okay we have six members here yes
and have any members in I don't have any
members in attendees they're all in
participants so are we just waiting on
Bob yes but if we have six members I
mean we we have to go ahead and get
started who will be our chairperson who
do who all do we have right now um Sean
Alicia Alicia sorry Brian Jason Rick and
Ryan all right um well let's go ahead
and get started and if Brian would you
mind filling in for the just very
[Music]
beginning yeah that's that's no problem
at all great thank you okay great
thanks is that better yes okay okay so
small I know first I still want to
announce that one of the items that is
last on our agenda for 424 South
Columbia they have requested a table so
that application will not be heard
tonight my guess is being we break for
December for our regular meetings that
January 28th is most likely the date
it'll be heard but I will send out
notices two weeks prior at least two
weeks prior as required by
code excuse me I have a signin page Can
I exit out of it when or do I should I
fill it
in oh with your for your email no for
the for the zoom says Zoom Cloud
meetings sign in I don't think you need
to sign in you're here you're here
you're good if he signs in if he signs
in on that part it's going to upgrade
his status from a participant to
um somebody actually like involved in
the webinar well he okay but he already
is a
panelist when I but when I click on the
X it says do you want to exit the
meeting oh then maybe you should sign in
but I can see you or you can minimize
that and ignore it but it's asking me
for a password which I don't know do I
you're good I think you're good where
you're at right now okay I'll just
ignore it ignore it Kathy do we want to
go ahead and take roll call yes yes I
will call the roll uh Mr
shik Mr shik are you muted here sorry I
no no I'm not muted I just cut out Mr
Turner here miss
Mitchell
here um Mr Fout here and vice chairman
March Mar here thank you
um f first item is approval of minutes
from the October uh 22nd meeting does
does anybody have any uh questions
comments on the
minutes I move to approve uh okay do we
have a second to approve second uh all
in favor say I I I I all all oppos say
no let the record show that the
amendments were
approved uh next is public comment um
this is for anyone from the public that
wishes to comment on on non-agenda items
uh basically the working of of Bap is
there anyone that wishes to make a
comment from the
public I do not see any hands raised at
this time Mr chairman okay seeing that
there's no public comment we'll move on
to old business uh the first one is 476
North Park
View and we do we have the uh applicant
here for that
one yes we do hold on just a
second M Mr Vice
chairman yes uh Hey to to Karen real
quick um when you're on this page Could
you um it looks like you're out of Mac
correct yes could you press command and
then
plus right now correct
please is that better maybe one more
time oh you just want me to expand it
yeah it just it's hard to it's hard to
well let me just let me just clarify
something yeah I know how to do that no
problem at
all I don't I I do know how to do that
but I I never I was not computer
splaining I promise yeah you were
computer splaining but that's okay
um I never do that because all I'm gonna
do is is
this open them all okay perfect because
we don't really do we don't even stay on
that so um sorry about that I was just
kind of ignoring the fact that you guys
couldn't see it as well as me because
I'm never gonna stay on that page anyway
okay I'll mute myself out of punishment
no it's okay I like to be computer Spain
to it's fine I'm just kidding if it's
any consolation when I'm on board
meetings for school board I'm constant
constantly asking them to increase it so
that I can see otherwise I have to use
my another screen to look because I
can't see it yeah no I I apologize I I
know how to do that I just was being
insensitive to the fact that you guys
could you are you are
perfect um I am looking okay I'm moving
H Julie bolock
[Music]
into I'm having trouble moving her what
would you like me to go ahead and just
State the application and what it is or
we're working on that'd be fine yep okay
so this is application number bz ap-20
d29 applicant Julie Bullock for the Jude
and Carly Dew at 476 North Parkview the
applicant is seeking architecture review
and a
recommendation I'm sorry architecture
review and approval to allow a new
twostory single family dwelling if
approved the existing single family
dwelling will be
demolished um the applicant is also
seeking a variance from beod section
12209 R2 zoning District to allow a
portion of the proposed principal
structure to
encroach 19.5 feet into the 60 foot2
inch average front yard
setback so I can I can go into my staff
comments or we can swear in the
application
um I can't seem to get the applicant to
be moved over to the panelists or to
give
them um speaker status so I'm texting
the mayor it may have something to do
with the
host okay all right well then I'll I'll
just why don't you go ahead and do your
St uh so so this application has been
before the architecture review board
actually on two different occasions the
first time there was a lot of input
given by the board and the applicant
returned back to the board and that's
and that's why we are now seeing the
applicant for the first time before the
Bap because they chose to skip both
meetings and go back to a orb so um this
is an irregular Street having both
curves and grade changes the homes along
the street are vary in both setbacks and
size the applicant was before the airb
two separate occasions and has addressed
design concerns one being to eliminate a
frontloading garage by pulling the
section of a the home further forward to
allow a sideloading garage which was one
of the concerns that the airbeam had and
the applicant has addressed that so um
the applicant also pushed The Hardscape
further from the street which brings
more green space to the front
yard so even though that the house
actually comes out a little bit more
than what the original structure did
this was due to address to a concern of
the having a side load garage as opposed
to the frontload loading garage which
side load garages look much
nicer okay can everybody hear me now I'm
unmuted I was um able to get to fix that
problem Julie um bulock has been moved
into the
panelist uh is there anybody else that
would like to be moved in there I think
the
Jud okay great Julie anybody else no I
think that should be a just the two of
us okay great um the only thing I'll add
to Kathy's staff report is that the um
the board was very pleased with this it
was the second time that it came back
there were substantial changes the
garage was turned to be a side loaded
garage rather than a front- loed garage
which was the biggest concern um I
honestly expected that it would probably
be um tabled for for modification just
because it's a new build but they were
very pleased with it and went ahead and
approved it actually recommended it to
all of you um the only condition that I
would ask on behalf of ARB is that it be
um that the landscape plan be evaluated
and um reviewed by the um Bexley tree
and public gardens
commission Julie all yours okay could
could we put the site plan up on the
screen
sure Julie can I swear you in would you
oh yes right raise your hand and state
your name Juliet bulock
do you Sly swear or affm the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth I
do thank
you so as Kathy and um Karen had
mentioned this is a very eclectic Street
there houses from different time periods
different styles there's contemporary
houses and there's houses from the
1900s um and although there is an
average setback um I I feel like it's a
bit skewed just because of the situation
of of how the street curves and how the
houses are situated on the lot um so
what we were working with the commission
on just really you know this is one of
those where I feel like this is why we
have this process with variances is to
deal with unique situations like we have
here so um our original proposal was to
Simply put the house back on the setback
of the existing house that we're tearing
down however that would not that did not
meet
the average setback requirement so it
would have required a variance in any
case however in working with the
architecture review board they said you
know we really want a side loaded garage
um the other thing we're dealing with
which you can see on the site plan is a
very large tree um it's a beautiful tree
it's very important to my client um and
so we have really designed the house
around that tree and keeping protecting
that tree and making sure that um you we
feel like it's an integral part of the
of the site and of the house so that's
um a little bit of how the the the site
and the design evolved um we really like
the Sid loaded garage and we also you
know as they had mentioned it does open
the house up for a a lot less Paving in
the front yard as well so my client was
very happy with that um I think I just
open it up for questions I feel
like might be
appropriate I'll just kind of run
through the elevation so that you can
see okay the
design here's a floor
plan and second floor
plan you know we did originally try to
save the existing house but there was
just a lot of issues with the roof and
the way it was constructed you know and
all the windows were just stopped in
glass and as we were getting more
involved we realized that this was not
really a house that was Salvage my
client does like a more contemporary
aesthetic so that's what we were going
for here some traditional elements
developed in a more contemporary
manner so just curious how how much
farther Kathy does it STI or anyone does
it stick out uh
than it did before I I saw I saw the one
drawing shows where the old garage was
what's that actual
distance J do you have that figure yes I
do I'm just looking on my other computer
here um it is sticking out um it was 338
and now it's 48 40 foot 8 you know when
we were working with the Architectural
Review commission they said you know
we'd be willing to have you go 10 to 12
feet forward more just to get the side
loaded garage and we're actually able to
do it in basically 7
ft it's also similar in setback to the
house right next door to it I was about
to say I think that house next
door I seen yeah and so you're you're by
the side load garage that reduces that
Pavement in the yeah we're actually
we're actually further back than the
house directly to the south of
us're at 3
9.1 and I've in that house so I know
that setback is correct I actually had a
survey for it also wanted to add in that
um I know you all um on the direction of
ARB to almost every applicant that's um
putting a new house up is required to
show a streetcape and it is nearly
impossible for this site if you've
driven past it because of the foliage
the elevation changes the Curve in the
street so um we had some pictures at the
first presentation but they really just
don't show you you cannot see the
elevations next to each other at any
particular Point
yeah Karen or Kathy is there is there
anybody from the public I mean any of
the neighbors that got notice is there
anybody that wants to speak to this item
if you're here as an attendee could you
please um raise your hand if you'd like
to
speak I do not see anyone
nope okay I mean I I I like the plan I
like I like the side load garage and I
think you know I've been down that
section of Road there and you're right
it is it's a very eclectic part of
Bexley with the Curve and the road and
different elevations I I think this is a
good you know a good solution um and
again the fact that they've got um
you know subject to the landscape plan
does does anybody else on the on the
board have any comments or
questions um Kathy can we have the
finding of facts
then
sure the the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bz8 p-20 d29 for property located
at 476 North Parkview based on the
testimony presented the board finds it
appropriate to Grant a 19.5 foot
variance from bexy code section
12:52.0 n to allow a
new structure to replace the
existing single family
dwelling uh the board further finds that
a certificate of appropriateness should
be issued as recommended by the
architecture review board subject to a
landscape plan being submitted to the
tree and public garden commission for
further review and
approval and does the applicant
understand the findings of fact as they
were read yes we do thank you um do does
anyone on the board want to make a
motion so
moved and do we have a second second
please
second who who seconded that was that
Mr Ryan and I both did you know what I'm
I'm gonna give it I'm going to give it
to Sean
okay all right would like me to read the
role please please go ahead and read the
role uh Mr shik yes Mr Turner yes Miss
Mitchell yes Mr Fout
yes and vice chairman merch yes
thank
you thank
you all right it's approved as
condition great thanks
Julie Kathy I'm back
Beall okay all right so we are on the
second application chairman behall did
we uh go through the minutes and all
that we did okay good beautiful so the
second application under this is under
new business
now yes we're on in 2034 2034 the
applicant Amy louse and the owners are
Matt and Jessica cler and the property's
located at 2471 brighten Road the
applicant is seeking Architectural
Review and approval for a twostory
addition to the east side the principal
structure and in addition on top of the
one story section of the home the appan
is also seeking a variance from Bexley
city code section 122.0 n r R6 zoning
District which requires an 8 foot
setback uh from the sidey yard property
line to allow a twostory in line with
the existing one story section and
twostory addition over the first floor
section and Second Story Edition rather
over the over the first floor section
that is 3' 5 in from the East property
line so with that in mind um Kathy can
we have the staff report and is Amy here
Amy is here I am all
right okay
um okay this home has an existing one
story Edition that is located three feet
inches from the property line the
proposed addition expands that one story
addition towards the rear yard and adds
a second story above both existing and
new section the lot in question is 75
feet wide the lot to the east is also 75
feet wide the standard lot width in this
district is 50 feet which leads me to
believe that the Lots between these two
homes will split the distance between
the two homes is
24 inches and the addition would be in
line with the existing one-story section
and will be 3 feet five inches from the
East side property line and there are
also three windows on the east side of
this Edition so I checked with the Chief
Building official um with my concerns
related to the fire code and he has
provided me uh that under table
30211 of the 2019 residential code of
Ohio
that of of one hour for the wall and
also any
windows on that side are at 25% or less
so those are items that are of concern
but those will also be dealt at a build
level as far as the construction
documents go I'm just simply want to
make sure you're aware of that okay Amy
could you raise your right hand and be
swor morning in please wait can I just
um really quickly just let you know that
um this ARB has recommended this for
approval for a certificate of
appropriateness with no conditions and
actually approved it as a consent agenda
item okay sorry thanks sorry thank you I
I I forgot to slip you in there Karen
thank all right H Amy would you raise
your right hand and be sworn Amy do you
want to raise your hand yep say your
name Amy lowerhouse you saw me swear
firm the testimony you're about to give
this evening is the truth I do thank you
as a preliminary matter I'm getting some
occasions where the the screen is
freezing I'm not hearing the the the
testimonies anybody else having that
experience okay Jason you are Rick you
are a little bit yep and it it I don't
know if it's any one person I got a
little bit of when Kathy was
speaking uh but if we do have a
serious uh problem during any
presentation let bring it to our
attention and we'll repeat what was said
so that we can make sure we get all the
the answers and the information here yes
all right thank you uh Amy why don't you
uh take the floor here and let us know
why you did it the way you did it and
why you think this makes sense uh to
Grant variance yes so uh as Kathy said
it will the existing addition is 3 foot5
Ines away from the sidey yard uh and
we're adding on top of that and then
adding a small addition behind that to
