actually this is the november
mr turner
mr levine
miss mitchell here chairman v-hall
and
we noted that when we have four members
you need a majority of votes to pass
anything and therefore you need three
positive votes
to
achieve a successful application for
whatever it is in your receipt
we have a
opportunity at the beginning of each
meeting for the general public to make
any comments that they have about the
operation of the
orizonian planning and uh
uh so if anybody is here that wishes to
make a comment now this is not about the
specific case because of the cases the
comments have to be made when those
cases are called
if anybody has a
desire to make a comment about the
operation of bbc ap now is your chance
raise your hand if you would be so kind
i see no indication of such so we will
move on to the
approval of the minutes so the minutes
were issued
uh
for the last meeting which was the
october meeting october 28th and uh
did we have two sets of limits that we
needed to approve or just one
i thought we needed to prove that one
sec
from the september
[Music]
september 23rd yeah i believe actually
now i'm looking at the october notes
from that agenda and
those were both addressed that's just
your october 28th okay
all right then
uh has everybody on the board had a
chance to read the minutes of the prior
meeting
if so does anybody have any
alterations modifications
deletions additions they'd like to make
seem to know
indication of sex could i hear a motion
to approve events of the october
so much
second
[Music]
all right
uh
kathy do you have a staff
report
i to
please
okay so the first case is application
number bzap dash 21-42
uh applicants joseph kariffa
and the owner is catherine moss and
simon doolittle location is 276 south
stanwood
which is located in the medium density
r6 zoning district so the applicant is
seeking
architecture review and approval to
allow a new deck to replace an existing
elevated patio the applicant is also
seeking a variance from mexico section
1252 point 11 c which allows an
uncovered deck to encroach
four feet into a 25 foot required rear
yard setback
and also with mexico section 1252.09
r6zoni
if approved the deck would be 15 and a
half feet from the rear property line
so staff would like to first point out
karen wants to pull up the site plan for
this application
uh that the
existing elevated patio
is 18 and a half feet from the rear
property line
okay
[Music]
the reason i call her anything so
quickly because it says there's a stat
report next on the agenda and i thought
maybe you have a specifics oh i'm sorry
so i was but i'm doing your job you're
doing my job
i appreciate it
i i think we should need to have uh mr
karifa just come forward if you would
and is anybody else going to speak on
behalf of this application
all right if you raise your right hand
be sworn in do you swear or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give this
evening will be the truth from the whole
truth
thank you very much
all right now we've got a little
background here
um
give us a little idea of what you're
trying to achieve so we can
fully understand what we're going to
please so the existing condition is
shown in
um
so we
our design
basically
came out three foot past the edge but
still in line with the
past position
which
i assume perceive the variance at some
point
most likely
yeah
so
what you're saying is we're not really
going any further into the
rear yard setback that we're already in
yes the existing structure is 15 and a
half feet from the rear property line
and the the patio would be removed and
the deck added would also be at that
eight fifteen
yeah fifteen five and code allows
uncovered decks to encroach four feet
into the required barrier setback so
actually he's asking for a five and a
half foot variance
this did go to the architecture review
board
and uh there was some discussion uh with
a neighbor that lives to the rear of
this property and
a fence was mentioned and the board
thought that it was appropriate to
include a solid board fence along the
rear property line which the applicant
agreed to and he has since made an
application for that fence i just wanted
to share that with the board and is it
up at this time
and i would just add that the
architecture review board did um
recommend approval for a certificate of
appropriateness providing that the
applicant who already did but put that
as part of this record as well agree to
the six foot fence along the rear
property
does the six foot fence need to be
approved by us no that that does me code
okay
but it is it is it does need to be
included as a condition that's right
is there anything in the audience that
is for or against this application
please
sir
if you come up please and let him have
the voting
sir would you raise your right hand
please
and
state your
name walder you swear or affirm that any
testimony of the secretary the truth the
whole group talk about the truth yes
thank you very much go right ahead what
do you think about this application i'm
the rear property ever thank you i just
wanted to express my comments that i
agree with the architectural review
boards decision that includes the six
foot tents okay so as long as that's
included in your approval then that
makes me happy it's very good all right
that's my only time
just from a process to make sure i
understand if there is already a
non-conforming variance in place b zap
doesn't have an obligation to do
anything with that correct we would just
whatever we put into place and adopt now
takes that one away or nolan bullet
avoids it i don't understand
the
variance was apparently previously
branded so that variance exists so we're
really not altering that variance we're
we're using that variance as a
more or less
the reason
why
this request is reasonable because
they're already out there
and therefore
what they're doing is basically tacking
on to the prior variants exactly sort of
like a precedent like it's already there
but but in some cases you could have a
non-conforming structure that was built
prior to that current zoning code that's
right and it may not meet the setbacks
just because it was where it is when the
zoning went into effect so they may not
have received a variance but it it's
pointed out if it's non-conforming just
to educate the boredom of the situation
that's more for my uh learning and also
just because it is non-conforming
doesn't mean that anything that's asked
to be
put in that setback would would be
approved for example if it was a
two-story addition instead of
just a deck with a fence which is kind
of probably wouldn't have been
gotcha
it's not an automatic precedent at all
gotcha
it just
i would say
ameliorates the request a little bit
because they're already there whether
it's because the house was built a
hundred years ago before we added zoning
rules in place there's a lot of houses
here
you know
or
uh but but it's just a matter of is this
less of it of an infringement or an
impact because they're already there
that's the consideration that we're
allowed
to make okay
i appreciate that clarification thank
you
good question
uh anybody
have any questions as a result of the
comments that have been
they're writing an agreement with the
condition that's been requested by
the
architectural review board okay i think
we're
all right in that case
uh kathy would you uh please give us the
finest effective conclusions of law i'm
gonna make you do your job now
you did my job the findings effective
conclusions of law for application
number bzap dash 21-42 for property
located at 276 south stanwood upon
consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before the board finds the
applicant has proven the criteria to
grant an area of variance to mexico
section 122611 c
has been met in a 5.5 foot variance from
vexi code section
1252.01 c
to allow a deck to be constructed 15
feet from the rear property line
should be granted with the following
condition
that a solid board fence be constructed
simultaneously
with the new deck
and it should be constructed along the
rear property line
all right
mr green are you okay with that uh
reading and and the condition that was
attached to it which you already really
agreed to the facts absolutely all right
thank you very much
if we include the architectural review
approval
in that verbiage
uh
i did not but i can also include that
the board further finds out a
certificate of appropriateness
should be approved
as
recommended by the architectural review
board right i think that would be
helpful okay
with that
uh reading of the findings of backing as
well do i
miss mitchell yes mr turner chairman b
hall i vote yes as well so the uh
variance for granted and the approval of
their picture review is also granted
thank you thank you good good project
thank you for
coming
all right the next case under this is
under new business actually
uh is
application uh number gcap-21-39
that is uh
involving 2450 each livingston avenue
the applicant and the owner
or michael one of the same michael grimm
kathy
yes i was in contact with mr grim this
afternoon and he requested
uh that he would like to provide
additional information to this
application so ask that if it could be
table to the january 27th cortisone and
planning meeting as is the next one too
all right
as well as well okay is there anyone in
the audience that's here
on the case involving 2450 east
livingston avenue
all right
with the indication that there is nobody
here from the
uh
excellent cities
to discuss this do i hear a motion to uh
table us to the january 27th meeting
chairman bihar just i made a note at our
last meeting regarding this case because
this is my next-door neighbor
so we've just got to make sure that we
have enough
board members that day if that case goes
forward to be able to hear it
um because if we end up like we are
today if we get pushed again
right and i'll make sure
yeah that's a good one
then you can even abstain from the boat
on this motion okay sure
so let's move second thank you
technically
to
table this out mr levine yes mr turner
yes miss mitchell uh epstein and
chairman
i believe yes the matter is table until
january 27 2022
all right the next case is
we'll call it
21-44
involving 280 south colombia the african
and
and it's a request for architectural
review and a and a variant
they they were prepared with the
detailed plans for the arb so that was
going to return to the arb anyway so the
applicant has asked that this also be
tabled so that in january he'll go
through the regular arb first for the
recommendation to be
sap
january 27th
is there anyone in the audience that is
here to comment on the 280 south
columbia
application
i see no indication
of such and as a result i would
entertain a motion to table this medical
january 26 to the 27th meeting 2022.
