
confident moving
forward there you
go maybe my three minutes are up the
microphone's not working
um I just want to say that U I agree
with a lot of the sentiment here in in
the sense that uh I think that the
variance requests are not substantial I
think the issue is almost one of of uh
uh you know the kind of ideas that are
in the special permit in order to go to
five stories they have to have a special
permit which is not a variance but the
uh request the requirements for such are
that there's exceptional architecture
and I think we've gotten to that point I
really don't think we started there but
I think we're there now and I think that
the the compatibility of the site to the
surrounding
structures albeit I'm very sensitive to
the to the Alexander residents I think
that the that the situation is such that
that there's going to be some
development in this project Capital
University who uh the the provos
testified uh is going to sell this
property and it's going to be developed
in some fashion or another and I think
that there's been a lot of pains taken
to buffer
that situation I think I was greatly
concerned with the traffic going up and
down the road to the
West I believe that the changes that
have been made are going to greatly
reduce that that was a fear of mine in
the sense that you live in in the
Alexander and you're you have a balcony
on the east side I mean if were going to
be a super highway beneath you there I I
think I would be uh not inclined to U
Want to allow the sixth floor which
would increase the inhabitants and
increase the the traffic to uh be as uh
uh important as it is now reduced in
importance as a result of the way that
they've tried to maneuver this around I
must say
that I'm also uh impressed with the
amount of time and the
tremendous difference in the original
design to the to the current design that
doesn't mean much because just because
you came in with a bad design at first
and you improved it doesn't mean you're
a hero you know they should have come in
with a good design the first time but
this is a very very good design from
Broad from the Main Street side I think
it's very interesting I think the the
sixth floor and uh I know there is some
feeling that that's really too much but
that's really what we're voting on here
the fact that it's a recessed off of
Maine be doesn't impact the view from
the Brighton Road side uh makes me think
that the sixth floor is actually and and
frankly the fact that the
ARB recommended a six
floor makes me think you know they they
thought that that was a architectural
plus whereas it originally I thought
that it might be considered an
architectural
minus uh those things are all uh
important I I think my biggest concerns
are the mass of the building and the
mass of units and the number of people
that are here going to be living there
and how that equates but we also heard
testimony and then they went out and did
it again that that the traffic patterns
are going to be controllable and you
know you can listen to the sort of the
anecdotal gut reaction of somebody who
lives around here and saying hey the
traffic is going to be terrible or you
can listen to the evidence of these
traffic studies that people spend their
whole lives developing these studies so
they have a lot of credibility from my
perspective I don't think that the
traffic situation is going to be uh
greatly uh worsened I I do agree I I
think I told the mayor the other day
that the first traffic jam I ran into
coming from downtown where my offic is
to Bexley was when I got to Bexley you
know that was the first traffic jam and
that's because we tried to slow the
traffic going down Main Street that's
been an intentional act on the part of
the of the city to slow traffic to make
it more uh of a u uh shopping uh
pedestrian friendly area where people
are not flying down there at uh at uh 40
50 miles an hour I realize occasionally
that's probably still the case but in
general I I do have
concerns uh but I don't think that the
uh that
the considerations that
we're mandated
to consider that's probably
redundant um are such that uh
that Merit a vote of of uh no so those
are my general reactions to the
situation I don't think my vote's going
to count as it sounds like here but
because I vote last but anyway uh with
that in mind
now now we need findings of fact
conclusions of law somehow to vote on
here
so
um
Jason you want to take a a a shot at it
I mean I think I'll take a shot at my
part and then I'm GNA have legal council
fill in the back end on this fair enough
um upon consideration of the
application uh I'm sorry for application
bcap 2323 for property located at 2200
East Main upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds that the applicant has
proven that the criteria to Grant an
area variance in Bexley code section
1226 6.11 C have been met and the
variance from Bexley code sections 1254
point10 to allow a six-story building in
the MS District
12541 3F to allow a 55 foot setback for
public private space and from 12 54.1 3G
to allow a building to be 75% of the lot
width um ha shall be granted with the
following conditions
that the site be developed in
substantial conformance with the
renderings and plans submitted to the
board for today's 12823 Bap meeting two
that all exterior improvements and
modifications will be in compliance with
the certificate of the appropriateness
approved by this board which as an aside
would include all your other references
back to the other uh boards and
commissions and
then uh then for the findings and facts
and conclusions of law the board
discussed the facts that it intends to
introduce it sounds like like from the
consideration of the board that the
board has determined that the variance
is not substantial that the essential
character of the neighborhood would not
be essentially substantially