the South uh we are not encroaching any
further towards the um East Side
property line than the current edition
is um because as Kathy mentioned these
lots are large the um the distance
between both their the neighbor's sun
room and their existing residents is
fairly
large um they are nowhere near their
sidey yard property line um also the the
neighbor has um written a letter of
support for this my client has gone and
and shown them the plans and talked with
them about it and they are um in full
support of of um our
project
okay and uh are they do we have any
indication of their attendance tonight
at this meeting uh Karen can you tell um
if anybody that is an attendee would
like to speak to this case if you could
raise your computer hand I'll put you in
the
panelist nope I see no one uh chairman
that letter was uploaded to the website
okay
okay all right and and the site plan
that you sent us does
indicate uh the distances as being about
24 feet from the sunro of the house on
the neighbor's house to the
proposed uh addition yes correct
okay are there any questions from
members of the board or comments
uh hearing none hey it's Brian I have a
question so okay Brian Kathy maybe I
missed this but so is this is this
current
structure in compliance or is it a
non-complying structure or or what's the
history on that the the current
structure exists at 3 feet 5 Ines off
that property line you can see it on the
right hand side of that upper photo
I think it's the right hand side Karen
here's the here's the
photo so oh wait a minute yeah no it's
right here oh yes it is at the left hand
side there y so they're building they're
expanding that further back and then
they're building directly on top of it
so they're not going any closer but they
are expanding at the existing setback
along that property line so my question
was was there a variance for that
initial structure or or what what's the
history on on
that um that's a good question there had
to have been I mean because the
code always been eight until
1972
um but but being it's expanding and
they're making it a second
story you know I'm bring so it had to
have received a variance I would think
if it was built that close to the
property line
yeah there's no there's no way for us to
know e one way or the other if it
exceeded yeah prior to 72 it's hard to
tell gota well it could easily have been
built prior to 72 yeah it probably
was yeah
yeah well does the fact that it uh from
an architectural perspective now that it
sort of uh creates an imbalance this is
very symmetrical in its current
appearance so as a non- architect I'm
asking a question does the does the
Symmetry uh did the AR did the
Architectural Review Board consider that
and did they have any opinions expressed
in that regard no this didn't even come
to discussion it was voted on as a
consent agenda item because it was
unanimously um approved you know there
there are there are many examples in
Bexley of symmetrical homes that have
additions on just one side and not the
other or one story on one side and two
story on another side that it's it's a
fairly common thing um so I personally I
wasn't concerned about that from a
design perspective it's actually um
encouraged to give it some interest okay
all right
good no nobody in the audience still and
we have the letter from the neighbor so
are there any further questions or
comments for members of the
board if not I think we can call the
question here uh and Kathy you could
give us findings of fact conclusions of
law uh we have a
couple of items here right
so
um let's see
we have
really only one variance though right
yes 4 foot 7 inch variance to side yard
setback right okay go ahead and give us
the finding the fact and conclusions of
law if you would
please the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number
bc-20 d34 for property located at 2471
Brighton Road based on on the testimony
presented and
the other
disting
current yeah other evidence the board
finds it appropriate you grant a 4 foot7
inch variance from beex code section
122.0 n as
presented okay um Amy you're
muted Amy did do you uh agree and
understand the terms of the findings of
fact conclusions of law that would be
attached to the variants I do okay
um do I hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
I'll make a motion to approve thank you
is there a
second second thank
you all right uh Ms Rose please call The
Rose
rooll um Miss
Mitchell
yes uh Mr Fout
yes
Mr
yes
Mr was that Turner that's a yes for me
me yeah we couldn't hear you very well
Kathy you're you're you're the one that
I'm having the most difficulty with in
terms of your V your vocal is going in
and
out like right now as an example Turner
said yes we're just waiting for it to
unfreeze here Cathy's Frozen I may have
to take
over she
moving Kathy it's can you hear me
sometimes right now we can after Mr
Turner we didn't hear the rest of the
roll call though okay because I didn't
hear hear him um yeah he said yes okay
thank you uh and Mr
schik
yes and chairman behof I vote Yes as
well the variance is granted thank you
uh Amy thank you it's like a good
project thank you
all right the next uh case before the
board is application bz ap-20
d35 it involves 36
ashborne the applicant once again is Amy
Lous the owner is Lindsay scolds and
Dave
pazola and the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review and approval for an
attached pergola Edition the applicant
is also seeking a variance from Bexley
city code section 12 52.0 n in the R3
zoning District which requires a 40 foot
rear yard setback to allow the attached
perol to be constructed 24 feet 5 in
from the rear property
line
um um Mr chairman can I interrupt for a
minute and just um let anybody know who
came in a little late that because I see
names in the attendees that are here for
a project that's been tabled I just
wanted to make sure everyone knows that
424 um South Columbia has been tabled
until January 28th we do not have a
meeting in December the applicant has
asked to have the applicant applicant
tabled to application table to work on
some other Solutions so um I see a
couple people that I believe are here to
testify for that so I wanted to make
sure everybody knows that that's not
going to be heard tonight all right good
and when you say we're not having a
December meeting that's a little
confusing because we are in fact having
a December meeting it's on December this
is our November meeting right this is
our November meeting because of
Thanksgiving right going to be a meeting
on Christmas Day this year 2020 we
decided not to do that and uh or
Christmas Eve actually would be so
anyway um folks we don't want you to
have to hang around to the last case on
the docket to find out that uh your case
is not going to be heard so that uh was
an appropriate uh comment there and I
appreciate it Karen so Kathy do you want
to give us the first uh uh staff look at
this request for variance please sure
uh Beall chairman Beall it's Brian Marsh
I'm gonna recuse myself I I live right
around the corner from this I'm just
gonna recuse myself okay very good thank
you Brian all right uh this is an
irregular shaped lot in that it's 80
feet in width at the front of the lot
and 141 ft in width at the rear of the
lot the new pergola and the proposed
location would meet code if it were
detached uh there is an existing
Breezeway that connects the garage to
the principal structure and the pergola
is attached to that Breezeway So based
on that it needs to meet the sepic
requirements of the principal structure
and and you can see that a portion of
that is outside that line so it is a 40
foot setback from the rear property line
that's required so that that is the
reason being they're attaching it that
it requires that variance to be
addressed okay very good um Amy I don't
know I think technically probably we
should swear you in again even though
once you're sworn in you're sworn in but
I think just for the record we should
swear you in if you'd raise your right
hand again and Kathy if you'd administer
the
oath do you solemnly swear from the
testimony you're about to give this even
evening is the
truth Amy are you
muted yes I was sorry I do okay good yes
you were and yes you do all right okay
can I um uh and K Karen has the ARB
looked at this baby yes and this also
was approved as a consent agenda item
which means nobody had um any negative
anything to say about it and it was
unanimously approved with a group of
applications okay very good thank you
very much all right
Amy yeah let us why you put things where
you
did yeah Kathy gave an excellent summary
um really this is is only needing a
variance because it's attached to the
Breezeway so technically it's considered
an attached structure um even though you
know if you look at that top right
picture it's the Breezeway is is more of
just a connector to from the
detached garage to the house um the
reason we placed the new uh pergola
where we did is if you can see in that
top right oops if you can go back to
pictures Karen um in the top right
picture there's a sort of a center piece
there in that pergola yes um we're
centering our new covered porch on that
piece that's already there okay all
right that makes sense all right
um is there um anybody that you can see
Karen in the uh audience that's here to
talk
about this
case if anybody in the audience would
like to testify please raise your
computer hand and I'll put you in the
panelists nope no one
okay thank you members of the board
comments or
questions seems
like everybody can understand what's
going on here fairly quickly and it
looks like a
sensible proposal so hearing no
questions or comments did the original
Breezeway need uh need approval a
variance yes if that detached garage if
that was detached existed and that
Breezeway attached the principal
structure to the detach garage that
would have required a variance because
the garage being attached to the
principal structure now no longer meets
the rear yard setback right so so
historically it did have a variance then
yes okay yes okay by making a change to
the and I'm just asking more for
learning purpose so I apologize but by
making a change like this does it negate
that other variance or does it just um
become like part
of like just an additional no it's in
addition to the other variants the way I
would put it okay you agree with that
Kathy yes I would and does that require
us might be frozen again does that
require us to detail that when we do
like that findings in fact or does that
is it just automatically
assumed it's it exists in that manner so
we're just simply addressing what's
being added to this structure okay thank
you
yes all right uh Kathy could we have
findings of fact and conclusions of law
on this matter please yes uh the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
for application number bz ap-20 d35 for
property located at 36 ashborne based on
the testimony Pres presented in the
irregular shape of this existing lot the
board finds it appropriate to Grant a 15
foot 7inch variance from bexy code
section 12520 n R3
zoning uh based on the recommendation
from the architecture review board the
board further finds it appropriate to
Grant a certificate of appropriateness
very good uh do I hear a motion to
approve the findings of fact conclusions
of
law a second thank you thank
you
um okay Amy you uh understand and are
you good with the uh ver verbiage of the
of the findings and the conclusions yes
all right uh Kathy please call the role
Mr
shik yes Mr
Turner yes Miss Mitchell
yes uh Mr Fout yes and chairman
behall yes I vote Yes as well the
variance is
granted thank
you are we is uh is Mr uh line not
voting
tonight or did you just skip him
no he passed on this one because it was
close to his house right well no that
was Mr Marsh two three four five
wondering the same thing I assumed it's
because that I was an alternate I'm not
sure one two three four five
six seven I
apologize you're the seventh
man he is the seventh man seventh person
to be more appropriately stated yes Mr
Levine would you like to vote on that
last case yes yes okay I'll add you do
that thank you Rick I'm looking out for
you Rick you
know all right the next case before the
board got a little bit of a monopoly on
the action here tonight uh involves 200
ashborne and is case number bz
ap-20
d36 the applicant once again is Amy
house the owner according to what I've
got here is Ray or RI I can't tell what
it's saying exactly but the request
is uh to seek Architectural Review and
approval to allow one story addition to
the principal structure on the south
side of the attached garage the
applicant is also seeking a variance for
Bexley city code section
12521
c uh which requires a 25t setback from
the street side property line for
accessory structures as well as Bexley
city code section
12215
G uh which requires accessory structures
and uses uh uh permitted only in the
rear
yard in order to allow a swimming pool
in the South Side
yard so with that in
mind um
Kathy wanted you give us the staff's uh
review of this matter okay so this lot
is not only a corner lot but it's also a
through lot having streets that border
the front on ashborne road side is
Denver and the rear is North Cassidy
through Lots also require a 20 foot
setback from the rear yard property line
for accessory structures this lot has an
average 83 feet width and an average
170t depth uh the house is centered on
the lot with the driveway running along
the interior side property line to the
north which leaves most of the green
space in the front yard and along along
ashborne Road and also the side yard
along Denver
Avenue so
the setback for accessory structures is
5et further than what a principal
structure would be however you swimming
pools are a little bit because they're
not actually a structure above ground
but still nonetheless considered an
accessory structure so that's why it's
before the board for that
review
okay uh
Karen how did this do at uh
Architectural Review this application
was also recommended by consent agenda
item to the um Board of zoning and
planning for a certificate of approve of
appropriateness in if this experience is
approved I also wanted to mention that I
have um gotten one hand up for attendees
um for a sue um Grant and we will call
and she's in the room for when you're
ready to take testimony okay thank you
very much yes um Sue Grant is the um
landscape architect that we've been
working with along with myself great
thank you okay okay good well we're glad
to have her here as well so um is Sue uh
on board here I see Sue Sue and Amy
would you both raise your right hands to
be sworn
in Mr Ray you're also if you're going to
testify you could be sworn in as
well who was the third Mr Ray the owner
of the property thank
you all right so those who would like to
be speak and be sworn in please state
your name starting with this
grant you're
muted Mr R there you go Sue Grant all
right and Mr
Ray all right and Amy Amy lowerhouse do
you solemly swear or affirm the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth yes yes yesk thank
you folks appreciate it very much
um Amy why don't you tell us the uh the
situation here and what your remedy for
it was and uh why we should Grant the
variances uh okay yes so sue and Vivic
are here just in case uh we have any
additional questions for them but I just
want to go through and um make sure that
we are all clear on on the variants that
that are needed for this property um as
you can see because like Kathy said it's
bounded on three sides by uh roads we're
we're a little bit hemmed in um in my
site plan the bottom of the site is or
the west side of the site is cut off but
that's where the vast majority of the of
the property is on the ashborne site
side and um we also have on the Denver
side the south side there is a the
public sidewalk and then there is oh
yeah you can see it better on the
landscape plan um the large amount of
lawn to the uh ashborne side or the
front side of the house um on the South
Side the Denver side there's a public
sidewalk there's a small landscape
retaining wall and then there's a very
large Evergreen hedge that runs along
there um also on the Cassidy side there
are three fairly nice size trees in the
back that we also wanted to maintain um
inside the property um I can't
Point um the ones inside the property
Karen um on the Cassidy side they're
inside the fence basically yeah the the
three black dots those are the trunks of
the there's three very nice trees back
there that we're also maintaining so
that really limits us on where we can
develop this lot um so first um my