mr turner
yes mr levine yes miss mitchell yes
chairman behold i don't guess that
matter is year by table until january
27th
the next phase is involving
is b z ap 21-46
involving 28 31 east broad street
and mr alexander it's here i see
and the owner is kimberly
the athlete is seeking architectural
review to allow the existing garage to
be converted to a living space
at a roof over the rear patio
and an attached garage the applicant is
also seeking a variance of vector code
section 1252.09
the r6 district which requires a rear
yard setback of 25 feet
and a side yard side yard setback of
eight feet
to allow a portion of the proposed
garage edition to encroach seven foot
seven feet
seven inches into the 25 yard
25 foot
rear yard setback
at 8.5
feet or eight feet five inches
i'm sure which that is eight point five
inch eight and a half inches eight and a
half inches into the side yard setback
sorry i just read that
all right
travis raise your right hand to be sworn
if you swear from the test when you give
the sec this evening to the board
i do thanks
all right ms rose can give us a little
staff report on this
application please
um the lots along the south side of
broad street
between south roosevelt and south
america will have a slight angle to the
front
rear lot lines which only a portion of
the garage addition will encroach into
the
rear and side yard setbacks
uh the southwest corner of the garage
addition would be 24 feet three inches
from the rear property line
and the southeast corner of the proposed
garage will be 17 feet
5 inches from the rear property line
the house of the west has a similar
situation and if the under proposed a
detached garage that could actually be
three feet off the side and rear
property line along the alley so the
current proposed plan still allows for
additional parking in the rear
and further keeps cars uh off the side
streets when parking there
and i'll defer to karen for any uh the
architecture view boards yeah the
architecture review board has
recommended approval
of this
application for certificate of
appropriateness to this board
um actually as a consent agenda item so
there were no
there there was no discussion at the
board no neighbors had any issues and
the
only kind of offline
item that um gary and i had talked about
is potentially lowering the ridge line a
little bit to equal the rest of the
house
okay
mr alexander tell us what you're doing
here and why
it's a um
it's a relatively small project we're
converting the existing garage to a
family room and mud room for raw family
and just trying to
add
an attached garage to the house it's a
two-car garage it's not an excessively
large garage with perhaps the exception
of the height so
um
the house is set back
from the front yard setback so so the
unique zoning condition is the depth of
the house currently on the lot if this
house were built at the front yard
setback this addition would be in the
buildable area so because we already
have this handicap and as i said it's
not the internal depth is 24 feet it's
not extremely deep garage
that's why we're here before you it does
match as
kathy indicated it matches a pattern of
the way garages are attached to homes
along the alley so i think it matches
the fabric of the community
and garage currently encroaches slightly
in that west setback so we are just
increasing that encroachment by a couple
inches just to simplify how we attach
the existing structure
so the house is already in the side yard
setback it is the garage is about
it's on one of our it's on one of our
plans that we submitted the garage is
already about um
maybe it's three inches or something
into that
and you're stepping it in aren't you a
little bit
no we actually we actually are moving
out slightly from that encroachment
we're trying to
here's the plan that
shows existing
and proposed
right you can see that the new garage is
slightly outside but it looks like it's
a matter of
a little bit
eight and a half yeah
and
really
part of the garage is
really almost inside the setback but for
a couple of inches
it's the other is there a is this a an
alleyway that's in the rear of the house
yeah
yeah it is an alley behind the house
so you're not approaching into somebody
else's contiguous backyard
no
here is the portion of the back
that means the variance and here here
literally is the eight and a half inches
and if it was detached it would only be
required to be three feet from that side
and rear property line
um and
and have a 10 foot separation between
the detached garage and the principal
structure that the applicant has chosen
to attach
let me ask if there is uh
anybody
in the audience
first of all you have any questions mr
alexander i'm sorry
members of the panel
uh
[Music]
no our client has had conversations with
them they they have
their friends and and they are aware of
what's what's going on
yes yes
is there anybody in the audience that is
here to uh discuss this particular case
overcome everybody was standing
all right
i don't see any question of that
all right so
can i ask what the uh ridgeline height
is
is there is it in violation it's not
obvious no no
it was purely a design
um and it wasn't even a
condition it was just kind of a can you
consider
i personally like the elevation over the
but i'm not a designer yeah i mean it
was kind of something i even hesitated
mentioning it tonight because it wasn't
a condition of the architecture review
board it's just a suggestion that maybe
as a garage element it shouldn't be
taller than the primary house but i'm
not really even convinced that that
would be noticeable from the street view
anyway so
it was just a board member's
suggestion to look at not a condition
and there are a couple couple ways we
can lower yeah so that that's fine or
not address it at all so well i i said
we would address it
either way
yeah
is it just
oh yeah it's it's strictly storage
trusses uh
there's no
space intended
all right and
any
size
garage that would have fit
into this rear yard setback would have
been too
either wide or too short to accommodate
yeah because we're at a 24 foot depth so
if we take that seven feet off and you
think about you're working with 17 feet
well a suburban is 18 feet and some
pickups are even bigger now so you can
see our dilemma
any
further questions from members of the
board
or comments
i think that we have finding the back
conclusions
and then we can put it to
and conclusions of law for application
number bzap 21-46
for property located at 2831 east broad
street upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before the board
finds the applicant has proven that the
criteria to grant an area variants in
mexico section 12 26 11 c have been met
and a 17.3 foot and eight and a half
inch variants
from mexico section 1252.09
should be granted to allow a garage
addition and modifications to the
existing garage
as submitted
the board further finds
that a certificate of appropriateness be
granted as recommended by the
architectural review board
all right thank you
mr alden are you satisfied with the
condition
i i am i think our encroachments just
over seven
seven feet seven inches i thought i
heard a larger number red red there but
but you did say it's based on the
documents that are submitted so that's
black
oh that's the distance to the property
one from the purpose
thank you yes
do i
uh
so much thank you
thank you
please
miss mitchell yes
mr turner yes mr levine yes chairman b
hall
i will guess as well
thank you all thank you
the next case
is application
vzap dash 21
dash 47 involving 81 north drexel
the
applicant is keith whit and the owner is
consecutive prime llc
the applicant is seeking architectural
review approval for the pool house
african is also seeking special permit
according to the mexico section
1252.12 a and b
where the principal structure deviates
by more than 20
from the established front yard setback
line
allow a swimming pool and pool house at
the western end
of the front yard at this location
the application of the applicant is also
seeking a variance from mexico city code
section 1264.02
which loads fences in her front yard of
42 inches in height
the special permit from the board of
zoning complaining to allow the proposed
48 inch high fence to replace the
existing six foot raw iron expense
all right
sir
nathan sanderson nathan do you swear or
affirm that any testimony you give
me the truth
yes
and once again so i couldn't tell from
the applicant or the owner but this is a
the almost answered needs project yes
okay so
you know
just for public
location
that b hall is my brother whose name is
on the title of the company that he's no
longer an owner
of the company
and is
not working directly with this project
so if
necessary
i may abstain from voting just for the
point of
appearance of propriety being
observed
just for the record
security out
kathy tells us
all right
this is a large lot it's 300 feet wide
and 200 feet deep
along the drexel avenue side clifton
avenue side of the property has been
determined as the front yard the house
sits to the north end of the lot and is
set back approximately 110 feet from the
clifton avenue property line the
driveway runs along the north end of the
property leaving limited space for any
improvements in the rear yard
the only other house on that north side