altered um a and uh adjoining properties
would not suffer substantial detriment
there was no um evidence that there was
any averous effect on the delivery of
government
services um and the evidence was that
the owner purchased the property with
knowledge of the restriction or is
purchasing he has not purchased the
property yet as we understand it um and
uh that the spirit intent behind the zon
requirement will be observed and
substantial Justice done I did not hear
the Board address or make specific
findings on items one which was uh the
issue of reasonable return or six uh
whether the feasibility could be
obviated through some other method other
than a variant
I think we might also add to that that I
didn't recall any testimony that there
would be adverse effect to governmental
Services water sewer garbage so there
there was probably no evidence submitted
one way or the other on that except that
the I think the applicant said that
they're going to take care of these
things but there was no submit evidence
submitted to the
contrary would be the my only addition I
would make to that and certainly I would
invite the board to correct me if I'm
incorrect in in the the issues
considered in the findings made any
other considerations that were part of
your decision making uh that were not
iterated by Mr suudi and Miss
Cunningham testimon about
reason number of units is dictated by
that and you feel like you considered
that as part of your decision making
okay
all right I think you might mean up to
55 yes I will take that as a
modification up to 55 feet thank you
good good catch
there
um all right I think you've got it
covered so and it's to also modify that
the factor one was met the reasonable
return Yes does is that a board was
considered by the board
right all right do I hear a motion to
approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of
law so moved Marsh Mr Marsh thank you do
I have a
second second shik thank you Mr
schik Kathy please call the
role Mr
merch yes
Mr schik yes Mr King yes Miss Dorne yes
Mr
LaVine yes Mr Asel Bruner yes chairman
Beall I vote Yes and the variances are
granted do we have um a motion
for approval of the certificate of
appropriateness as now what we have in
this case is we have a recommendation
from the ARB it in included numerous as
you'll recall about seven or eight or
nine uh conditions nine now that I'm
looking at it um yeah I have a motion is
lengthy okay if you are prepared well
let me ask you this everybody can read
this uh we could entertain a motion to
approve a certificate of appropriateness
based upon the including those
conditions if people want those
conditions in it I don't know that we
need I also have a a stack of other
conditions that
yes it's a it's going to be a long
motion okay okay are we ready yes sir
all right um the board finds after
review of the plans and consideration of
the application evidence and testimony
given and the recommendation of the
architecture review board the board
finds that the certificate of
appropriateness should be issued for
2200 East Main in substantial conforms
with the renderings and plans submitted
to the board subject to the foll ing
conditions the first one is that the
applicant coordinates the final plan for
modifications of the Bexley Square
parking area with the city of Bexley and
bexy cic including any outcomes
resulting from the updated traffic study
and should include added safe pedestrian
Crossings two that the applicant
modifies the architecture to be in in
accordance with the architecture review
board recommendations one through eight
in the ARB decision record of action 11
2923 would you like me to read those
into the
record I think okay uh those include and
I apologize I already read these before
I will read them again uh that the
applicant returned to the ARB with
material boards and samples that the
headlight screening be added to the
parking lots were needed that the West
Drive on the site be redesigned to
enhance the Green Space to allow
substantial tree planting that the north
and west elevations for the proposed
building be reworked to lessen the mass
and create better connection to the
ground screen the garage and use more
consistent materials that the height on
the west and North elevations toward the
rear of the site be reduced the west
elevation have more variation the plane
of the facade and the height the ARB
supports the addition of the six-story
architecturally to allow feasibility and
lessening the overall massing of the
building the outdoor dining adjustments
be reviewed by the ARB when the tenant
is
secured then back to um the overall
conditions condition three changes to
the architecture done to accommodate the
ARB conditions and updates resulting
from any changes to the site plan should
be sent to the ARB for review and
recommendation number four the applicant
modifies a landscape plan to be in
accordance with the Tre and public
garden commission recommendation number
two and the tree and public garden
commission findings of fact and record
of decision dated
11272 3 and I will uh read that
condition into the record it recommends
that the landscape plan be found
satisfactory and consistent with the
standards applicable to the Main Street
District if modifies as follows changing
the material around the tree Wells on
Main Street from Granite to Limestone
applicant will advise whether the city
of Columbus will permit a permeable
surface in the alley connecting the
property to Brien road if it will the
commission will further study what
whether a permeable surface is practical
and advisable with respect to the access
road on the west side of the building a
brick threshold will be included
adjacent to the sidewalk Crossing to
differentiate the surface and maintain
consistency within the Main Street
District if plantings on either side of