addition is to the south of the garage
right there um it is a one-story Edition
because the um this the south side of
the existing garage has a very lovely
window pattern with um some French doors
and a little balconet that we wanted to
maintain um you can you can see it there
on the bottom outside pictures um so
that's why we're doing a one-story
addition there we are stepping that
addition in on both sides a little bit
so it doesn't project um as far towards
Cassidy as the current garage does um
because the existing garage is already a
non-conforming structure that is
encroaching into the rear yard setback
um the our addition then is a as
well um the second variance would be for
the pool um because as Kathy said that
is considered an accessory structure um
and as you can see because we are we are
on a corner lot we have a very large
sidey guard setback required and that um
is encroaching into that sidey yard
setback um I wanted to talk a little bit
about why we place the pool there um
that hedge and if you go back to the
pictures Karen
um none of these pictures really show it
but um if the street view um has a a a
probably 20 foot tall evergreen hedge
along the the south side of the property
if any of you um drove by um and we have
uh not only consulted with Sue our
landscape architect that had an arborist
come out um and they felt like the size
and the location of the pool were fine
and we would not um be we would not harm
that Evergreen hedge that is there it's
it's extremely important to my client
that that we maintain that
hedge um thirdly the we're asking along
that hedge area for a six foot high um
privacy fence um be again because it is
a corner lot it's um it's uh 48 in is
the maximum we can do there without a
variance um so that fence would be on
the north side of the Hedge so it's more
uh we're required to have a fence for
safety reasons uh for the pool so um
that will be on the inside of the Hedge
so from the Street side and from the
sidewalk you wouldn't really see it that
much um I think you had the the photo up
Kathy that showed what we're thinking
about doing for the fence this is um
from the
landscape
um NOP not that one there NOP one more I
think yeah there you go yes that that is
the um that is the idea of the fence
that they would like to do a black fence
it's a blackish green stain um with uh
the horizontal um boards like that
picture
States the the final variance would be
for the shed which is shown on the
landscape architect site plan um I was
not aware that there was a a requirement
for a through lot so in my original
application um I did not put this in as
a as a um required meant for a variance
um but if you can see here that the
driveway continues from ashborne all the
way through to Cassidy there is a gate
there um and they are just looking the
garage itself is quite small um it it's
about eight about 20 by 20 um so they
are trying to use the shed for
additional yard storage um so that they
can park their cars in the garage
okay all right that's a uh
pretty thorough review I think of what's
going on and
why um do uh Miss Grant would you like
to add anything to that description to
give us any uh idea of what it is that
you've decided to do here and why yeah a
little bit on the fence if you can go
back to the landscape
plan and then zoom in a little bit so so
only along the Evergreen hedge beginning
see see at the bottom of the pool where
it says three feet uhhuh yeah so if you
go over to that corner right there kind
of a little bit over to the fence and
then down just down here not that far
down so right there is is where like at
the pool Paving Corner that's where the
six- foot fence would end and then and
then the rest of it going to the corner
down you know one little there and then
across to the house that would be the 4
foot metal fence that was shown on that
drawing um there because we didn't want
to look at you know you can kind of see
a little bit as you're on the street um
in front of the house we just didn't
want to have a six- foot fence going
across there um there'll be Shrubbery to
soften and hide any view of the pool but
um we just wanted it to not look like
there was a a fence going across the
front the fence on the side will be
hidden in the Hedge but there is a
little bit of
transparency at the bottom of the Hedge
when you're walking along you can kind
of see a little bit through it on the
outside when you're walking in the
sidewalk so the dark fence would kind of
make the transparency go away I don't
think you'd see the fence because it's a
it's a big hedge um and it's fairly wide
so I don't think you'd see the fence it
would cut down on the transparency and
now being able to kind of see through to
the house um so just having the fence
there would kind of make the Hedge look
more um dense I think
is yeah and so that just goes down to
the back corner uh there's already a six
foot fence along the Cassidy side so we
would just go down to meet that corner
the property line on that side in case
you're wondering is the face of that
wall out by the
sidewalk so the fence would be six and a
half feet from the the the property
line okay is it all right if I ask a
quick question mhm certainly um so you
it seems like you're going to be
installing a lot along that hedge line
that makes me wonder if the hedges would
be
compromised you you'll have the pool
going in then you'll have a fence going
in and you know that those particular
type of plant I don't think their root
systems go
outward but maybe downward like so I'm
just curious how you're going to protect
the Integrity of that hit because that
is a beautiful set of Hedges yeah it is
we actually um thought a great deal
about this because putting a pool in and
saving a big hedge to have it die would
not right great idea um so we actually
before we even did the design we we had
an arborist the homeowner had the
arborist come out and talk about it and
so right where the Dig would have to
happen he said that was fine and they
don't actually have to dig past where
that little so if you zoom back
in to what yeah just kind of the edge of
the pool there see the little two foot
piece of Paving over there and then
there's a foot so the fence so the fence
would not kill the um hedge and and
believe it or not when I was doing the
site measure I
I the Hedge the fence would go right
where the Hedge ends but on that side
it's mostly green
above it's not that green below that's
why there's a touch of transparency me
is Fuller in the top but not in the
bottom of No it's it's pretty straight
all the way down there just not that
many so it's a it's an evergreen hedge
there's not that many needles on the
lower branches right right there so the
fence will just cover up sort of the
bare area on that on the north side of
the Hedge the south side of the Hedge is
fairly green all the way down because it
faces the Sun but because the north side
of the Hedge is a little bit it just
doesn't get as lot a lot of sun on the
lower areas the fence will be right
there so the fence will only be post
holes and that would not damage it okay
that's really what I was the fence the
fence won't damage it and we're actually
not even cutting into the branch
the fence will literally sit right up
against them I would be more concerned
about any construction trucks damaging
the Hedge probably than the fence well I
so the digging will be very careful and
we will probably if you look down at the
bottom where I kind of started where
that three foot Mark is down there
there's one there are two of the big
tall hedge plants that are located right
where it say carpinus Fran France
Fontaine over on the right so if you
follow that leader down to right there
there are two not great condition hedge
plants that we're actually going to
remove those too so that they can if
they have to dig in that area area those
two will come out I think most of the
construction will happen from the back
and they'll avoid the root systems of
those other trees because they'll come
close to the house
so that was really only my question was
when you have that much activity going
around the trees and the whole intention
was to save them and you have that much
activity if you you know you've already
done that sort of due diligence to
ensure that you're not going to lose
them
then um that makes sense to me I just
something learned by trial and error
over well yeah I've had a lot of years
of of of not trusting contract
trees yeah you come you come back and
they're
gone well these will be very carefully
watched there'll be many eyes hovering
watching
with I'd like to also add some comments
regarding the fence um I've been doing a
little catchup since these notice
initially went out um being when I was
out but initially I thought this was a
four-foot fence going around which does
isn't a problem however on the street
side property line when the board
reviews fencing proposed that is over 48
inches in height typically there's a
requirement of 12 to 18
inches
ofce of transparency at the upper
portion and and I do understand you've
got a full hedge here but you know
should that hedge not survive the
installation of the pool or I I think
they're if the board's comfortable
granting a variance I think there should
be something in place that if the Hedge
were to fail that there would be a
landscape plan that would replace it and
and and I don't know if they have any
concerns about no transparency in the
upper portion of that fence I just
wanted to bring that to light is that
fence that's on the top of that I'm
showing right now is that the same on is
it the same on both sides two sided Okay
C Kathy it's I was actually going to
bring that up um about the transparency
because the pool that we did I can't
think of it it's not onfair but down the
one that we did down there had
transparency but the question I have is
is the current grade there's there seems
to be a like almost a knee wall down
along the sidewalk that's maybe a foot
foot and a half above the sidewalk is is
that the grade of the land because if so
then from the you're adding a foot and a
foot and a half to the top of the fence
height based on if you're standing on
the sidewalk so a six foot fence could
be a seven and a half foot fence um
there's really not a picture on there
showing it from the from the street side
with the with the hedges there's a
there's a wall between the hedges and
the sidewalk are those bushes at grade
and the wall sticks up or is the grade
the top of that existing KNE wall so
right there the picture in the upper
right hand side that you see it's fairly
flat over to the wall it it may I don't
think it drops I think it's fairly FL FL
all the way to the wall but it's not but
it's not right next to it the fence
would be like six and a half fet
away right what I'm saying sidewalk or
flat to to the outer sidewalk or is
there a wall there there's no wall on
the outside of the
sidewalk yeah there is it's on the
inside yeah they're talking about that
little landscape wall between the Hedge
and the public sidewalk yeah that a half
and then it's flat over to the house
fairly flat yeah so on the side of it
does it drop down a foot and a half or
is or is the grade coming into the top
of that wall level it it's it's fairly
level yeah I I would say it steps down a
little bit a little bit not not back to
the to the level of the sidewalk it's a
it's not it's not a straight wall
there's a retaining wall there on the
side of um you know at towards the side
of public sidewalk and it is at the same
level in the corner um now towards the
Cassidy where cassid and Denver meets
it's almost at the level of that
sidewalk and as you come towards ashborn
it drops down about a foot okay I have
um pulled it up I'm gonna attempt
something hold
on don't hurt
yourself can you see that are definitely
famous famous last words
yeah hold my hold my wine exactly you
like to call them
disclaimers there is if you can see that
I pulled up a Google satellite you know
like a 3D yes so you can really see the
Hedge I can't it I can't really see a
wall but can you go to street view on it
stre there there's like a it sits on
like a stone wall that's maybe a foot
and a half tall it's not and like like
Vivic but it is not a uniform height
from it's
not so to answer Mr Turner's question uh
had they proposed to build grade up and
then add the fence on top of that I
would consider all of that as part of
that proposal however in this case is it
is existing grade and they are placing a
six- foot fence on top of that so that's
that's perspective and it's up to the
board to decide whether they feel it's
appropriate or not and you know knowing
it's behind this hedge of row of hedge
that's there
so there there I think there was a
drawing maybe you don't have it in your
presentation have we seen every drawing
in your
presentation that you have on file hold
on oh Sue are you talking about the one
that shows the elevations yeah like
sections and elevations I I thought I I
included that one in the in the uploads
yeah but I'm I'm wondering if they're
there it would make it really easy for
them to
see maybe look through all the drawings
you have and
see it was an
overall elev look through all those
pages and see it no it's not there it's
not there so I'd also like to ask
Amy the fence that's proposed along the
rear of this property what is the height
of that along Cassidy that's an existing
fence it's six foot okay yes and it
actually sits up on the grade a little
bit it sits up on a wall too and that
most likely received a variance because
there there's a 20 foot setback for a
rear property line on through lots for
fences I think that's the same as the
whole fence all along that whole street
so will this propos fence match the
existing fence at the rear no it won't
The Back Fence will look different but
it's the one that's visible from outside
this one is not really visible from the
outside yeah I don't think you have that
elevation so did you open everything
that was uploaded Karen yep okay check
yep yep yep
yeah yeah this is Mr Marsh my only
concern would be again if that if that
landscape material dies and there's no
requirement to replace you're you're GNA
have a a six a black six foot fence
that's sitting eight feet off the road
basically it's G it's just look it's
just going to look like a wall so I mean
I I I'm I'm fine with it um as long as
there's a requirement to maintain that
Landscaping you know at at the at the at
least to the height of the height of
that wall so so if we added something
that would say that we would
um plant um planting on the outside of
the fence that would hide the fence if
that fence if if the Hedge died then we
would
replace the plan just submit a new site
plan okay yeah what what about putting
lattice for the top two feet of the
I was about to say what if you had some
sort of transparency along the Top If
the hedges were to diey then the the
recommend or the the extra note would be
that as long as there is transparency at
the top of the fence line or you replace
the Hedge the plant material so so we
could we could definitely do that if you
scroll back to the fence um so it's a
horizontal fence because it's so visible
from the inside of the house um so I
think that an appropriate way to treat
the top of the you said 18 inches or a
foot 12 to 18 inches 12 to 18 inches so
we would I think we would be willing to
put like smaller or thinner boards
what's what's your I think a lattice
might have a lot of different meanings
and for a horizontal fence a horizontal
lattice would be just horizontal boards
that leave the right amount of space um
and I think um so you just change the
size of board at the top 12 to 18 inches
and you just leave like half is it like
50% is what you need so it would have um
if that's a five inch board we would use
what a 3 inch board and leave
between and we can we can submit uh we
would be happy to submit those Final
Fence drawings as part of the final
submitt for uh Karen's approval yeah I
think we should just condition it on a
redesign of the top of the fence and I
would recommend putting a condition that
if the hedges don't make it through the
pool installation that a landscape plan
for the outside be submitted
there you go that sounds good just a com
that sounds great doctor is that okay
with you just want to make one comment
you know about hedges in case the Hedge
doesn't survive you know we are going to
replace it with tall trees whatever the
scientific name of those trees may
be we strongly feel that you know the
way the house is
situated uh the trees provide
significant amount of privacy from