of this block sits approximately 60 feet
back from clifton avenue making the
average setback along the street 85 feet
typically uh
accessory structures are required in the
rear yard
which is one of the reasons that they've
proposed it in the
western end of the front yard
and
this is a deviation from the front yard
setback so that's that's what they're
trying to address here
the applicant has proposed a 16 foot by
50 foot swimming pool within the sunken
terrace that would be located in the
front west end of the front facade
the proposed pole pavilion is just south
of the en at the pole terrace the south
side of the pole pavilion is 40 43 feet
from the front property line along
clifton avenue and it's 15 feet from the
west side property line
a 15 foot side yard setback is typically
what is required for a principal
structure
as an accessory structure can be located
three feet off the side or rear property
line
however a swimming pool is an exception
to the requires
and requires an additional five feet
which gives us an eight-foot required
setback the full terrace and full
equipment meet the eight foot setback
and will be screened and fenced
i wanted to
show
it's in the staff report the property to
the west and other exterior structures
located
to the east end
of their principal structure which
includes
a swim spa and
a fire pit area
just to put this in proximity to what's
being proposed in this application hold
on
whoops sorry
i know i'm get i knew somebody was going
to make that comment
if i knew it would be you too
if a special permit is granted the board
may impose further requirements
conditions regarding the location
character and other features of the
proposed accessory user structure as the
board deems necessary to carry out the
intent and purpose of the zoning code
and to otherwise safeguard the public
safety and welfare
bexi code section 1264.02
which limits fences to 42 inches in
height in the front yard with a special
permit from the board
there's a
existing six foot high wrought iron
fence that exists around the property
runs along the
west south and east property
lines
and is incorporated within a landscape
plan that can't actually like to remove
that and replace it with the 48 inch
decorative fence that's also
incorporated into a landscape plan
as well as a
is there a decorative fence that's a
little bit higher along the drexel
avenue side
the gate
okay
so that that is one
section that they do want to keep the
six foot height but i believe there's a
change in design
parts
right then the columns are existing
a little bit change in style then
okay
um
then i think i've also
shown a view from the drexel avenue side
where you can see the columns that are
existing is that in your staff report is
that it's at the tail end of it or the
last picture in there
let's keep going oh i see okay keep
going yeah that's the this is the
property to the west of 81 north drexel
so you can see what excess restructures
they've got in that area which also
required a variance to allow those in
that
portion of the yard
it looks like their lot is a little
smaller
it is it's not as wide and their house
isn't set back as far as the
the house in question
um so if the board finds it appropriate
to grant variances it should be subject
to review
of landscape planned by the tree and
public garden commission to make sure
that there is sufficient screening
particularly along the west property
line of the full equipment
okay
thank you
nathan why don't you uh
give us some idea
what you're doing here why
you're requesting to do it the locations
do you want to hear anything oh there's
our officials you look at this too yes
they um the architect's review board has
[Music]
re recommended this
board approve a certificate of
appropriateness they were pretty
enthusiastic about the design
um it wasn't a condition but we talked
about the greenery over the
pool house being kept in the design and
that the condition recommended as
caffeine has already stated was that the
landscape plan be reviewed by the public
tree and gardens commissions
tree and public gardens commissions had
that wrong
all right
i think there's sort of two subjects
that we're
going to be talking about
as far as variances are concerned one
involves
the fencing around the property and the
second one that relates to the pool and
value location
i will go through the fence
items first so get fine then we'll come
back to the uh
all right so
[Music]
currently on the site there's a six foot
uh iron defense that sort of meanders
around the perimeter of the property
let's say it's the east south and west
side we're proposing to take that uh six
foot cents down and then replace it with
what is a 48 inch fence that is held two
inches
off the ground as a way to
you know adapt to
you know level changes just to try and
get that fence straight so if it being
bent as far as the top you know bar of
that fence is concerned
the fence
itself pretty much you know the
street facing sides is also
used as a pool safety fence so it will
be integrated into the landscape and not
necessarily visible from the streets
simply trying to
so it's a metal black aluminum fence
there's
do you know which set that is
the arcs up sort of along the left side
so you follow that line around that is
football uh another fence will be
removing
just to point out where that travels
right now being good down to
do you need a pointer
um i'll give it a shot without an
opinion
uh another
bit well actually
that's a good comparison let's look at
that
now in this plan the uh
48 foot tall fence which basically sits
two inches above the ground is shown in
the smaller dashed line and you can
follow identify that and follow that by
there's sort of uh along the west side
there's a couple of indents into the
site
that that dashed line follows yep and so
if you follow that around that's the
proposed location of the new shorter
aluminum fence they'll be integrated
into the landscape
there are
i think
two or three
access gates
in that fence that are
wood access gates that are 60 inches
tall in those locations and we can take
a look at what those look like as well
so those are the only locations that
deviate uh
from that 50 inch
top of fence
so and that's to accommodate the gate
yeah the gates are just decorative and
the way that they're designed are just
slightly taller
so go scroll um
to the next page
and one more down
one more page yeah that's the one so
lower left-hand corner that's uh
basically the simple design of the
aluminum fence that we're talking about
and you know what we're saying is sort
of four foot two off of grade but it's
really a 48 inch fence we're just trying
to maintain you know over the changes of
the grade throughout the property
maintain at least some give and take
about the overall height and maintaining
that as a data
the code also
uh we're proposing to put
this new fence
in the
side and front yard setbacks along
clifton and olin drexel but integrated
into the landscape and so
we're not proposing to change the grade
that is existing there now
but the code talks about how you know
we're not to exceed 48 inches
on the average grade between the
basically the property line and the
setback and so we've outlined the
average grade where those fences will
occur
and you know we're at you know within a
couple inches within that 50 inch
uh standard
deviation for just that same type of
defense it's basically saying that's the
fence that'll wrap around and where it
will be and the deviation from that
average which is noted in code just for
clarification
um
we also call out those heights for the
piers and the gate
that's being proposed as well
i think that
yeah so
our
conceptually the fencing plan there's
the wood fence or the wood gates that
we're talking about so those are in
those locations there's two along
uh clifton
that those particular instances do raise
up to a gate height i think of
you know five feet tall off of great uh
in
those particular spots
just like we're talking about fencing
any questions
here
yeah
it is narrower
um it is narrower just
because we wanted to make it consistent
it's narrowed pool uh safety
you know fence code and we've talked to
the plans examiner and actually just
about sort of the width of those and how
they're spaced in the actual dimension
of them and that is in line with bexa's
requirements for the space
so it's it's something very close to a
four inch on center with like a
you know five eighths inch
yeah by
you know almost or you know just under
two feet short and integrated into
landscape so it's not something that's
presented to the streetscape uh but
buried back in
so what you would see from the street is
basically the shrubbery
finishes as a safety measure
yeah we've got a picture i'm sorry
so there's sort of two layers of
plantings that are being proposed along
the perimeter which is you know we'll go
through uh actually landscape review
process but the fence that we're talking
about is behind the first
layer of shrubbery but before the taller
ones in the back
and the deviation along clifton is
showing basically to save some of the
existing trees that are there uh the
more mature trees so that's why there's
some fluctuation in that line on the
south side
this
is a question first this is