the access road on the west side of the
building uh fail at any time or if the
city Arbiters determines that they are
failing to grow at rates it will achieve
the expected Landscaping results the
applicant will present present a plan to
the tree and public garden commission to
achieve the expected Landscaping results
with respect to the fence at the rear
North End of the property pursuant to
Beckley ordinance 264.0 5 the fence will
be re relocated from the location shown
in the plans to the property line and
screening relocated to the south parking
lot side of the fence the applicant
shall present a plan to the Tre and
public garden commission for variation
in the species included in the
screening um applicant will consist with
the or consult with the tree and public
garden commission prior to planting
regarding the appropriate ground cover
speed species to plant in the tree boxes
contained in the plan in light of the
loss of canopy and mature trees within
the site applicant will make a
contribution of
$6,750 representing a $750 times nine
current trees lost and not replaced in
the plan to an appropriate fund to be
solely used for the planting of new
trees in the city of Bexley as approved
by the tree and public garden commission
the amount may be offset by any new
trees and the commission approves for
planting the city hall Beckley Square
parking lot all planting shall be
maintained in property uh in per
perpetuity absent approval by the tree
and public garden
commission okay now back to number five
changes in the landscape plan resulting
from any changes to the plan should be
sent to the tree and public garden
commission for review and
recommendation number six the applicant
collaborates or
collaborates sorry I'm losing my my
words the applicant collaborates with
staff on Final design review of the
Western Main Street curb cut streetscape
details to ensure a pedestrian friendly
and aesthetically pleasing result seven
bicycle racks are to be provided to meet
the code standard to the satisfaction of
Staff eight a shared parking agreement
is submitted to the satisfaction of the
Bap nine the final design of the Bexley
Square City Hall parking lot is approved
by the cic and the City of Bexley number
10 a final review of the following
elements is not part of this approval
and must be later submitted to for
approval by staff and our relevant
boards and commissions signage Hunnings
exterior building lighting exterior
parking lot lighting fencing details and
building mechanical screening details
and 11 that the site modifications
design and materials will be in
substantial conformance with the
renderings and plans submitted at the
December 18th 2023 board board of zoning
and planning meeting unless otherwise
modified in collaboration with the Bap
and
staff amen okay nicely
done
so with that in mind does anybody have
any additions or deletions or
modifications I'd like to
make developer agree to all of those
that is I think the Chairman's next
question I want to make sure Mr Miller
you heard the the reading of all of
those conditions associated with the
approval of the certificate of
appropriateness are those acceptable to
the applicant talk real loud they are
good thank you all right uh do I have a
motion to
approve uh the request for a certificate
of appropriateness as
recommended by the ARB and the
conditions as stated by Mr
sui so moved thank you Mr King is there
a
second second echel Brer Mr echel Brer
thank you sir appreciate
it please call the role Ms
Rose Mr
merch yes Mr
sh yes Mr King yes Miss
Dorne yes Mr LaVine yes Mr eel Bruner
yes chairman
Beall I vote Yes and the strip of
appropri is
granted all right do we have any further
considerations we need to consider the
demolition okay so the issue here this
is a commercial demolition not a
residential and uh so some of the
considerations that would organ be in
effect or not
um I mean I think what we want is is a
motion to be voted upon that allows for
the the applicant
to commence its process of getting a uh
certificate to move forward with the
Demolition and that it's that all the
requirements from the city perspective
the city statutes perspective have been
met I would also like to add that being
we discussed this earlier that a
demolition permit cannot be issued yeah
unless a building permit is approved
yeah so it may not have been stated in
the findings effect but that is the
process so if we want to modify that
that's okay well
added Mr Miller you heard the comment
your client is certainly aware that they
need to not only get a permit to knock
the buildings down but in order to do
that they're going to have to show what
they're going to replace it
with yeah it can be a condition as
well yeah I mean it's a matter of code
so it's not not important one way or the
other but it's it's something we want
the applicant to be aware of and make
sure that they're they're there okay so
what that in mind do I hear a motion to
approve the request for uh demolition of
the current structures that are the 61
units that are in existence that we're
looking at actually right here out the
front
window so move shik thank you Mr
shik second second Dorne thank you Miss
Dorne Kathy please call the
rooll Mr msh yes Mr shik yes yes Mr King
yes Miss
Dorne yes Mr Levine yes Mr eel Brer yes
chairman behal I vote Yes and the uh
application for demolition is
granted all right do we have Miss
Cunningham do we have anything else we
have to consider or Miss booger or Miss
Rose anything else before the board this
evening no okay um the applicant has
graciously agreed to answer questions or
take take questions so I'm was
appreciative of that and uh I would ask
uh that you you wish to do so go right
ahead and do so with that do I hear a
motion to
adjourn Mr shik I can always call on you
so Mr King thank you the meeting is
adjourned