Neighbors which the fence will not right
get decent amount of privacy in that
lot um you have to have those
trees and you know the lce and all that
that's that's fine if that is truly um
you know that much of a
requirement uh we'll be fine with that
but really I mean the main issue is this
our lot is so close to a public sidewalk
that it is you know uh I feel that it is
a hardship for us to have a cook out
there and talking to neighbors as they
go
by you know and and the trees the the
next house over they have several
windows that face our house and I mean
we'll have to put a 20 ft fence to get
privacy from those so obviously we're
not
going so so the trees are also an
integral part of the house you know the
way the house is designed and and we
will maintain it whether you put the
condition or
not I think that the um solution that
your landscape architect had by just
putting the same horizontal but a little
bit thinner is not going to provide any
breach of your privacy it will just
lighten the look of the top of
it it it won't be like a lattice which I
do think is a lot more transparent I
think that's a good solution it'll just
give it some texture at the top
um I don't think it'll interfere with
your privacy whatsoever it it'll just be
little tiny spaces in between yeah I
think it'll be a better design it won't
be so Fortress likee it'll be if it ever
even gets seen um and then in terms of
the hedges and the trees we can deal
with that later if the hedges die then
you will it's a condition that you now
need to come back with the landcape
planet it doesn't need to be done
through this
board do you have a percentage
that you would require
in um just so that we make sure that we
submit one drawing and it's in alignment
with what you are looking that's the
pleasure of this board but if the board
is okay with it I'm okay with it
conditioned on a review of your drawings
through
me Sue I'll just I'll just submit a
drawing to that
okay and Kathy you got I think the
wording that uh Karen came up with works
very well yes uh in the findings of fact
conclusions of law yes so we can add
those in uh later are
there is there anybody in the audience
that's here Pro or con this case please
uh Karen can you see anybody on the
board if anyone has
anyone like to testify
uh I do not see any
okay U
um Amy have you had any or your client
had any uh interaction with any of the
Neighbors about the the uh of course the
neighbors you got streets on all sides
really uh pretty much all sides has
there been any negative reaction from
anybody or has there been any discussion
with
anybody I have not had discussions with
anybody um as like you said
no the neighbor they only have one
neighbor to the north and and none of
this is on the North side you're right
yeah okay yeah all right kids who play
in our house they're all looking forward
to a pool okay all right um do we have
any additional questions or comments
from members of the board please thank
you uh Sue and Amy and Dr Ryan
I hear no such
comments
um there or questions
um uh Kathy the findings of fact
conclusions law why why don't you take a
quick stab at it because and should we
do them
separately um I I I I've I can add
conditions but I've added in a couple of
the code sections regarding the fence
that weren't all included in with the
original request okay so yeah I think
that's appropriate all right so the
findings effect fact and conclusions of
law for application number bz
ap-20 d36 for property located at 200
ashborne
Road based on the testimony presented
and
the uh the fact that this lot is
bordered by streets on three
sides uh the board finds it appropriate
to Grant es to mexic code section 1252
point10 C 12 52.1
15g 12 52.0 n and 12 um I don't know if
you can hear me but you're Frozen and
when you said three sides I didn't hear
anything after that at all did other
people have that same experience no I
heard it you heard
everything did everybody else hear it
I'm looking at your pictures I heard
yeah yes
you froze on my screen for some reason
but
um I think we're fine if everybody else
heard it okay uh
so and to address there's somebody
speaking in the background yeah Mr Ray
is your are are you
muted I
am it's it was on my mic here at which I
couldn't mute it constantly and we had
people coming into the house here so
that's the problem sorry not a problem
it's gone now so so these code sections
that I just read that they're seeking a
variance from are to address the sidey
pool the six- foot fence along Denver
and the addition to the south side of
the existing attached
garage and these
variances Kathy appropr Kath I'm sorry
interrupt do we need something for the
shed
uh yes for through
lots to allow the shed to be located
along the east rear property
line through
lots
and oh my gosh through Lots I use the
the so infrequently I don't know that
one right off the top of my head I'm
sorry but I will add the code section
Cod section okay regarding 20ft setbacks
for accessory structures on a through
lot with the condition that should the
trees decline along Denver Avenue that a
new landscape plan be submitted for
review and approval and two that the
applicant add transparency to the upper
12 to 18 inches of the proposed fence
along Denver Avenue subject to further
review and approval by the residential
design
consultant based on the
recommendation of the architecture riew
board the board of zoning and planning
further finds it appropriate to issue a
certificate of appropriateness for the
proposed
improvements on this
home Mr chairman I have a question yes
sir uh M
Rose who determines what a uh what a
decline is
um that's my that's my one question as
to this like is it an absolute decline
of 50% or more of the Trees of the top
layer surface of them what constitutes a
decline we can put stipulations on that
condition if you'd
like I just feel like that that's that
seems to be the number one issue here
that would be that would satisfy me so
say 50% or
more I'd say 75% or more
if it declines 75% or
more no if it's if if yeah 25% is what
you're saying 20 correct okay so if the
trees along Denver decline more than
25% and we can have a city arborus also
review that if need be that would be
great an objective source so noted thank
you you're welcome thank
you all right and uh M Grant and and Ms
louse and Dr R do you all uh understand
and uh agree with the findings of fact
conclusions of law as read including the
the conditions that that have been
attached to them I do I okay thank you
very much
um do I hear a motion
to approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law as uh iterated by m
Rose
actually Mr chairman I think Miss
lowerhouse is trying to say something
but she's on mute no I was talking to
somebody
else
sorry all right I do that all the time
and it's
myself all right um do I hear a motion
uh Sean thank you Mr Turner made the
motion do I hear a second
please so moved second thank you uh
Kathy please call the role
Mr Fout
yes Mr
Marsh did he come back after the last
one Mr Marsh are you there yeah he's
muted well M you know he this is another
he lives on the same street so he may
have okay Mr Turner yes Mr
Levine if if you for marsh I vote yes
thank you Mr
LaVine Mr
LaVine yes and Mr
shik yes thank
you okay did did we get seven votes
there what happened we did oh I'm sorry
and chairman behall okay I vote yes also
so the variances are granted it's a
great looking project and good luck to
you all um in accomplishing it thank you
thank you very much thank
you the uh we'll go on to the next
case we'll go on to the next case might
have been muted myself there um the
variance was granted and we appreciate
that's a nice project good luck to you
all in accomplishing the uh project
here the next case
involves 2754
Sherwood and trying to get it up here
can you see it on my
screen uh I can see it but I can't read
it very well but I I'm just trying to
get do you want me to read it you want
Kathy to read it yeah Kathy go ahead and
read the uh the application
please
okay the applicant is sing
okay the applicant is seeking
architecture review and approval for a
detached garage a covered porch on the
rear of the house with a second floor
deck and modifications to the existing
attached
garage uh would I go ahead and give my
staff
comments yes all right uh this two-story
house this two-story house currently has
a rear loading attached garage
this is there is not an alley at the
back of the lot so the front entry with
a front entry drive it requires some
maneuvering to access the garage in the
current condition and most likely why
the applicant has chosen to add a 24 by
26 foot detached garage bexi code
section
12521 15E limits a garage to one story
in height Ridgeline not to exceed 20 fet
in height bexy code section
12215 F states that that no story in an
accessory structure s ex exceed 10 ft
the proposed garage is 23 feet in height
at the Ridge and has a second floor
space making it a two-story garage the
second floor also has dormers on both
the east and west side of the roof that
are approximately 20 feet in length the
board may want to discuss whether or not
the massing is concern and would and
would note that the principal structure
is a two-story
structure uh regarding location this
garage also proposed at 3 feet off the
wests side property line and 5et off the
north property line to stay out of an
easement at the rear of the property
beic code section 12215 G requires
detach garages shall not be located less
than 10 ft from the principal structure
the garage is proposed at 5 feet from
the new covered porch Edition with a
partial second floor deck proposed at
the rear of the principal structure a
section of the porch steps back but is
still less than 10 ft from the proposed
detached garage uh staff would like to
share the fact that a 10-ft separation
between house and garage on the same lot
is more of an aesthetic requirement in
the zoning code I've also checked with
our chief building official if there are
any fire code concerns that need to be
addressed in this case of separation of
structures on the same property and he
has indicated that only when a garage is
connected to the principal structure
there would be a half inch gemson board
required on the inside of the garage
wall
okay all right we um uh Karen what uh
did ARB do with this case ARB um
approved this applica or act recommended
this application Kathy I think we split
this into two didn't we so we're not
looking at the house part we're just
looking at the
garage uh if you'd like no I mean I did
isn't that what we did did they need oh
on the on the recommendation yeah didn't
we split it into
two we're not looking at the house
correct well it's
it it's there's still a separation issue
that needs to be addressed whether it's
the garage encroaching on the house
regard um regardless the architecture
was approved I was recommended by the
architecture review board Again by
consent agenda um all the improvements
both to the home and the design of the
garage should you pass the variants um
were very acceptable to the board um to
the point that they passed it as a
consent agenda item I just wanted to
point out the garage um on the drawings
um although it
is um higher than than the zoning code
allows the proportions and the window
placements of the Dormers are very
appropriate and in proportion in a good
design so it was uh recommended for
approval and was the was the height um
is the reason for the height the pitch
of the roof or what the peak is exceeds
20 feet it's at 23 feet what's
[Music]
proposed okay well let's we'll we'll
address those things with the applicants
so we have
U miss odonnell Mr Baker and um do we
have
uh well I
guess we have Ryan and Michelle so we
have Ryan some place or we do not okay
so we've got Michelle and Scott is that
who we have yes my my husband's here but
I'm going to speak on behalf of us okay
I have the situation that at my house as
well if you would please raise your
right hand and be sworn in Kathy please
state your name Michelle odonnell do you
somly swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth I do thank you and Mr Baker did
you hear that baby as well yes yeah you
want to swear me in as well or I I do
yes yes Scott Baker okay do you s we
swear from the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the
truth y I do thank you thank you all
right
uh uh Mr Baker or Miss odonnell whoever
why don't you give us some idea of what
it is that you're trying to accomplish
here and why why the board should Grant
the variances please yes absolutely um
you know we we bought the house and we
didn't realize when we purchased the
home how unusable the garage space was
it was um definitely put out as a
two-car garage and um we we were young
we had smaller cars we quickly found out
we we could not use the garage both
because of the turning radius but then
also because the size of it really
doesn't allow for you know um larger
family vehicles um to fit and so uh when
we realized that the long-term plan was
that we would try and build a detached
garage and then solve some of the kind
of entryway issues into the home we
basically enter the home um through our
kitchen so um it's just not ideal and
then this project would solve both of
those
concerns
um as far as the the garage you know
aesthetic goes it was important to my
husband and I that it it had some
character that it fit with the home and
wasn't just um you know kind of a we
want it to look Pleasant because it will
be seen from the street and um it'll
also provide um you know having the
Second Story will provide some um extra
space that's needed as we've grown as a
family
okay um are there um questions from
members of the board or comments
are there any floor plans for the garage
yeah that's what Kathy you and I are
thinking alike tonight that's would have
had you but I I would have had you but I
was muted well because I I never check
to see okay if there's
any if you keep scrolling down to G1 D2
just keep scrolling there's the first
floor you know Foundation plan the next
page will be the roof and the uh
proposed recck room
y so no no Plumbing this would just be
used as kind of um multi-purpose
space
okay thanks very
much is it possible to place a condition
that no Plumbing could be added to this
space or that they would need to bring
bring it back before us for a variance
approval if they wanted later actually
they they would be allowed to put
Plumbing in there as long as they don't
violate any of the code restrictions
that are currently in place
gotcha so Scott this is Bob behall H
what what uh why 23
feet tried lower roof pitches and Peaks
but it you know and there should be some
building sections if you keep scrolling
down we were just trying to get enough
ceiling height to make it a usable
second floor or I I think the sections
if they're in there should be the last
page if I was smart enough to put them
in
yep one more
nope yeah it's it's a ceiling height
thing um and it also has to do Scott if
I could speak on your behalf but correct
me if I'm wrong um I think there is a
consistency of it might not be exactly
but it matches it works well with the
roof pitches so they complement each
other I mean it is fairly massive at the
top there I mean it's it's a pretty good
size just just that meets the lay
person's eyes
here any other board members have any uh
thoughts in that
regard I what what is peculiar about the
site that
maybe Karen you can answer this that you
believe justifies the additional
height you know just besides the fact
that the Dormers are in
proportion no it really doesn't that's
why they're before you if you say no
extra two to three feet or whatever it
is then they need to lower
it yeah and I think we submitted an
exhibit that shows within a few blocks
kind of north and west 13 other
properties that we had found that have
similar height garages or maybe even
taller just some just some precedent
that it's in the
area oh sorry this and this really has
to apply towards this lot itself in in
reviewing this yeah we have to yeah what
he's saying is it exists on other Lots
but we we don't have that solid evidence
in front of us but it I understand what
you're saying
it's right here the but but to Cathy's
point I would just I would just
reiterate that while this you know I
appreciate the exercise and looking at
the other garages everyone is um unique
and evaluated on its own Merit and also
this is a this is a more recent code
change just to prevent um garages from
getting too out of
scale AB absolutely you know I I did um
have a conversation earlier with Kathy I