81 north drexel but the front yard is
the yard that's on clifton yes
and this has evolved over the years
there's actually i can dig through the
files and find where a reflection pole
was approved in the front yard by city
council
on clifton avenue side of this property
that was centered on the south side of
that facade so
typically this would have been platted
to drexel
but because of all of the variants and
hearings that we've had over the years
they've come to address
clifton avenue as the front yard so i'm
just staying consistent with that
interpretation
i should have shared that with you
earlier no that's a historical condition
normally corner lots the front is uh
designated to the short side
but through this home's lifespan at some
point somebody asked for
requested and got approved and clipped
inside the designated as the front
yard
and that's how it wound up having the
fence around that front yard as well
which would have been required for the
pull
and 48 inch is the minimum height
required for a pole to meet code
but you're proposing a fence line that's
going to be 55 not 48 or 50. it's a 48
inch fence but we're holding sort of an
average of two inches off so 50 inches
is our bottom line that's for the height
of that fence that we're proposing
how old is this structure
you know the house there
so
you know along with sort of how we treat
the fences in some ways you know it is a
little bit higher just to deal with
different deviations in the grade by a
couple inches
a lot of over tackling here is
simply the excessive deviation of the
house on the site where clifton is being
considered the front of that house so
the house pushed so far to the north
there's not the what is now the front
yard is the only space to allow things
like an accessory structure or a pool
from a physical standpoint
yeah even minor improvements to the
north side of that house typically
require a variance so there's not much
you can do to this house without
stumbling over
any other clarifications just about the
fence or what the objective is for them
or or why we're talking about it today
it's not going to stop
um
but i think with the with the planting
too you know and talking with the arb
um you know that we're
trying to relay our intent the the
plantings in the landscape plan does
need to be approved
still by the atlantic improvement
and you know certainly happy to work
with them in that yeah
there's nothing
with the variance involved you can place
conditions on there and and
you know i thought we tried that one
time
well to be honest
to mr
sampson's point
this is an opportunity for public
transportation to address what you're
talking about because the sense itself
is not what's blocking the view it's the
it's the shrubbery
and this sense is actually
almost seems silly to say it this way
but almost a modest fence for this house
because it's 50 inches and it's
it's see-through you know it's the
greenery that's
causing what you're talking about so one
of the conditions that we're asking for
is that this be reviewed by the tree and
public commission so that could be
something that is absolutely addressed
and mr turner that was the first thing i
did was i opened up your
um
sampling of what you um your your
palette for the plantings because i
almost as soon as the pictures came up i
almost
had deja vu for another case that we
looked at um so
it
you know if it's appropriate for us to
to explore that a little bit further
because it's not the fence it's the
inflection
the the things that you do to try to
create some privacy because you're
certainly compliant with safety so
correct it's a safety thing and also
it's this odd condition where that's
their only real you know exterior space
when you talk about lawn and stuff
there's a lot of weird things going on
yeah
okay
yeah i can go on to the full and
so um
so with this as we touched upon you know
what we're talking about here is um the
installation of a pool and a pool
pavilion
um
and
the you know from the size uh of the
pool
there's no
uh necessarily um
design aspects of this that deviate
beyond zoning code besides i think we
might be at the moment proposing like
three and a half inches taller than
a first story on a
accessory structure uh which i think
that we can address if that's a sticking
point
i don't think that was an issue because
i did go through all those codes that
you had noted and
with the new accessory structure code
they they allow you to deviate from
those height requirements based upon the
size of your lives
so this is one of those larger lots that
does allow that deviation so that i
didn't find an issue with the hype so as
a reference to historical
uh precedence that you may have seen
where previously there was a 10 foot
limit or 10 foot three and a half but
that may not be optimal here but so
the the pool is placed uh so it's
accessible to the house and the pool
pavilion is placed beyond the pool
pavilion itself is uh
designed to be more of a shade and roof
cover with a core in the middle that has
you know a bathroom and changing space
if we
could we go to
the renderings of the pool pavilion
do you know what drawing that is um yeah
that's a good question i think that's it
there you go
so
you know when you look at the pavilion
it's meant
to try and be as light as possible and
transparent there's columns that run
along the
north side facing the house and columns
and a small wall running along the
south side
so that roof plane is sort of what in
that in the top of that core is sort of
what starts to
maybe become visible at some point
through glances through the
plantings but it's really intended to be
very light and go away as much as
possible from the street view that we're
talking about um
it's
like i said 10 feet tall once you're
you know on the sidewalk for walking
down the street or you know it is not a
very tall structure necessarily compared
to having a gable groove or
um
a different version of how uh that could
be approached
um
so
when
you know our main
um
request for consideration here is that
you know we are proposing a pool
pavilion and a pool they happen to be in
the what's considered the front yard at
this point
um
due to the excessive deviation of the
house and the site
uh all other aspects of the pool design
and the pavilion design fall within
guidelines if they were placed someplace
else and even if drexel was the historic
front then we are considered sort of in
the rear yard at that point or side yard
okay
let me answer there's anybody going to
cheer to comment on this case
you two folks will come up we'll swear
you in
yes you are
my gosh
all right
so chairman can i take my mask off so i
can be heard i i'm not sure how well it
records thanks
um
yeah we're the neighbors to the west and
a lot of this comes five feet from our
lot line so that's that's why we're
concerned well
one question i have for the for the
board is
why is there a prohibition on pools in
the front yard
can somebody tell me that
well background rules so we're
probably the staff to be better able
what's the rationale for a pool in the
front yard
no prohibition
well accessory structures are required
in a rear yard
and they meet their own setback
requirements i mean this board has to
struggle even when someone wants to put
a pole in a side yard
you know in a case where you have an
attached garage and it doesn't seem
logical to put that pool behind the
garage then you can't see it from the
house and safety reasons so it's always
been considered an accessory structure
and just has a
greater setback from a side or rear
property line
i'm not sure why
i mean they don't stick up out of the
ground
i mean but like i said we have had one
actually approved in this location in
the past by city council the codes have
changed to allow this board to at least
hear these types of cases and
that way it allows
you know if they find it appropriate
they can place conditions on these types
of structures and protect the neighbors
if there are situations that are
concerning and you know allow people to
usually they're allowed but
you know you have to put a limit
somewhere
yeah you have to put a limit somewhere
so bexley doesn't
want pools in the front yard in general
is that their statement or not well and
that's not just like a rubber stamp
most in most cases no you're that is
correct however
every applicant has to
present their unique
their uniqueness about this lot
of why
it's difficult to
follow the code the way it is
and and make their case as to whether
this board should
you know support what they're proposing
i think it was said earlier
maybe by you that a non-conforming lot
doesn't
then automatically
get exceptions for everything else yeah
i was caring she was explaining
and and
you know there are other places they
could put the pool
um and i know a reflection pool was
approved years ago by the prior
owner
the reflection pole looked pretty cool
to me it was
there was no raised structure though
i mean there was no walling off of
clifton
you actually looked at a beautiful
pool and you saw the house it was a
reflection and it was just had a cement
two-foot
cement it was um
an english garden yeah minimal pattern
was really in keeping with the
architecture of the 100 year old
building it was um would you say it was
a hun um
1923 actually a 1923 100 year old
