foreign
efficient
and he's awesome
everybody's ready
we'll call to order the January
2023 meeting of the Bexley Board of
zoning and planning
um Ms Rose you want to call the roll
please Mr King mayor Mr Levine here Mr
Marsh here chairman
I'm here too and so we have four members
which constitutes a quorum
uh we should probably note for the
applicants that when there are four
members present requires three votes in
order to achieve passage of any
application
so um which is slightly different than
when there were seven people here and
you only need four votes is you could
have three negative votes in that case
it's still win here you can only have
one negative vote uh and still achieve a
positive result for your application
so if anybody uh wants to table their
case for that reason we certainly would
at least entertain the possibility of
doing so depending upon what how many
people are here and what other issues
exist so
any indication of such I don't see any
all right
then let's uh move toward to the minutes
of the December 1st meeting which was
sort of a combination of the November
and December meetings and ask if there
are if anybody's had a chance to review
the minutes and if so uh are there any
additions or modifications Corrections
that anybody wishes to make
I see no indication of such can I hear a
motion to approve the minutes of the
December meeting so moved thank you Mr
Marsh second second thank you Mr Bond
uh all in favor of approval of the
minutes say I I all opposed
no the motion to approve them in its
passes unanimously
these statutes of the city of Bexley
allow for public commentary on the
general business of the board of zoning
and planning
if anybody wishes to make any such
comments you're welcome to do so but the
comments cannot be related to any
particular case that we have before us
tonight you'll get your chance to make
comments about cases when the cases are
actually called
anybody here to make a public comment
I see no indication of such so move on
to new business
the first
piece of new business is an application
numbered
bzap-22-46 involving 2366 Bexley Park
the applicant is Gary Alexander who I
see is here and the owner is Laura
Schick the applicant is a seeking
Architectural Review and approval of a
certificate of appropriateness from the
bzap to allow second floor expansion at
the rear of the principal structure the
applicant is also seeking a 0.3
foot we'll get that clarified variance
from Bexley city code section
1252.09 in the R6 zoning District which
requires an eight foot setback
from the side yard property to allow the
second floor expansion of the principal
structure which is located
7.7 feet from the east side of the
property line
all right Mr Alexander would you please
raise your right hand to be sworn
do you swear affirm that the testimony
you give this evening will be the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth I do thank you sir appreciate it
Kathy will you give us a little rundown
from the staff's perspective on this
application this property is located in
the R6 zoning District standard lot
sizes are 50 by 120 this lot itself is
50 by
141.7 the existing house is not is
non-conforming in that it sits 7.7 feet
from the East side property line
and the applicant is requesting to allow
a second story Edition above the first
floor portion of the at the rear of the
principal structure
at the same setback and this addition
further cantilevers beyond the rear wall
of the existing first floor
two and a half feet
which also adds a cover over the rear
entrance
so technically 0.03 I believe is three
and a half inch variants from the
uh eight foot side yard setback
requirement which is a minor variance
the proposed design did generate some
discussion at the ARB meeting related to
the connection of the cantilever along
the back of the structure that Karen
Boker may want to relay to the Boardman
discussion
sorry sorry
um yes we had some um comments and
conditions and um
some
the board has asked me to work with Gary
on the design of
of this kind of awkward piece but
because of what's existing we can get
into the architecture or not but the
board at the end of the day was
um very
um understood why it needed the variance
and why it needed to be done this way
because of the existing current
situation I think I have pictures of
should we let Mr Alexander address those
issues I think so
I think so Kathy do you have anything
else to add I do not okay first of all I
was approved Alexander it was approved
um and the only request was that we
looked at the bottom of the cantilever
so and that's not in the area where the
variance is so the the variance is
because we're trying to build on the
existing side walls The Logical way that
you would do in addition at the Second
Story and those that existing side wall
encroaches that three and a half inches
into the setback so it's just a factor
of building on top of that wall sure we
could set the wall back
but then you're going to have this
really awkward funny condition that I
have a feeling anybody on the
Architectural Review Board would say why
in the world are you doing that so it's
really a function of just what the
existing condition allows us to do
um because the low sloping roof it has
relatively little impact on the adjacent
property it's not a steep roof like the
existing house so
I don't think it has any adverse effects
on the neighbors
okay yeah and I apologize if I didn't
say it was approved with conditions I
meant to say approved but it was just
architectural details gotcha gotcha can
we look at the uh the design as opposed
to the photographs for a second
can you kind of
walk us through what you're doing up
there exactly and and point out on that
screen can you give Gary the a pointer
so he can
is that okay oh yeah sure I have a
drawing in the back too I could large
drawing I could bring up okay well that
way everybody can kind of see what we're
doing but I I hear what you're saying
for us can we go to the existing
resident where it shows the prop the
property line and the seven seven first
just I think that if if we start with
that it'll Orient people yeah that would
be helpful
yeah that's if you if you zoom in there
you go okay there you go yeah I think
this is you're right this is a good way
to good way to show it yeah there's
existing
so so the house is encroaching in that