don't think our objective here is to you
know um fight the city we want to work
with the city we you know we're a a
family with three young children they
will they will be growing we want this
to be our forever home um we definitely
need a detached garage uh to you know
avoid some of the day-to-day
frustrations of this home um but we you
know we can
we're open to ideas if this is you know
unacceptable to accommodate you know our
vision for the garage as well as kind of
the the needs and expectations of the
city Kathy Kathy I almost can you scroll
back up please I'm sorry it's okay
Sean yeah Kathy I almost hate to bring
this up but with the two Dormers kind is
it more of a two-story structure than a
that we got into the last time with one
of these it is and and they're not
they're not denying that I mean they're
they're being very open and forward and
yes based on the you know what the scale
is it is a two-story
structure Karen you said that this is a
recent code Edition was is the was at
least part of the intent to
discourage use of second floors or to
discourage clandestine dwelling units or
can you shed some light on on the
background well Kathy might be able to
shed a little bit more light on the
original purpose but I can tell you
right now and I think I can't remember
who's on it with us but we are currently
undergoing a code modification work
group for garages to De this is a this
is a problem that we're having now is
the the differential between how do how
do you determine what's a true second
floor and
what's a story and a Kathy you want to
comment on the sure and ALS so I mean we
see a lot of other changes happening
such as higher garage door Heights for
the entry of vehicles which that raises
the first floor level you know a story
is is limited to 10 feet so and also the
old code limited a garage Ridge height
to 15 feet so we changed that to 20 just
to allow just to prevent having to come
back for variances every time you wanted
to have you know a adct space for your
garage or match the pitch of the house
however in that change we find people
trying to make space that functions
better but in order to make that space
function better they end up adding
Dormers and so you get these walls that
are higher than what's expected so they
have to be addressed you know whether we
you know limit you know Dormers maybe on
one side of a structure or you know but
we do take these on a Case by case
because some might have a taller first
floor or some might just have a simply
high pitched
roof we we originally increased the 15t
to 20 fet recently because we wanted to
encourage people to have a roof pitch
that that better matches the pitch of
the
house right we were having garages that
just didn't match at all and this
enabled people to do to um have the
house and the garage complement each
other more um then we got it I mean
there's it's a Confluence of a lot of
things not the least of which is the
need for people to have want people want
more livable space with parents moving
in or kids moving home and we're finding
a whole bunch of issues that we're um
looking at for a for a potential garage
code modification but that that's not an
issue here um but I think it's important
to understand the context well I think
it is too and I think that one thing
that I don't want to do
is what I think we've definitely had
some 21 foot
variances granted so that a foot higher
and they were had to show some reasoning
for it and I mean everybody wants a
30-foot garage with a u you know a
living space in the top part of it and
we have to be careful here again that if
we're not able to change the law all we
can do is Grant a variance when the when
the code requirements or are met for a
variance and the fact that the owner
wants to do it is not one of those code
requirements I don't mean to be
disrespectful of anybody here and um Ms
odonnell is not uh the only person in in
Bexley who would like to have a bigger
and better garage so that they have more
space and can make their uh house a more
livable uh location I mean it it's
almost as if I I would ask uh
Karen is is there some possibility that
the group that is meeting to talk about
garages and how we might change the code
city council not we we don't have the
power to change any statutes or laws but
city council does uh they're elected
officials and we are not
so is there any chance that one of the
parameters that might get changed would
be the height
restriction if I was a betting woman
person which we know you're not person
which I'm not my kids are
um I would say no I I think that the
height is absolutely going to remain at
20
feet and Kathy could give her opinion as
well I mean what we're really talking
about
is um square footage on the second floor
whether there's living space whether
there's apartments whether it's a true
second floor right um when granted
variances for height it's been with you
know six inches foot it's it hasn't been
substantial and I I guess I would argue
that three feet probably is substantial
um sure I'd like to see if there's some
mitigation of the pitch of the ridge
height that could
be um achieved so Scott that might be a
question for you Mr Baker that can we is
if you had to do something here to say
let's say that the board was okay to
maintain pitch and and uh and uh
Aesthetics uh that you could you could
go above the 20 feet but not much above
it what what would you do and could you
do anything that would be acceptable to
your clients in terms of what they want
to do with the
property yeah I guess I'd have to just
step back and take a look at that I we
got a second floor ceiling height now of
eight foot we've kept the first floor
now top of foundation wall to Joy
bearing at 8 foot so I just take a look
and see it probably means clipping more
ceilings on the second floor those kind
of things just lowering it
all you know Mr chairman this is uh Mr
schik
um this is like my fourth or fifth
impression of a projects similar to this
um I'm growing more and more accustomed
to just asking that we add a restricted
Covenant that this not be used for any
um habitable
use
absolutely well uh there there's a
condition that we can't restrict it you
know they can't violate the current code
that we don't allow live this to be as a
living unit but we can't
restrict what that use is but if if
they're found in violation that's
something that the building department
would need to be dealing with great
thank you
Miss O'Donnell I just um I I did point
out earlier that there was no Plumbing
in our plans and that was specific to
address this
habitable um concern that we had been
made aware of that um you know that is a
concern for Bexley I totally appreciate
the concern and understand the concern
um and therefore we we will not be
putting any Plumbing at all in the space
to to help reassure the that that is not
our intention for the space and from a
staff perspective we're not concerned
about that you didn't show any Plumbing
on it there's no sleeping area there's
not the three things that required to
have for a habitable space are not shown
and other than that it becomes an
enforcement a Code Enforcement issue if
it's caught to be done later what I the
we're the the issue that I'm concerned
about is the ridge height um and that's
just simply a height issue um the
architecture review board did give this
a positive recommendation but the
architecture review board gives positive
recommendations on the architecture
which is very nice and like want to be
very complimentary on how the Dormer was
proportioned it steps in um all the
right stuff but that is only a
recommendation if the variance is
approved by the zoning board so I just
want to be clear to me the biggest the
only issue is the ridge height and I
think that there's there's probably no
reason it can't be lowered the the pitch
doesn't really have to match the
existing house it's step back and it is
a subservient structure you may lose a
little bit of square footage but I think
we could probably you know I'm not going
to speak for the board but it sounds to
me like they're willing to give a little
if you're willing to give a
little um M odonnell um a couple of
Alternatives exist here I want you to be
aware of number one the board could say
or or you could make a motion or we
could make a supon motion to table this
matter now be aware that the next
meeting of this uh panel is January 28th
because of the Christmas holiday but we
don't have a December meeting now I
don't know what the plans are in terms
of construction schedules and things of
that nature but it if you felt like I
mean you can have a vote tonight for
sure I mean you're absolutely entitled
to a vote but if you lose the vote then
you have to come back with a new design
make a new application go through the
application process again I believe and
that's a little cumbersome and expensive
and if you could use the time between
now and January 28th and actually it'd
have to be a little bit before that
because you have to get drawings to the
city before so they can prepare for the
meeting of in anuary but and toy with
the idea of what what Scott would it
look like if you made this a 20 foot6
in uh uh height uh garage what would we
lose what would we what what could we
save how would this work um then there
would be no vote tonight and you would
you your your application would pend
till the next meeting whereupon if you
decided to change the the design you
could come back to us with a new
variation of this design and then the
vote would to take place at that point
time number one number
two we have seven members here tonight
that isn't always the case but you do
need four positive votes to uh achieve
your application uh for the
variance so um B and based on where this
is going I don't think we're opposed to
tabling it and I can let Michelle
confirm but can we talk about the other
variants as well because if the other
variance doesn't pass
then we we we certainly can right I was
gonna totally agree Scott thank you for
bringing that up okay um so why don't
you two address that for a second and
then I will uh uh have the board make
comments or ask questions regarding it
so let me reorient myself here a little
bit because the other variance
is uh with regard to separation between
the two
structures okay yeah so board members
this is this is five feet we've already
determined that fire code is not a
problem here um and the structure that
is creating the
requirement um
is it's not like we're building this
garage a one foot from one of the walls
of the house here we've got some some uh
separation and and Kathy well and I'll
ask SC Baker to comment on that uh maybe
here to help us with some guidance in
that
respect and I guess the official
Dimension we're looking at is it's it's
5 foot 8 inches a little bit of instant
change from corner to corner you know
corner of the covered porch to closest
corner of the garage but yeah I mean you
know we really can't push the garage
back any further um it's just this
covered porch is this has gotten too
close to the detach garage so just tight
tight fit back here yeah uh members of
the board do any of you have any
comments or guidance
for uh the applicants or Mr Baker
regarding that I know we've had several
cases of this nature in the past um
anybody have any thoughts or
comments I remember one in South Bexley
if I'm not mistaken uh
Kathy that uh there was a temporary
there was a there was a feature on the
house that was within 5et of the new
garage they were going to move you
recall that case I do and and that's why
I D I double check with the Chief
Building official because apparently
these fire separation issues are
different when you're dealing with
structures on the same lot as opposed to
structures affecting a neighboring
property structure okay I thought that
was important to share that with the
board okay and we could also I mean if
the board chooses they could also simply
vote on just the improvements to the
home and we can table the garage part
that's also an
option
right we
could um
well members of the board any comments
or
thoughts that would help guide these
folks everybody's muted
hey um yes ma'am Alicia speaking um so
this is more for my learning and
understanding deeper understanding here
um we're not really the question of use
isn't
really an issue here but if we put if we
granted this as it's presented to us
today both
variances um do variances transfer when
property s sell or yes they
do okay correct okay that's why it
becomes a Code Enforcement issue yeah
that's where that's I'm just connecting
the dots so thank you yeah it run the
land be an expert soon
hardly right and for what it's worth um
this 10 foot separation code it's it's
about Aesthetics and the addition to the
back of the house it's it's an open
structure so it's not a solid Mass right
next to a solid Mass I just want thought
we yeah that was my point earlier in
saying this is not like it's being built
up against the home right it's being
built up against a open
structure uh Mr chairman uh could I
propose that we make the Second
Amendment contingent upon the first that
we address the issues that we receive a
variance for the first structure or for
the first variance um and make the
second second variance contingent upon
that I I I'm not so worried about the
second variance um I just think the
majority of the concern is within the
first so we can make them you know you
know if but
how would you do that I'm not sure I'm
following I mean I think we could take
the variant the five foot uh variance
yes uh and say yes or no on that
variance and tell them you can build a
garage uh on the on the site that you
have it currently designed however we
table the height of the garage issue and
let them um sort of play around with
that a little bit to see if there's an
alternative that gets them where they're
going and and enhances their chances of
success in in achieving a variance and I
don't know how the vote will come out
either uh Michelle or Scott I mean you
know I'm only one vote so I don't know
how other people are going to vote I'm
I'm just sensing that this might be a
situation where uh if if you could put
the garage on the uh footprint that you
currently have it designed but are able
to get get it reduced in height you you
might get we could tell you yes tonight
to the 5 foot issue and let you table
the TW the 23 foot height issue that was
precisely my proposal was it okay
good and that way even if they modified
that garage to meet code they wouldn't
need any further variances and Karen and
I could approve that so I think that is
important to address the by foot it
seemed like an administrative thing on
variance one and we could approve
variance two and and then let let them
go on their very way yeah that's a
possibility
yeah Michelle and um Scott do you
understand that what that means that if
you got it if we pass the five foot and
you could get that roof pitch 20 feet or
under you don't even need to come back
to this sport I have your architecture
review right yeah it would just go
through me yeah yeah yep that that makes
sense and I think based on where we're
headed that's probably our best bet
right now is just to get a vote on the
separation being 5 foot eight and then
just tbling the first
variance okay yeah I've been saying five
foot but it's 5 foot eight thank
you Mr Baker I really just I that seems
to be like providing what you want to
deliver to your client it seems to give
uh the most insurance night in my
opinion yep Michelle you're the ultimate
owner here and or one of them you might
have a committee there but you know you
understand how it goes you do you feel
like the process of being discussed is
one that you are in favor of
pursuing um yes I can't say I'm I'm not
disappointed but when I hear the
conversation you know we we did have
Scott uh start at the 20 feet and we
would be you know pretty crouched in
most of the room my taller husband so I
I definitely think our best option given
what I'm hearing is to table that
component work with him post this
meeting and then see you know what our
best solution going forward is and and
come back if we need to okay then in
that case um chairman chairman a quick
question yes sir um in previous
discussions we've had about garages we
differentiated between a garage having a
second story and having a second floor
where they can have a second floor but a
second story is out um and the way that
we've discussed that is a function of
volume a percentage of space the second
floor it hasn't come up tonight and I
just I was wondering I couldn't put my
finger on just what that percentage was