building so um
the um
yeah the
non-conforming law every time anybody
does anything to this house
they throw that non-conforming
lot in that seems to be the free ticket
to do just about whatever you want
and um
the front yard now is the only part of
this
property that would be available for a
pool because this owner added a third
more onto the house onto the side so
that was i'm sure a very strategic plan
to do that first
because if he had approached you
to add a pool to the front yard
you all might have recommended it going
on the
side yard or backyard depending on how
you want to look at this non-confirming
lot so
yeah yeah now this is the only place
they can put a swimming pool although
they could use the wall guard
on tracks yeah the wall garden there's a
walled garden on drexel the little
courtyard that could have housed a pool
not a
16 by 50 pool but a
more normal sized pool for wrestling i
also i'm asking
it said 16 by 50
did that include the spa or is that
the spot separate from that because i
think the spa is in addition to that
i think the total is
[Music]
a lot bigger than that
this is this is good for us to see so
explain to us a little bit
what is
west
of the pool
and that line of trees is indicated on
that on that they're talking about
helpful for us what's right in that
space right there well so the history of
that is
when we moved in
we learned that the kent that owned this
property
uh took that
um
property
through adverse possession of mrs
monaghan
yes well if you look at the lot line
never realized it was there for 20 years
so she went to go to sellers
and um and then and also because the
kids wanted to do a turnaround where the
new addition is there was a turnaround
and a fountain and uh
so in order for them to do that they had
to take
some of uh mrs monaghan's property and
when she went to sell her house she
realized that the property that she had
paid taxes on for
over how many years
20 was the magic number it was not hers
and the kents had it from edward so when
we bought it we said what why is this
property line so
messed up yeah
so that was but we bought it knowing
that so we can't complain about that but
that's why the lot lines
uh the way it is you see the crooked
line there yeah
and then the the thing that um
i mean i know there are
zoning
laws
and stipulations and i didn't know that
you could get around them
through landscaping because landscaping
isn't permanent
and you all can agree and you can go to
the
um
i forget what the nate technical name of
the review board is for tree commission
tree commission
yeah that is
well when you say get around so let's
get make sure yeah you're saying it
exactly right
we don't
the way you get around the zoning
regulation or rule or law
is
you have to show
one of about seven criteria and when you
look at all seven criteria then the
question is should you be granted a
word variance and this is just a word to
describe it because of the circumstances
of the situation that you're in
so
you get a ramble all that way the
screening or reading
issues are more or less used
by these kinds of boards
i was on column support for tank pursuit
so it's a similar situation
to
ameliorate the effects of the variants
that were arranged in lando
so that doesn't impact neighboring
landowners as adversary
but we just try to use greenery to help
a situation
if it does help in some cases it doesn't
help of course
uh so really you don't use the reading
to get around the law but you have to
get around the zoning law period yeah
because greenery is just sometimes used
as a condition and we say we're not
going to vote
for your variance unless you agree to
some greenery and we use that technique
sometimes to soften to sort of soften up
a landscape so it doesn't look so
you know yeah
[Music]
we have some cases where people are
right next to somebody else's house
columbia they're near uh
brighton it's just being built a fairly
large white house there yeah and their
their driveway their house is right on
the driveway
and
in that case they agreed to uh direct
greenery down that site which the owner
set out for
them that was a good way to separate
them in that case
so
absent the greenery for a minute okay
you're basically putting the back of a
pool house
in the face of the public
is that is that correct i mean that's
the way i'm looking at this you're gonna
have the back of the pool house
facing the street
all right
and your solution is erase it
wall it off
put the trees up as high as you can go
make it invisible that that's what
you're
well that's not our
solution what we're deciding if it meets
the condition yeah
they do have the design such that it's
you can see
show the next slide
you can see through that back wall
right so that it's not a solid wall but
there is a solid aspect to it obviously
in the middle
so your point is well taken
and looks like those mature trees
are the trees that they're trying to
save the world
there's significant canopy it's a
beautiful park i mean the front yard
it's a beautiful park right now
um so i hope they can save the trees but
yeah
and and the house is on the national
registry um
it's quite structured
very very unique and and
my whole part about landscape is
you know landscape isn't forever you all
aren't forever so if something is
is conditional to soften it with
landscape
how did how did is that
maintained um
through the years or the next owner that
wants to tear something down and
um
well the variances go with the land
and the conditions go with the land so
let me ask you this
the variances that they're seeking here
are a special permit
where a principal structure defeats by
more than 20
established front yard setback line
so that's one thing they're requesting
i almost need to have that explained
again because once again i'm a little
confused by
what we're calling the front yard i
assume
the
front yard is the clifton side yes front
yard is 30 feet or the average existing
dwelling setback whichever is greater
and in my staff report i noted
your property is 60 feet set back from
clifton avenue this property is 110 feet
set back from clifton avenue so the
average
is 85 feet
street is that right 43 or something
is that nate can you address that
just just i'm sorry
yeah that's fine yeah
it ranges from 40 to
so really there's two requests here one
is the fencing so we've already
discussed this so the other one really
here is
is this an appropriate application for a
special permit
right that's what we're doing here today
in terms of technically due to the fact
that the principal structure deviates so
much from the
front yard setback required
when you say principle structure see
that's confusing so to me
perhaps yeah
right and because of the placement of
that house is what makes it
what makes it difficult to meet
the requirement because there's no space
in the rear yard
maybe i'm wrong
i'm just trying to take it through
i mean
because typically i mean this this
principle structure is basically sitting
in the rear yard
so that's the deviation i mean this is
not standard or typical it's very unique
most houses are in the center on the lot
and you know things happen where they
happen so when you can't make that
happen
then there's codes that need to be
addressed that
here's an harrison avenue but you have
to make your kids yeah they they bought
the house knowing that yeah
and now you're changing those
experiences
just because the house well i think you
have a similar situation i mean your
house faces colombia your your front
doors columbia but technically your
house is platted to clifton avenue so
when you wanted to put your fen your
pool in your what you think is your rear
yard it's the side yard so that that's
why that also needed a variance yes and
a side yard pool is a lot different than
a front yard tool it is right it is how
many front yard pools are there
are there any
do we know of anything is this going to
be the first is this going to be the
groundbreaking
i think this is a lot more complex than
just making it that because
at some time in the history to mr
sampson's point
somebody who owned the house wanted the
front yard to be on clifton
whereas typically it would have been on
jackson
on they did the courtyard and they won
the pillars at the end of the driveway
they were
able to do that because they then made
it the side yard and not
so every time they want to do something
it they've changed the orientation now
we had to make that determination and
once that determination is made i'm not
going to change it case per case
depending on what they're requesting
that's why i wanted to share with the
board that this has been addressed as
the front yard along clifton avenue so i
wanted to make sure that we're
addressing it that same way i'm just
trying to make this makes it
a very unusual case
if no one would have changed it
maybe asking for it in the side yard i
mean
yes had this been the rear yard that's
the front yard but it is now that it is
the front yard and it's a unique
very unique and exciting building
so like this was this
wasn't a pool and a pool house this was
one big addition
would they
[Music]
i i'd have to
the side yard setbacks based upon the
width of the lot and i said this is a
200 foot wide lot
without giving without terminating your
your comments why don't we let go and
get some answers
yeah i think you know if
if the lot had remained plotted to
drexel
okay thank you
if the lot had remained planted to
drexel then clifton side would have been
the side yard right which would have had
a 15 foot setback
versus a prescribed 30 or average of the
two houses between the two which is
um
where what we're talking about now
because it's the front on
wait wait wait wait
15 feet on the interior side so on the
but but on the street side
you're right there's on the street side
there's additional setback requirements
and those are based upon the block width
that's right so i have to go grab my
book to look at what the 200 foot lot
with requirement because an accessory
structure has to be five feet further
yeah
right then that set back and what the
principal structures require correct for
a corner lock whether it's a percentage
of what width in that case because
well i think what i'm struggling with
chairman b hall is we can't make a
determination based on
if they have right
we have to make the determination on how
the house is
plotted now correct
and so i think the question becomes
if it if it's meeting
or if it if we
agree
with
um
the request
as we we deem the the variance is okay
to move forward
with where the house is
now like if it meets whatever conditions
we place on it where the house is now
like i can't make a determination based
on what happened 20 30 years ago with
two other owners before and i i can
understand where you're coming from in
terms of you know they
yes and all the changes
because i think where i'm getting thrown
off is i see an address that says it's
sitting on drexel and then it's like oh
no but actually
the front
so my head is doing this right now
so for lots over 150 feet in width
it requires a 30 foot setback and in
this case it would be 35. yeah so i
believe we're meeting
if this is just if this was planted a
drexel then they would be meeting the
separation
meeting the setback requirement
planning to drexel
they would be meeting the side yard
requirements for setback yes and then it
heard somebody from their rear yard
stepping forward
uh
[Music]
for the primary
[Music]
because the primary structure that
exists there now ours is 110 i think
there's a 65 or something like that so
that's the average of the two that's the
only two houses on that block right so
the primary structure would need to be
85 back
85 feet back from clifton if it was a
blank lot new structure went on
yeah i mean i guess legally it's
it's their front yard setback
that it's an existing structure that's
non-conforming you know it's either 30
feet or the average of the two
so you know
theirs is just uh
it's an old house as well and you're
dealing with the conditions that as a
existing non-conforming when you overlay
the zoning code on it now from when it
was built
this is why it's here
yep
[Music]
and
that's that's why the special permit
question came up is because of the
excessive deviation of the primary
structure on the lot
back already off of clifton um
then
you know now we're looking at
you know the front yard as the place
where somebody
could put a pool or an accessory
structure
you know the accessory structure in the
pool meet all the requirements within
themselves of an accessory structure in
a pool it's just its location that we're
talking about today
so it exists in what is legally
different
so
but let's say that the clinton issue
wasn't was not an issue
how close to the west property line
could you put a smaller pool in a let's
say
808
currently sitting at just over 15 feet
from the west
property line for the accessory
structure um and the
uh
18 and a half feet for the closest
corner of the pool
from the property line
um
uh yes there's a landscape wall on the
western end where uh yeah a portion of
that's being used to house the uh pool
equipment
which also sits
eight or greater than eight feet from
the property line which is the
requirement for pool equipment we have
we've added a section through that as
well just to
understand
sort of you know if we're looking at
that section
right is east left is west
what i foreign
[Music]
about 80
75 to 80 feet
so i i have a question
you express generalized objections to
this design but i haven't heard you
express anything
about how it may or may not affect
your
the the thing is when
when we bought the house we bought the
house we moved from upper arlington
where we didn't have much of a backyard
and that's what we fell in love with
it's our backyard and we knew we were up
against this historical
um landmark
never in our wildest dreams did we think
someone would buy it and add on to it
and you know that was a very upsetting
thing to go through um
and
you know swallowed that pill and but
thought well at least the the front the
rest of our you know we'll look at
this wall here but the rest of our view
is going to be of this lovely park and
uh never thinking someone was
going to put a
50-foot swimming pool and a pool house
and
um
i would imagine they're going to use it
and with that comes an awful lot of
noise
um and so yeah the poles are loud do you
have a pool around your house we have a
pool on the other side of our garage
surrounded by pools
now
we have pools everywhere and there they
can be left
now i don't know about the pool pump
which is going to be five feet from our
landline i don't know how loud that's
going to be they want to move their
generator
five feet from our lot line those are
loud when they're running they don't
unfortunately run all the time
so there's going to be a noise factor
depending on what kind of speakers they
put out to the pool house and all that
the
the water slide i guess we're gonna
notice um i don't know if we've even
seen the rendering of a water slide but
it's
you know it's
going from a park
to an amusement park over there this
whole
edition left side that's downloaded
construction
the way it was explained to us oh
that's that's a guest order that's not
going to be used very much
that's a guest department
but if you look at it now
if you look at the old house
the whole focal point of the house now
has moved
directly in front of that guest quarters
that was never going to be used
i mean they put the pool and the pool
house right in front of the guest
corners where they had a whole yard and
a wall
courtyard to the
right there on pretzel where they could
have put a pool
so
i that that's the problem we have
that's the noise that's what the typical
neighbor complaint
yeah we would be
i mean if they would shift it all the
way to the drexel side it would be
less um
disruptive for us
right so the there's a couple factors
that we're
certainly considered in dealing with
when we talk about where this falls
um and there are factors that went into
the
you know the concept of the pool
pavilion being open versus a closed
structure making it
uh have as little presence as or less
and less of a presence than like a pool
house let's say so what we're dealing
with is the
east side of the property um
or actually when we talk about the
program of the
of the house itself you know the pool
and poo pavilion are just south of what
is basically the uh family room
uh and kitchen and office
uh just and then the addition is to the
west of that uh so it was an accessory
point that was you know part of the
house program
in the middle of the lot where you know
we're saving all of the large mature
trees uh on the property so
you know so the middle part sort of out
because we don't want to get rid of
those uh or damage them or anything so
the east side of the lot
is actually on the corner of the
intersection which we thought would be
less appropriate for asking for a pool
in what is considered the front yard
in this case um
so we're trying to tuck it to the
interior of the block and
as far as the site plan is concerned um
in you know an effort to minimize
public you know impact you know that
just seemed like
that would
that wouldn't fly i guess from a from a
city standpoint
yeah on the corner like in the corner
but if you're going to screen it
you know that way you don't have you
know you're not up against anybody's
yard we've got a road we've got
so that's that's uh
[Music]
you're saying that wouldn't be good for
the rest of the city but you know who
cares about us
no i think the the pool and the pool
pavilion itself you know
we're here because it's an odd
circumstance right for and you build up
the whole lot you added a third more of
the house so so you couldn't put it
on the true side
because you built all the way to the
edge well if it was if it was there it
would still be
probably more exposed to your property
because you get the short end
of the pool and this is facing more out
towards the pennies
you have nowhere else to put it
you actually have quite
wanted
right i think also in considering the
location of the pool you know it's
placed where the sort of the family
living spaces are of course the end
uh on the other side
you know it whenever anybody's thinking
of a pool just a normal circumstance you
want to get be able to get to the
kitchen you want to be able to sort of
be in the family room spaces and that's
just for and that's not an excuse for
anything but it's just and as i as we
look at this
um
the east end of the house just from you