what the formula was for determining
that it's two thirds of the massing of
the first floor however a story is
limited to 10 feet in height and I
believe that 10 foot height actually
goes to the top of the ceiling joists
so it that I believe that exceeds that
in this case regardless so we didn't
have to go with the calculations because
we weren't even close and they were
clearly above the 20 foot height
limit okay so so because of that we
didn't have to consider it if they're
below that height requirement do we have
to consider that or no yes I I would in
my calculations because that's the only
thing I have to go on as far as no
that's fine I'm only bringing it up
because I just wanted to give guidance
to the you know the homeowner and the
designer you know for for for that as
well that might that might be in play as
well right and it's kind of deceiving
when you look at elevations how they
show the height it only shows at eight
feet underneath those the the floor
joist for the second floor so that's a
little confusing they they should you
know it should continue up higher which
I believe is where you get your 10
feet very good thank you that excellent
uh question Jason I mean that that that
got me confused a little bit here too so
I think that's a point well taken
there a a legal question is there Avenue
for an appeal from Bap to
council there is yes uhhuh and is that
something that the owners might want to
consider because we face this dilemma
all the
time well I sure
wouldn't well in in this case it's not
it's not borderline this is not border
line the last case were that it was more
of a interpretation
so I mean city council can change that
law if they wish to if they see and
they're certainly aware of the fact that
we're looking at garages uh Karen are
they not and and that the study group is
looking at things here yes I'm trying to
be insightful as I can by saying that we
are in the midst of the study group and
height is not one of the things we're
looking to
change it's massing it's massing and and
use yeah and and Michelle and Scott one
of the things that we as a board have to
be a little bit careful about is if we
Grant a variance to 23 feet on the basis
of basically that it would just be
better for the homeowner then we
basically might as well change the law
because everybody in beex is going to
come to us with 23 foot
height uh garages and say Hey you gave
one to Michelle O'Donnell why aren't you
giving one to us and then we have to
look at the particular facts of your
situation versus their facts and see if
there's anything that is uh and it
doesn't have to do with your family size
or any of that it has to do more with
with your your lot the geography the the
uh the size of your house you know the
massing it's a lot of different things
that lead us to be able to say this is
an unusual situation I don't know if you
saw the prior case but it was a a pie
shap shap lot and it's just completely
different than when the lot is a um uh
rectangle and as a result we were faced
with the situation with where they were
what they were asking for is clearly the
result of an aberration that wasn't
harming anybody to give them a little
relief and that's the reason they got a
various here I'm not sure that we have
that and that's the reason I'm a little
um reticent to tell you let's just fly
up and take a vote on
this Erin when is the revised uh code
likely to be out for garages no idea
okay we're just in the midst of the
workshopping it okay um I mean with
covid things are just all taking a long
time
yeah well look uh well we can't we can't
really we can't really depend on what
the code's going to be we the
application came in right
that's absolutely correct yeah yeah so
so let's which also go which also goes
to Mr Baker potentially advising his
client to table this until until that
comes out uh Miss
odonnell to Echo to Echo what the
chairman question I'm oh I'm sorry Mr
pal I'm I was cutting across you that's
why I was
asking if I if I could spee to B Donal
um there is there is absolutely no
malice here I think that if you've
watched any of these meetings uh over
the course of the last several months it
really is um and and I'll personally
admit I don't want beex to become like
Evon Illinois where people are renting
out um what are you know started as
garages and become Carriage Houses um
and I'm not accusing you of doing this
but um I I'm worried about others who
read them out and um we lose a lot of
the safe characteristics of our
neighborhood because that we have
short-term renters um walking in and out
of their cars in the Alleyways so it
it's it's just a concern of ours um
establishing this
precedent well let's do this let's go
ahead and have a finding of fact
conclusions of law read on the 5 fo8
inch uh issue and take a vote on that
variance so
I I'm sorry I want to clarify then that
5 foot eight inch that is the distance
proposed between the two structures the
closest distance between the corner of
the porch and the corner closest corner
the okay thank you so it's a 4 foot 6 in
it's four foot 4 fo4 inch variance foot
four foot in
variance okay thank you okay Kathy are
you uh ready to just do that one
yes okay so the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bcap p-20 d37 for property
located at 2754 Sherwood Road based on
the testimony presented the the board
finds it appropriate to
Grant variance to SEC code section
12521
5G to
allow a 5 foot 8 inch separation between
the proposed addition to the house and a
detached garage and further table the
detached garage until the applicant
returns for further review
okay Bas do you want me to do the
certificate of appropriateness for the
addition to
the yeah I think so let's see the
certificate of appropriateness for the
addition yes uhuh I do yes and the board
further finds it appropriate to Grant a
certificate of appropriateness as uh
recommended by the architecture review
board to allow the open porch addition
with Second Story deck at the rear of
the principal structure and
modifications to the existing attached
garage okay so Miss O'Donnell you that's
a mouthful that you just read
there but are you feeling confident that
you understand where where that finding
effect and conclusion of law is leading
Us in other words the height issue and
the design related to that height issue
is being
tabled the um certificate of
appropriateness regarding the architect
tal aspects of what you're doing to the
home is being voted on and the uh 5 foot
8 inch uh separation in other words
we're we're saying let's allow a
variance of 4 feet4 inches to allow the
two the two points that are close to
each other there to occur despite what
the the statute requires are you I'll
use a young term you look young cool
with that I follow the I follow the
logic there okay I know you're
disappointed but let me tell you the
disappointments has various degrees and
I don't want you to be totally
disappointed I want you to be only
slightly disappointed and I think this
might be the right way to get that done
Mr chairman just for the record I would
like to paint uh just being young does
not make you cool and I submit myself to
the exhibit thank
you I second that
all right
um so are you are you good yes and Scott
Baker are you good as well
sir okay you're um muted
maybe I'm okay thank you very much
uh chairman beh before we um we're I'm
done with this case I just wanted to
point out the one thing that I really
appreciated about this
case over the last several months is the
one applicant that actually was very
upfront about what they were going to
use the space for didn't come in with a
you know oh we we're doing it here it's
not really a second story it's not you
know where we had to argue and go back
and forth to determine what it was so M
Miss oono I want to thank you for being
upfront about what your needs were what
you were trying to accomplish and for um
being willing to work to get to a
solution that um meets the needs for
your family and gets you within code so
I appreciate that I just wanted to tell
you thank you because that's we've spent
rounds trying to argue what's not a
story what's a second floor what's okay
and it causes us all like we're just
trying to do the right thing and so I
appreciate you also trying to do that
too and it's clear that it's it's an
upgrade I mean the proposal is a massive
upgrade to the property it's attractive
I mean there's so much good about it and
so you know I hope that that's that we
didn't talk about that but I hope that
that's clear as well yeah I think that I
think those are very excellent points
and and I wholeheartly
agree um all right uh do I have do I
hear a motion to approve the findings of
fact conclusions law as stated by Kathy
Rose so move by
Brian second okay second by Miss
Mitchell all right uh
Kathy please call the role Mr
Levine yes Mr
schik yes Miss Mitchell yes Mr
Turner yes Mr fou yes Mr Marsh yes and
chairman Beall I vote Yes as well so the
matter will proceed as we discussed and
we appreciate your patience here going
through this process with us and uh uh
hopefully we'll come up with a good
resolution that uh works for
everybody thank you very much thank you
for your time thank
you all right the next case is
application bz ap-20 d38 the applicant
is Dean a Wentz the owner of the
property at 407 North View is Jeremy and
Jamie hinesman uh the applicant is
seeking Architectural Review and
approval for additions to the existing
detached garage first and second floor
addition to the rear of the principal
structure and covered porch additions to
the east which is the front the north
side and north side of the principal
structure the applicant is also seeking
a variance from Vexy code section 12
52.1
15b which limits accessory structures to
35% of the principal structure or 624
square feet to allow additions to the
detached garage which will be uh which
uh which will
be 1130 square feet I'm not sure if I
read that correctly but what it looks
like okay can I ask that um any
applicant or anyone that wants to speak
to this case including the applicant
please raise their computer hand because
I don't see Dean and I don't know if
it's just because it's just a phone
number number or I I need to know that
there's an applicant here okay I see
Peter
Scott no that's that's the next case
okay is there an applicant present for
this
case 407 North
viw I don't see anybody okay well then
let's uh go to the next case and we'll
come back is there anybody in the
audience that is here to comment on 407
North
View please raise your hand if you
are there is not no one okay then let's
move on to the next case and we'll call
North View again then if we need to to
uh see what story is
there uh but applicate the next case is
application bz ap-20
d39 the applicant is Christopher Myers
and the owner is beex M
LLC um the address of the property is
2469 and 2483 East Main Street the
applicant is seeking Architectural
Review to allow demolition of the
structures and approval of landscape
plans for these
properties so I have um Pete Scott and
John Meyer as a panelist is there
anybody else that like to testify or is
an app can in this case please raise
your computer
hand that's everyone okay very good um
why don't we um uh hear the well why
don't we swear in that the potential
witnesses there uh Mr Meyer and Mr
Scott if you would U raise your right
hand and un mute yourselves we'll swear
you
in okay okay please State your
names John Meyer de Scott do you solemly
swear or affirm the testimony you're
about to give this evening is the
truth I do I do thank you thank you very
much gentlemen Kathy tell us a little
bit about what's happening here and uh
What uh
the staff's position is on this matter
uh this is a matter for just the board
of zoning and planning uh when a
demolition is proposed uh on Main Street
uh it's there's no recommendation on the
replacement other then if you prefer to
have comments from the tree and public
garden commission uh the applicant
there's two separate lots that are two
Parcels apart and I believe this is part
of a a bigger picture down the road so
it's the the buildings that are existing
there there's some issues and
they're not desirable buildings to be
reused in their current condition so the
applicant has provided information
relating to that and they would choose
to demolish these structures and put
Landscaping in the front and provide
parking in the rear
provide parking to
whom that's a question for the applicant
uh whether it's for Main Street
Properties but it is off of the alley so
the parking location does meet
code okay so there's four units there um
it looks like we're only really talking
about well let's like let the applicant
tell us uh what they're doing so Karen
this is not a a case for your commentary
is it no I'm just controlling the visual
you're a great
American Mr Scott or or Mr Meyer which
one of you would like to step forth
first here uh I will I will jump in um
all right thank you so we're looking at
the the two properties um 2483 which is
at the corner of East Main Street in
South cassingham Road uh and as well as
2469 um okay East Main Street so those
two are uh were originally built as
single family homes right and over years
were converted to commercial properties
and have been vacant for some time um we
provided a letter as well as a
thirdparty architectural architect
provided a letter as assessment of those
properties uh this one here is from my
boss the principal of Myers and
Associates unrelated of course to John
Meyer the owner of the property uh and
then a second letter was provided from
uh another local architect uh who also
went through the properties and provided
his opinion uh both both structures were
found on our our view as well as the
consultant uh Architects view as both
properties one being vacant uh and
aren't being up kep upt are uh kept up
to uh kind of current standards are both
non-contributing structures for the East
uh for the Main Street the corridor uh
being Residential Properties um we we
and being in the state that they're in
uh we feel that there's not much you
could do with the existing structures uh
to get those to align with that the
long-term goal for the the city and and
the Main Street Corridor um so uh it was
determined that they they should both be
removed uh and then obviously we need to
do something with the Lots so we
proposed a landscape plan um for both of
those lots which conforms to the the
Bexley guidelines along the Main Street
uh and then um there is some surf
existing surface slots on the back of
these existing properties we're removing
a lot of that asphalt uh but also
providing four spots on each property uh
for just general public parking um you
know parking off of the alley for um
adjacent residences or even this Main
Street Parking uh not as a long-term
solution of course um you know the the
overall U vision for the whole block in
the city of Bexley is is you know really
Falls in line with the city of bexley's
goals you know we're not here to present
that or talk about that um we haven't
really been engaged to do that but I
think the first step for this area of
our city is to really um you know kind
of look at these existing non-
contributing structures and uh take some
steps to moving forward in the right
direction which of course is moving we
believe and does that include so you're
we're talking about demolishing the two
end structures of the four structures is
that correct one on cassingham and the
one which is one two three three lots
down that's correct and leaving the two
structures that are in between those two
standing
correct that that's correct uh the
currently those properties are owned by
somebody else okay so so you have them
bookended so to speak that's correct and
uh all four of them look like they were
at one time residential homes that is
correct
okay um to to one of these properties
not occupy currently the Taylor's Den uh
the Taylor's Den is is is vacated the
premises so both are
unoccupied structures I mean this year
has gone by so fast sorry thank
you uh oh
sorry was a I believe there was a an
apartment use um but those they have
vacated so there's they're both empty
currently okay thank you
okay and and uh just for the record uh
Mr Scott are you a member
of uh beex M LLC or are you here as a
spokesperson a a professional
spokesperson for them I am an architect
and work for Myers and Associates
architects okay again last names are not
uh are similar but not related to the
owner of the property uh who's also on
this presentation U John Meyer okay but
I work for I work for Chris Myers my