know
looking at uh the property just from the
design team's perspective
that's
away from
i guess where
uh anybody was putting in a pool
would
sort of consider that as a as a plus as
far as the program is concerned because
you couldn't get to it now that's and
you know uh looking at the lot and the
program of the house
i think that
you know if
it was a different situation the
pool and pool house is actually further
away than it's permitted to be from the
property line
uh
the pool equipment
is probably nine feet away from the
property line
uh
versus you know within and that's the
closest corner it gets further away from
that just how it's oriented pool
equipment runs it's 45 decibels
which is basically dishwasher
light urban sound level of
uh if you start to compare what 45
decibels is
uh
so you know there are in and fenced in
double-sided wood fence on the facing
neighbor side trying to understanding
that you know this is in a position and
we're trying to
at least take measures that
assist in you know uh its position as
far as the
city and
and the neighbors are concerned um
knowing that there is stuff that's going
to go like it we're posing stuff that
happens and it's in the front yard and a
bit closer it's just uh we're dealing
with unusual circumstances can i ask the
hadley's really quickly so you actually
have a pool in your side yard it's a 7 7
pool in your side yard right now
it's a seven by ten
yeah seven by ten
um
well it's
it's raised
it's it looks like for all practical
purposes it looks like a patio fountain
do you have
gotcha seven by ten and but you can get
into it gotcha so you can
be a plunger
a lot of times though in these cases i
like to share with the board with like
for instance you you brought yours a
little bit further forward from the
north property line because you do want
to keep something like this in a visible
area from the proximity of the house
just as a safety concern i had a pool in
my backyard for years and before i put
that hole in the ground i stood in my
kitchen and i want to make sure i could
see it while i'm in the kitchen because
that's where we are
but i think that's also something that's
typically considered in placement of
these types of structures and this one
relates to open space simply the same
way yours relates to your
your views can i teach the conversation
to give some context from what was
discussed in our text review and just
i'll just state before i go there to say
that
i don't think it does any of us any good
to think about where else the pool could
be we have an application in front of us
with the proposal this board can either
turn it down
we're not turned down this is what
they're asking for
having said that i wanted to give a
little bit of background of the
discussion at the architecture of the
award because it wasn't this slam dunk
you know
um
uh this is beautiful let's just
recommend it there is a lot of concern
about the height to your point what can
be seen from as the structure of the
pool house
from
um clifton
and given that this was a very um
transparent structure
very kind of
um flimsy columns and a lot of space
that flows through it
and very importantly a flat roof that
had greenery
those were
very strong
um characteristics of this pool house
it was even stated i believe on the
record if there would have been
a taller structure if it wasn't it
doesn't it go down a little bit too yeah
well the roof slopes down in the back
but it's a it's just a flapper of fidget
spinners
there's actually a board would not have
been in favor and they stayed on the
record for any kind of pitched roof or
raised roof
so i i say that not in defense of this
structure look at your city you're gonna
know how you're gonna vote i'm just here
to
to present things and
but i i wanted to set
to make sure that you all have a picture
of what the conversation was like that
architecture viewboard it was very
serious about how how visible it was
from the street and how softened
the pool house is
so that
from
clifton
it's not from looming structure karen to
that point you know we submitted
um
site sections
through there that we might be able to
take a look at uh just understanding the
scale of this relative to the student in
the house whose position as well i think
it's a it's in the pool
or pool like set
of drawings from
uh
i think you showed that you have full
equipment
that's it so scroll down
go to
the set of drawings it says um
no it's the second or third one
that one's
fine see if that one's okay nevermind it
was the third one i think i have
everything pulled up
uh go try that third link because
there's two
this one yeah
i just pulled it up from the site and i
was sitting back there yeah try that one
no okay that's fine okay go back to that
oh hold on i know what it's called let
me find it
yeah
oh zoning site plans that's it uh just
above the site improvements yeah
yeah okay it's in this set scroll down
to
uh the i want to say it's the last page
okay so these were uh drawings that we
did uh for the arb meeting just
to
maybe help
understand the scale of this because
renderings you know it's one perspective
and and of course these are one
perspective as well but it gives you an
idea of where that sits relative to the
sidewalk in the street
you know we're not proposing a grade
change for this it's on the existing
grade that exists there uh but you can
see the section from sidewalk and street
to the house and how that at the height
of the pool pavilion and its position in
the lot relates to that and if you look
at the basically the elevation on
clifton you can see
you know the
section through the pool pavilion
there and its relationship to height of
the house and you know overall height
and presence i guess we call it
um
and where it is so are those sidelines
from
what the trees
will be at planting
the sight lines there are for the trees
uh they're actually shown
from the landscaper that they're shown
at
shorter than they will be when they're
planted
by like six inches because we had to
check with them so but you'll see them
through the tops of them but you know
the that's just to the chimney piece for
a fireplace so that's
two feet taller than the rest of the
pool house itself
um
it's like one foot wide
so
just trying to you know we're proposing
this pull outs in this location we just
wanted to give some idea of you know
that as it relates to the public way um
and how that relates in section to
the site and the house
currently
all right let me interject something
here another issue
so
when we come to these meetings just for
everybody we don't know how many
numbers are going to show up there are
seven numbers on the board right there
yes so usually there's seven
four votes to
gain a
special permit or a variance
so tonight there just happens to be four
which is the bare minimum where i like
to move forward
so
if the case is you know there we go
three inches outside the side
to build a uh a sun room
i i don't mind sitting here and voting
on it
if
i don't have any idea whether the cases
are going to be controversial or not so
i get here and find out what the story
is and whether there's any neighbors
that are for poor or against them
whether the staff is necessarily going
to approve or disapprove or what issues
they're going to suggest
and
even though
and i have a feeling that this is
a slightly more controversial request
than
the average request here
and
even though
uh
if there were seven people here i would
refuse myself and i'd be sitting
if i'm not
and i was going to ask you about what
the
tiny issues are here in terms of
if this gets table there is no meeting
on december 23rd for fairly obvious
reasons
uh and it would be
shown to the 27th of january
earliest but it might be more
appropriate especially if all if we need
three votes here and it comes to me and
i will blast because i'm the chairman
and i cast the deciding book and i have
the connection
to your firm
which
i'll be in my brother's not our owner my
brother is still an active architect he
still does
uh work uh
and i hope you're paying the case i'm
not sure how that works but uh but
nonetheless uh i would be more
comfortable
uh tabling this
and not putting myself or frankly your
your client in the awkward position
having somebody vote who
has the appearance of
of connection to the
to their architecture
so there's a there's a
uh how does the board members feel about
it i'm not sure i just i didn't feel
about it but
um one question i would have and this is
saying for you this would strengthen
this out at the end until january 27th
um
you know i think it's a consideration
just because of the attendance this
evening yeah um it would be
from a timing standpoint not
too big of an issue um
you know certainly we want to work
through uh
the city's guidelines uh and processes
for this without
casting doubt uh on this similar i mean
i think we were here last month with
poor people
so yes it was yeah um
so i can understand that and i think
that you know
what what we are
looking at here
is
you know a proposal that was considered
and
uh
sort of unanimous unanimously approved
by the architectural for the arb um with
the same concerns that we're probably
thinking about tonight it's you know the
you know the massiveness of the
structure its position you know all of