boss oh okay Chris Myers is your boss
and John Mr Myers you're a member member
of beex M LLC or a
manager
yes okay fine I I just want to make sure
that the you know the LLC is is
represented by a managing member or a a
professional so all
right well
uh members of the uh of the board I mean
one question might be the the very very
close Jos of these uh structures to the
structures which you do not own in the
middle of them uh is there is there any
issue with safety in terms of
demolition or the demolishers know what
they're doing to the extent that we
don't have to worry about the two
structures being damaged that are in the
middle or does anybody know the answer
to that question the demolition
contractors are typically pretty
talented and would think they would have
to be yeah I mean there's going to be
there'll be uh I'm sure safety measures
and protections up for and then of
course any uh contract would you know
any damage to existing property would
have to be remedy but uh yeah no
there'll be you know all all the there's
a series of rules and regulations they
have to follow during demolition anyway
some of the properties have already been
uh some of the services have already
been removed or turned off so um they
haven't been obviously demolished but um
right
right okay I have I have a question yes
ma'am go ahead Alicia are you sure yes
yes ma'am Alicia please so I um with the
plan for these locations or this strip
right here is that something that comes
from city council or from it comes from
our group
correct yeah the Main
Street yeah you have jurisdiction over
the Main
Street uh changes on Main
Street but they're not proposing any
plans for redevelopment at this time
they're they're just proposing plans
for Demolition and then uh and then the
land Landscaping is that
correct yes and I think not that it has
to have any bearing on what we we're
what we're going to do here tonight
um I guess I would be curious of what
the the plan is then for that space just
um dead vacant lot space uh is never um
something that visually is appealing to
me um as a property manager so I'm just
curious you know and granted there'll be
some trees and and what appears to be
like sod and what have you but it's
still like pretty it'll be too gaping
holes once the structures come down
and the the spaces that are sort of
sandwiched in between them that's then
going to stand out and
look odd in terms of the sight line of
that little that little block so I just
be curious of what that plan is and and
should we be thinking about it or is it
already in motion and so I'm just asking
more for my own um understanding at this
point and I I completely understand that
concern because it we're so used to
residential now after all these years
having the requirement be that when
something is is um being demoed they
have to have something better equal
place however on Main Street that is not
the that's not the rule okay so I
totally get where you're going and if
the applicant would like to answer it I
suppose they can but it's not required
okay right Karen you were frozen there I
didn't hear the essence of your comments
I didn't hear any of your comments but
could you just give me a one- sentence
synopsis there yeah unlike
residential Main Street demolitions do
not require a structure that is better
or equal to be in its
place um but it does just require a
landscape plan to be in its place so
whether or not the applicant is prepared
or wants to share future plans is really
in their Court um but it's kind of
irrelevant as to what what the decision
is okay and I I'd also like like to add
that you know the existing structures
that are there now as the applicant has
said are non-contributing structures and
I'm pretty sure it's their hope to
replace these soon with something that
is contributing and does meet our vision
for Main Street so this is simply a step
can't just leave the site blank but they
have to propose something in its place
until then but you know if there's
things that need to be addressed as far
as screening on sides of the structures
depending on what we're looking at I'm
not sure if that's could be addressed
with trees or fencing or so this is just
my stupid question here um I don't
understand what that term means about
contributing structure well the the fact
that they're they were originally
constructed as
homes on Main street it's it's tough to
make it work for certain businesses and
I think they're they're taking a step in
the right direction by allowing these
lots to be yeah build back back with
something that meets our vision for Main
Street they don't contribute they don't
contribute to the public nature of Main
Street and how we want to see Main
Street develop to be um an interface
with the with the public okay yes that
makes sense thank you sure and Mr Meer
uh obviously the cost of acquiring the
property demolition of the building uh
it would seem that to be sensible to
assume that leaving it as a empty lot is
probably not in the long-term uh plan of
the
developer right I I look I I didn't buy
these to to to create a grassy field so
think right I've been actually a long
time um and think that there's some
greater potential here especially on
that block unfortunately right now I
don't control the two Parcels in the
middle ultimately I'm sure that someone
would want to redevelop all four parel
together and whether it's uh something
that I participate in or you know
contribute the property I don't really
care but uh my father's office was in
one of those metal buildings in 19 71
really and uh yeah and I I I you know
they need to be gone at some point so I
think there's a lot more potential and
what we've done on Main Street not me
but you guys and other
developers um is terrific and I think
there's a long way to go with that but
uh if these properties trade hands and
people reinvest in Antiquated structures
it's going to be much more difficult to
assemble and red develop um in any
significant
massing yeah I think a good example of
that is just down the street where the
residential where kitties is located and
the bookstore and the residences above
it that was an old strip center there
that that was demolished and certainly
replaced with something a lot more uh
not only attractive but a lot more in
line with a A Futuristic view of what we
would like Main Street to to look like
in beex
so you're headed in that direction is
essentially what what we're
here
gotcha yeah yeah Frank Frank was my man
is my mentor so I completely agree with
that okay well then you know exactly
what I'm talking about right all right
uh Mr
Turner yeah I just had a quick question
so in terms of landscaping of the Lots
currently since we don't have any idea
how long going to be there are we okay
with just basically being I mean not
sure whether this is our request or not
or whether it's landscape or tree
commission or something like that but
are we okay with just a grass field is
there anything else we would request to
be there or do we have even have the
power to say that this is my first demo
that commercial demo that I've dealt
with since being on the board so I don't
know what that is but I just wanted to
point that out and see if anybody if
everybody was okay with that since
there's no time frame for redevelopment
that we know of Kathy can you address
that um
well I I would think that there's no
return to the property owner to it's not
to his advantage to leave these blank
Lots
uh however there's a proc I mean this is
simply one step of the process that they
need to go through no I understand that
I'm just I'm asking more from the
Landscaping standpoint do we have any
say over over how they landscape or do
you do you you could even you know defer
it to the tree and public garden
commission if you'd like or if there's
certain concerns that you have about how
the plan is currently you know you can
put conditions on here to add
buffers it looks like they have buffers
already in the plan I think one of the
questions I have which is follows Sean's
is has the the plan that is that we're
looking at been submitted to the tree
commission already have they looked at
it already and passed mustard on it it
has not because based on the fact that
it's you know it's the Main Street
District which is the board of zoning
and planning's jurisdiction and
typically tree and public garden they
may ask for their
recommendation but the fact that this is
temporary and it's private property um
you know you can defer it to them to see
how it inter interacts with the city
right of way it it doesn't hurt on it
being temporary because right now at
this time Mr Myers Mr Scott are saying
hey this is what we want to do for with
it for right right now but we don't have
a plan for it yet like that could sit
there with vacant grassy lot for 10
years that would be aw sure like I mean
I mean for example the lot AC the lot
across the street from Rusty Bucket was
Beed and it was temporarily going to be
graveled and it's still there probably
10 years later still very in Ruins high
heel shoes I just might
add is there a reason that the city
hasn't enforced the gravel uh issue
across the street there um I think there
were some repairs made to the asphalt
but are you referring to the corner
piece right there at
Sheridan right there well yeah I mean
between Sheridan and and partk viw right
but that's not this case so let let's go
back to to this situation
um obviously uh he kinds of situations
involve negotiations with other parties
and and Mr Meer is taking a little bit
of a flyer here to to take these two
lots demolish the the properties and and
I assume hope that he can do some kind
of a deal with the two lots in the
middle uh but I I I think
that progress is important I I do think
that a buffering buffering landscape
which you intend to do Mr Scott and and
Mr Meyer uh would be something that we
would want somebody other than uh a
lawyer like me to to to determine is
appropriate so I think it would be a
good uh thing to suggest to the board
here that we condition this that you
obtain some approval from the tree uh uh
commission just with what you're
planning to do and and get their
approval is is that acceptable to you
well sure I mean I don't think I you
know that's part of the process we want
to see I think uh I'm confident that the
the landscape plan that we've proposed
is aligned with the Main Street
guidelines
um if you look at we're actually we're
actually going to be replacing a a um
declining Street tree that's that's been
there for a while that we're we feel
needs to be replaced so we're gonna
we're gonna put that back and bring
bring put a new one in and and majority
of the perimeter trees are existing so
our tent is to leave those and protect
those during the demolition the
additional trees and and
lowly um shrub shrubs and plants are are
obviously to deter a little bit of
pedestrian traffic through but also U to
kind of align the sidewalks in the
parking areas so we're confident that
this aligns with what they're looking
for and um you know we someone had
mentioned about screening things that
might be exposed on other people's
property but um you know obviously we're
we're we're we're doing a demolition of
existing structures and you know C I
can't imagine would be responsible for
screening an unsightly condition on
someone else's property um yeah that
would be something that they would need
to address I I've lived I lived on South
cassingham for many years uh only until
last year uh I moved off to Central
Bexley and um and I know these
properties very well and I think the
interesting about this these two sites
one that they're separated uh for the
two demolitions uh the existing Center
structure as well as the uh the dean
wentz's office uh to the to the West I
think will balance out I don't I think
this corner lot and the existing new
lawn proposal uh won't be won't be one
of these gravel lots of course um but
also will fit nicely in with the the
scale of what's existing there though we
may may or may not like the existing
structures um these won't feel like big
abandoned you know lot or closed gas
station or something I think it's it's a
little bit different scenario
and I would be comfortable and
comfortable with what we're doing so
it's a big advantage that they're
separated because it won't feel correct
yeah and the the rear of the Lots on the
Alley side the non-main street are they
going to remain um uh black topped as I
as I recall they're black topped now
yeah and if you look at the the photos
from the aerial shots you'll see how
there's a they're pretty extensive uh
black top in the back all the way up to
the structures so we're we're
significantly reducing that hardscaped
uh black top uh to okay provide some
some parking uh which I think will help
soften that area it's pretty pretty
rough right now it is rough um excuse me
Mr chairman I see just a couple an an
additional name in the attendees so I
just want to make sure it's not somebody
who wants to testify okay if there's
anybody that wants testify to this case
it's not yet and and invited in to be a
panelist please raise your computer hand
okay never mind okay thank you uh Karen
all right are there any more questions
or comments from members of the board I
I think we should uh I have a question
okay Mr f
um so especially talking about the uh
property off of Maine from Sheridan to
the to the creek uh brings raises this
question for me I mean I think that this
is um for what it's worth a good plan it
makes good sense but it's also you know
forward you know the demolitions forward
thinking this is going to be a
transitional uh but I think my question
is what do the applicants
Envision this property functioning as
between the time when you get it uh you
know completely demolished the grass
inand and everything and the time when
it changes hands and goes to some other
use I mean recognizing that that could
be six months a year five years you know
there isn't there isn't a specific plan
in front of us at this point so I mean I
I guess what I'm asking
is are you imagining that this would be
a grass area where children might play
where people might congregate it might
you know have some sort of public use
like that would it be fenced off so that
you know dangers would be eliminated how
are you you know I I see what the design
is but how do how are you seeing it
functioning between now in the time at
changes hands
well I mean I think you know you have
two two grassy areas that are adjacent
to existing commercial properties um two
of two of you know that were originally
residential houses um it's I don't see
it as any different than the tree lawn
of the existing home at the corner of uh
you know cassingham and Maine uh I don't
think people would play in that front
yard or that sidey yard though they may
um I think the the parking is is is was
a discussion that we had had
with with John about you know does that
do we does that provide it or do we you
know what what do we do with that um and
you know I think that that the approach
there is to try to alleviate some of
that stress on potential parking for
other others in the area um we talked
about how you you could program you know
do you do park benches do you do you
know activate those and I think that
there's some things that um as ownership
of a property you take on some
additional liability that can be
challenging
um and not undesirable so I think that
that becomes an issue um and then of
course additional traffic is additional
maintenance and and grass turns to mud
and as my yards have for years with my
kids so I think the the right approach
is you you make them look like actually
sidey guards to the existing commercial
properties uh you you alleviate some of
that pressure currently um even though
this is a commercial District to the
east of the dean wentz's office and
around this this dual structure two dual
Lots in the midd middle uh and you let
that corner lot be a corner lot so you
know it's not really someplace that I
would think as a parent you'd let your
kids play um but maybe you sit on the
lawn and and eat your lunch or your
Chipotle or a sandwich so I think those
things are you can't really control as a
as a a property owner there but if it's
wellmaintained um you're going to get
some people hanging out and sitting
there but it's not a a programed space
that we have to uh be worried about okay
thank you and I think you know
addressing some of the comments about uh
the long-term use of this or the what
the end goal is is you know obviously we
could sit and draw and sketch and um
come up with a million possibilities but