those things are considered uh in the
arb just
from
uh
an aesthetic standpoint but also uh
issues that uh revolve around the city
right
um
you know in in the proposal that we're
putting forth from a zoning standpoint i
think that
you know for talking about
we're talking about two things right
we're talking about pool and a pool
pavilion um
all of the parameters around what the
guidelines for a pool and pool pavilion
for the city of bexley are met
but that's not the question right the
question is um so there's no you know
we're not asking for a variance on top
of variance let's say right what we're
trying to do is
uh put together a proposal answer
questions
due to the fact that
um
we we've dealt with uh sort of the
conditions that
uh came with house somewhat uh in the
property where the house sits you know
the i think you know these things are
brought into question uh or you know the
zoning code is set up because
if you want to have a pool in your yard
sure you can pull in yard if it's this
big this far from the side yard all
those things so what we're trying to do
is achieve some of the things in this
property that the owners
would like to do
for them their life their children
um
we're just dealing with a space that
happens to be in the front yard we're
certainly proposing this spot for a lot
of different reasons programmatically
with the house um
trying to bring it to the what space we
have on the interior of the block versus
the intersection
um and also making
this the structure that we're proposing
this as well you know not enclosed it's
open right it's
you know there's a core to it but it is
a
two areas of shape next to the pool so
it's definitely step down from what a
you know what we might imagine as a
typical pavilion or a pool house um
i don't sort of the issue here though
is not so much um
the architectural review board so looks
at things
there's
[Music]
permits and
i think that
what i don't want to do is i don't want
to
tinge the
process
with
a vote that is
got some
uh what what certainly some people might
regard as a direct connection with the
applicant and so
if it weren't so small i would just
refuse to do what we've
i think that's fair but i would rather
if we do table it and i i think that's
perfectly valid option so we have here
especially with
with just the
quorum issue
the question i have if we come back for
um
for tablets to come back to be able to
present the parameters and explain it is
the
the special permit aspect of this
uh i guess
clarification uh from the board and
staff
the special i'm unclear whether a
special permit is an option of the board
to act on for this or what it's a path
for them or
if there's an option to
not invoke a special permit and simply
act on the variances requested i
i'm just trying to kevin why is this
a special permanent case and number one
and number two
i think the board have to look at
1252.12 a
b
to
re-familiarize
ourselves with what are the
statutory requirements for a special
appointment
right and i think both those things
shall be required for an accessory use
or structure in residential r1r2 r3 r6
residential districts where the
principal structure deviates by more
than 20 from the established front yard
all those parameters right yes so this
is an appropriate special permanent case
and then
the
does the statute speak to what the
what the
criteria are like we have criteria for
branding of variance you know we read it
sometimes out loud
so that we can exposurize ourselves
the question is are there specific
statutory criteria for this special
permitting here and if so i think
everybody on the board would be
feeling more comfortable if they were
have recently read them and were
[Music]
someone in this type of situation but
they haven't even come in here and
requested that this be
addressed as if
as it's planted which
it would be too dreadful
that's another question
and and because i i
that's how i looked at the lot first
because i always like the way that
they're planning
but but when you
go
i think that's a better question for the
city's zoning council to answer that
question here you're saying and then we
run this bypass hand to make sure she's
uh going to be the person that i have
that she wouldn't and find out for her
what she thinks of the proper protocol
is and also she might be helpful in
giving board membership who will be here
for january
uh
an idea of some of the criteria that
especially
relative to this particular application
and i will say i i found the one
when we when she gave us that you know
statutory criteria when we were weighing
that really difficult case a few months
back it was really
helpful
to sort of just delineate what we were
really tasked to do
um because i think we went down a big
rabbit hole tonight
and the question we really that we we're
tasked to do is to ask if this
variant is appropriate how this house is
planted
and looking at
the history you know and what's been
come before it and what's appropriate
now i mean i just
i think i would benefit greatly from
hearing what she would what she would
say
as far as the criteria goes
and we've only had maybe
two other cases that i can recall
over 30 years
this is one of the more unusual lots
certainly one of the more unusual
and iconic buildings in the city of
mexico i think this is a case that
deserves
special attention because of the nature
of the unusual nature of this particular
request so
if you don't mind
no i think because of that
the
attendance in january may
set aside doubt or question if we're
presenting it again and takes a vote the
one thing i would ask is just for the
board not to drag this on anymore but if
we're going to come back in january to
talk about this um
if there's any outstanding questions
that you have that we did not cover
tonight so that
well elise can come ready to answer them
or answer them tonight just from what
we've heard um
thank you yeah i i appreciate that
because that was going to be my question
is if we had
um get some more clarification from um
miss cunningham
and staff if we could if we had any
further questions
uh because i think it's important to be
fair to both sides but i just want to
make sure that i'm not getting
distracted by what i'm
being asked to say
suggests that the
questions from board members to the
staff right and the staff can relay them
to the applicant forwarding
uh the city's uh great
attorney
and
that would be
protocol and i also want to make sure
that the
the neighbors have
um expressed any other concerns they see
with this
specific plan as proposed i think that
would be helpful also there's something
else that you know
yeah it's it's in it's in the landscape
set i think there's a picture of a
similar
uh water slide from that we're frozen
oh
it's either the last at the end of this
or on the uh sample
there it is
yeah
is
[Music]
well certainly
you know
we would prefer
to have a problem
obtain the property it's just a story
property
like studying
and i know when they did the
audition
they painstakingly tried to match the
architectural
integrity of this
[Music]
is how it impacts
us in our backyard
why we moved bestly and
bought our property to enjoy our
backyard
and
never dreamt that anything like this
would be put on that property and we
didn't come in and leave with that
because when they did the addition
um
they told us that
privacy was not an issue here and that
you know all our concerns didn't seem to
matter so that's why we didn't believe
that well we really would prefer not to
go to school
back there
so if the pool needs to be there because
they fill them a lot
all right so let me ask questions
[Music]
okay i think we're getting a good feel
for the situation because trevor you
have any problem with the with a uh
[Music]
yeah
yeah are you okay with the table yes i'm
okay with tabling just with the
statement that um
that the board
provides their questions to staff staff
so we can just
answer the right questions the next time
we come well the same thing goes with
the general public you get sort of call
staff right but for us we need to listen
to what's presented as evidence and then
see what the opposing evidence is and
when you make decisions we can't have
signed conferences with people right
about it
anymore hears the evidence or a jury
hears the evidence
they make their decisions based upon
only what they hear
at least that's the design of the
situation that's probably not the
reality that's what it's not
favor of uh taking this motion to
say hi
i understand all
opposed
all right matter of fact
i've asked the record question i guess
i should have asked this before but that
is there any known absences on the 27th
at this point
make sure
and i know yeah mayor is looking to fill
that position so
uh it just so happened that two people
were out of town business and the third
person resigned and that's the reason
why
well it's also it's not a typical day
right and and i definitely appreciate
the context of which we're talking about
it today too so i think moving ahead we
don't
want you know we want to be as clean as
possible right
yep
okay all right cool thank you
thank you for coming
to us
you're fine we've been here
business
is there any other business that any
member wants to bring before the board
and i would entertain emotion to adjourn
meetings