the goal I think is you know we're all
committed to improving the next the main
street cordor and I think everything
that uh we've discussed tonight is is is
a step towards that kind of fitting in
the fabric of this commercial Corridor
along Main Street this is just one step
towards that very good thank you you um
any other questions or comments for
members of the
board all right um Kathy I'm not sure
how the findings of facts will read in
this I guess it would be pretty
simple you're you're
muted I'm sorry you you do want this to
go to the tree and public garden
commission is that one of the conditions
you'd like me to add or not I want to
make
sure um let me ask uh Mr Scott or Mr
Meyer you have a problem if we say as a
condition to the demolition you need to
show the tree uh commission that you
have a plan and and get them to approve
it well I I would request it would be
it's interesting to me that the the the
issue of the condition of a demolition
is tied to the uh potential design of a
of a landscape plan is there a way that
we could ask for those demolition to be
approved but the the final landscape
plan to be uh pending approval of the
commission sure sure I think that would
be and again I don't want to speak uh in
the end for Mr Meyer but I think that's
uh something that we were eager to you
know obviously get some work done on
these properties sure as as
possible Cathy is this body is this body
uh empowered
to well vote on vote on this without
that because I I have to tell you this
is not a real profitable Venture here
to tear down to Antiquated
properties
Worth right but but but I also like to
offer that We additionally have a
landscape consultant who consults also
for the tree and public garden
commission and I could always have her
review the plan and if she's not
comfortable she could always defer it
but if she's comfortable with it then we
could M Mr Meer I I can tell you alone
here right now the Supreme Court has
been fatic that loss of profit alone is
not an undue hardship with zoning so um
yeah I'm not that's not I suggesting
what I'm suggesting is that the
long-term as I understand it from a
number of meetings with the public
officials the the long-term plan on Main
Street is not to keep these structures
if if we are to improve these structures
as they sit then it's just going to
delay the
Redevelopment um according to the Main
Street plan so the idea here that we
have is to do a nice job but hopefully
preserve the opportunity before somebody
redevelops these properties reimo these
properties um so reinvestment in these
assets will delay the Redevelopment
according to the Main Street
plan that was my it's not me making yeah
I and Ryan I don't Ryan I don't think
your comment is I I don't think his
comment was designed to suggest that his
profit is the major goal what he's
suggesting is if we don't need to go
through the uh uh approval process uh of
the of the tree uh commission that they
could they could we we give them the
authority to demolish these without
doing anything or we can tell them hey
so they're going to they're going to do
some planning planning of things
according to their diagram here so what
we're suggesting is let's let them talk
to somebody who knows what they're
talking about and just get approval from
the consultant how about
that per clarification that work yes I
think that's fine based on the fact that
this is you know a temporary plan from
the appli perspective right and and Mr
Scott Mr Meer is that okay with you that
sounds great okay then let's go ahead
Kathy and read findings of fact
conclusions of law uh regarding this yes
can I have the application number I'm
missing that page yeah bcap Dash yeah
hold on
20-39 20-39 thank you correct yes all
right so the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for app number
bc-20 d39 for property located at
2469 East Main Street and 2483 East Main
Street the board finds that a
certificate of appropri should be issued
for a plan subject to final review and
approval by the landscape
consultant which will replace and allow
the existing non-contributing structures
located at 2469 and 2483 East Main
Street to be
demolished I think that rids
fine uh do I hear a motion to approve
the findings of fact conclusions of law
motion to approve from Mr Marsh thank
you second thank you second Mr schik all
right Miss Rose please call the
role okay uh Mr
shik yes Mr Turner
yes Miss Mitchell yes Mr Levine yes Mr
Marsh yes Mr Fout yes and chairman Vall
it's unanimous yes and gentlemen have
your uh your uh the authority to go
forward with your
Demolition and I appreciate this project
and uh good luck with it thank you thank
you
thank
you the next case um is the uh case that
we just went by actually and that would
be B bcap d2038 involving 407 North View
you see anything on the horizon there
Karen that yes um Dean I think Dean
Wentz is now
in okay as an attendee so I'm going to
promote him to panelist okay is there
anyone else in attende that would like
to testify to
407 North viw please raise your computer
hand so I can get um you put into the
panelist
room
okay all right um let us uh proceed then
with uh application bcap
20-38 the uh applicant is Dean a Wentz
the owner of the properties uh Jeremy
and Jamie hinesman which is located at
407 North View the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review and approval for
additions to the existing detached
garage first and second floor addition
to the rear of the principal structure
and covered ports additions to the east
the front side and the north side of the
principal structure the applicant is
also seeking a variance from beex code
section 12 52.1
5B which limits accessory structures to
35% % of the principal structure or 624
Square ft to allow additions to the
detached garage which would uh result in
uh the garage being 1130 square
feet uh with that uh Kathy can you give
us the staff's perspective on this uh
application please ye yes um I I I had
received calls regarding a swimming pool
that was part of this project and I just
wanted to note that the swimming pool
proposed meets all of the zoning code
requirements and can be approved at a
staff level and is therefore not part of
this zoning
review uh this this is a large lot and
it's not an issue however staff would
recommend that if the
proposed am I missing part of this uh
okay uh the proposed payment at the
pavement at is at beyond the front of
the garage to the north of the existing
pavement that the applicant should
provide a landscape screen subject to
further review and approval by the city
landscape
consultant so that shaded area you see
to the yeah north east of the garage
paved
area otherwise you've got all those cars
parking in front of that
structure
okay now not the FR but
still all right and Karen did the ARB
look at this um yes and they approved it
as a um consent agenda item with a
positive recommendation with no
discussion okay Mr wz tell us a little
bit about what's happening here and why
we're suggesting that it be done in this
fashion okay can you all hear me did he
oh you did not did you oh
no we I don't think we did Dean raise
your right
hand and state your name in W do you
somly swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth I do thank you very good all right
thank you for I forgot to go through
that formality Mr W tell us a little bit
about what's happening here and why the
variances should be
granted well I think
and first of all I apologize I thought
this meeting was tomorrow night so I
don't have my facts and figures in front
of me but uh for all intents and
purposes I think that
the idea for us to do additions to the
garage were twofold one is um for on
some purposes the pool area and the
connection to the pool area with the
covered porch and secondly the the
uh the main house itself is you know the
configuration and such Doesn't Really
allow for a lot of first floor additions
to it without significant compromise to
the views or the light coming into the
the various rooms on the first floor
so in this instance it seems to make
more sense from the perspective of of
adding space to uh the first level to do
it as an addition to the garage as
opposed to the house one one of the more
significant things here is that the lot
itself the lot coverage is a fairly
small excuse me small percentage um and
so you know we're we're not over
overcrowding this lot by any stretch of
the imagination and and I can't remember
exactly what the the uh lot coverage
percentage was but it is well well under
the allowable lot coverage for Paving
and
structures um you know we are very far
away from all of the the property lines
um and I think if there is ever a case
in which you know a variance to allow uh
some development on a site uh is
appropriate is it it's it's this case I
think that this is the kind of thing
that uh you know zoning appeals boards
are made for to look look at unique
situations which uh clearly this is with
a large lot and not a lot of lot
coverage to give us some flexibility for
how and and where we improve uh those
particular U those particular
properties okay
um members is there anybody uh in the
audience that is pracon this case uh
Karen can you
tell I do not see anybody nope okay so
members of the board do you have any
questions or comments about these
requests yeah it's Mr Marsh I would just
say I mean it is a massive lot um and
you know I I kind of agree with the
applicant and and I also agree with the
you know screening that um proposed
pavement area I think we'll you know
soften that up and create a nice look
there um and so I think you know given
given the size of the lot you know I
think it's it's you know this makes a
lot of
sense okay
good good
comment you're doing a great
job anybody else
um Kathy maybe you could address the
issue of lot coverage sure um B based on
the fact that this is probably a double
lot I mean it's a very large lot and in
in and in some cases somebody could add
enough square footage to the house and
still stay under that lot coverage
limitation that would possibly make the
size of the accessory structure that 35%
or less of the principal structure but
you know
but but based on the fact like Dean said
that is such a large lot and they're not
covering what they could be covering
they're well under it it it seems
appropriate in this case more than most
yeah yeah and I
I this is not a percentage of lot
coverage this is a percentage of
principal structure situation right the
it's the additions to the garage yeah to
accommodate you know the the pole that
they're adding in the back and and just
provide some covered uh in the rear yard
yeah
okay does anybody have any questions or
comments I think
Improvement oh yeah I'd see that's for
sure um Kathy can can you give us
findings of fact conclusions law to
think about here yes um the findings
effect and conclusions of law for
application number
bcap
dash 30 38 I think this
was 38
20-38 right for property located at 407
North View based on the testimony
presented the board finds it appropriate
to Grant a 506 foot variance from beic
code section 1250 5
215b with with the condition that a
landscape plan be submitted for further
review and approval by the landscape
consultant to screen the additional
pavement
proposed in on the east side of the
existing detached
garage based on
the the board further finds it
appropriate to Grant a certificate
of
appropriateness uh as based on the
recommendation from the board from the
Architectural Review Board as
submitted
right
right okay I think that's I think that
covers it
all I was just gonna double check that
but
yeah I think it does okay I'll make a
motion for approval thank you Mr Marsh
is there a
second second thank you all right Kathy
please call the
role um Mr Marsh yes Mr pout yes Miss
Mitchell yes Mr Turner yes Mr schik yes
Mr
yes chairman
Beall I vote Yes also so Mr W the
variances are granted and good luck with
this nice project here thank you very
much all right
sir all right the uh application as was
noted earlier uh ar-20
d63 uh involving 424 South Columbia uh
Avenue was uh tabled by the applicant
and and will be heard down the line uh
is was it that I don't think we have to
take any action on that they taed it
themselves right so yes that is correct
they have all right uh is there any
other new business before the board
tonight um chairman behall I really just
um this last case not the one we just
voted on but the one before with the the
two commercial Lots um I guess I'm just
trying to really wrap my head around
um
who over if we oversee the long-term
planning of the Main Street Corridor
then are we the ones that give a
commercial owner the guidelines on when
and how long a space like these two
spaces that are about to be
demolition how long they would remain
vacant and when we would want to see
development and what that development
looks like is that come does that come
from our group no well we if they want
them if they want to buy them and let
them sit empty they they can do so we
have to decide is it a better situation
if they're
demolished uh than if they're not
tonight which is what we accomplish
tonight correct right okay that's right
and what they do obviously I mean just
between uh us committee members here
they're negotiating to buy the two lots
in the middle so that when they get four
Lots in a row they can actually do
something with that amount of square
footage and and perhaps build a a
replica or maybe a a residential
property like was built across the
street where uh where kitties is located
gotcha then then it will come to us and
then we'll
have that will come to so I I think I
was just over here in my little bubble
trying to understand like wait are we
making a decision that you know impacts
the the appearance or declines the
appearance of that area and we're
supposed to be telling people or giving
people guidance on what that should look
like but if that's I'm 100 where I need
to be now I just was a little confused
while there there are Main Street design
guidelines so when the when the final
project does come before us we'll have
the this board will be um deemed with
that resp responsibility of approving it
but we don't necessarily do the planning
of it but in terms of planning there's
already been some planning done by the
Main Street commission that existed has
already existed and and I I don't have
any problem with us as a panel reviewing
those uh and and even discussing them at
a at a future meeting maybe uh Kathy and
Karen you could send everybody a copy of
of the guidelines
gu sure we'd be happy to do that I think
that'd be a good refresher course anyway
it a good idea for all of you to review
just to get an idea because obviously
that'll be coming before us whether it's
two weeks or two years or 10 years but
the main street um design guidelines you
know we don't when we say a planning
document it doesn't say what is going to
go where because that's the developer
call but we do have certain guidelines
like that it needs to be built up to the
street and how the parking guidelines
and the height guidelines all that kind
of stuff so but like for to help me like
tonight for example I didn't know what
those guidelines right what guidelines
are um and I want to make sure that at
least I know what they are so I'm not
asking goofy questions in the middle of
the meeting question is Goofy no I I I
think that's an excellent point though
because if you hadn't brought some of
your questions up we wouldn't be talking
now about getting us a set of the
guidelines so that we can look at them
and read them I think all of us on this
panel need to be doing that as well as
the other work groups that we have uh
already established and and those things
need to be addressed and possibly we
could work through this almost two Monon
period we have till our next meeting and
work through a little bit of on on our U
uh our groups the three groups that we
established for sure all right I will
get all that out to you very good thank
you Kathy you have anything else um and
the you'll also have a staff report that
will address things that may not be in
line with the Main Street guidelines if
those things exist so that you're well
aware of what you're going to be dealing
with when we do have a project that
comes before the board for those
properties right right good thank you
ladies and gentlemen and uh with that I
would
uh uh listen to a motion to adjourn the
meeting there there might be emotion
like that out there somewhere we all
want we all want to stay here no yeah I
hear that thanks thanks for staying for
three hours too I do appreciate that all
right