eight foot the exist the house is an
existing condition it's already
encroaching into that eight foot
side yard set back and what you're
proposing is to maintain that sidewall
at the seven foot seven inch line
exactly we're just building on top that
on top that wall
okay
and and the alternative would be to have
that the eastern wall be three inches in
from the from from the wall below yeah
yeah okay
are there any questions for Mr Alexander
or comments about this
situations I believe the new state they
plan to paint the entire structure of
white yeah the whole of the addition the
additions being built on a flat roof to
previous editions are back there so the
historic Integrity of the house has
already been compromised by earlier work
in the back uh it's currently siding
it's not the original siding that's been
painted so the whole house is going to
be painted white when it's finished
okay
is there anyone in the audience that is
for or against this application which is
to speak
that has standing to speak
I see no indication of such
well can we call the question I think so
okay
um
will you read us the findings of fat and
conclusion of the law Ms Rose all right
and I'll also include the certificate of
appropriate yeah
yeah uh I think that makes the most
sense the findings impact and decision
of the board for application number
bzap-22-46 for property located at 2366
Bexley Park upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria to Grant an area of
variance in Mexico section 122611c have
been met and a 0.03 which is technically
a three and a half inch variance from
Mexico section 125209
be allowed for a second story Edition at
the rear of the principal structure
board further finds that
have to review the plans and
consideration of the application
evidence and testimony given
and the recommendation from the
architecture review board that a
certificate of appropriateness should be
issued subject to any Minor Details to
be reviewed and approved by the
residential design consultant
all right
um Mr Alexander does that meet your
clients needs and can you uh approve
that uh rendition of uh the findings we
would be in agreement with this one okay
um
do I hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
so moved March Mr Marsh is there a
second second Mr King
um
please call the roll
Mr Levine yes Mr King yes Mr Marsh yes
Mr chairman I also vote Yes the
application is approved
thank you very much
good work under uh unusual circumstance
there I think
all right the next uh item on the docket
is uh application
bzap22-47 involving 110 Stanwood the
applicant is Valerie house the owners
are Nathan render and Kyle Bender
uh the applicant is seeking approval uh
and review and distribute of
appropriateness to allow a new detached
garage which will replace the
existing detached garage the applicant
is also seeking a three foot variance
from Bexley city code section
1252.15 G1
which requires a three foot setback from
all property and right-of-way lines to
allow the garage to be three feet from
the side property line and eight feet
from the rear property line
and at the edge of the city right away
easement
all right
are you here tonight for this
application yes thank you would you
state your name I'm Valerie Helens
Valerie will you raise your right hand
do you swear or affirm the testimony
you're going to give this evening to the
panel will be the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth I
sure thank you very much
all right Ms Rose tell us a little bit
about this
is located in the R6 Zuni District
standard Lots 50 by 120. uh the
applicant would like to replace the
existing 18 by 18 detached garage which
has a flat roof and is located three
feet from the north side property line
and 15.2 feet from the rear property
line
there's also a shed located behind the
garage it's currently encroaching four
feet into the eight foot easement at the
rear of the property
the proposed 26 by 22 detached garage
would accommodate two full parking
spaces and some storage although it is
encroaching three feet into the required
setback from the easement the structure
will not be within the easement where
there is a city sanitary sewer the new
location of the garage is at the edge of
this utility easement so staff would
like to point out that it is an
improvement based on the fact that the
existing shed which currently encourages
four feet into that easement would be
removed
uh the ARB recommended that this case go
forward to the bza with the request to
remand the final design approval back to
the ARB this was based on the fact that
the applicant also has a separate ARB
application
for this property which they're seeking
design approval for a two-story addition
at the rear of the house the bza finds
it appropriate to Grant a variance for
the proposed location of the detached
garage they would like to make sure the
final design details for both projects
match
yeah I can expand on that attain a bit
thank you
um this
the garage in this plan that you're
looking at was was designed to match the
materials of the proposed addition to
the home and the board wasn't really
wanted to table it and work more on
different not so many materials and
simplify it and Valerie's been working
in fact I apologize I owe you a phone
call I was in meetings non-stop today
um so the idea was just to make sure
that you guys were okay with the
variants but that the design would the
materials it's a very simple design but
the materials would eventually match
what was approved on the house okay
this house why don't you tell us your
perspective on this and and why you're
approaching it the Way You Are why we
need to go so close to the utility
easement is one I think question sure
um so the one thing is we are making the
garage wider than they existing
um in order to get the two cars in
um and we're trying to follow the
existing driveway lines we don't have to
um completely redo everything there so
we're widening the garage minimal and
then we also want space from the
existing from the proposed Edition so
then it's not too close to the new
garage is not too close but the main
reason is
um in order to get the cars into the
garage
um if you can see by the illustration
there my site plan
it's kind of gets really tight and the
further we push it towards the house
um
so it's kind of the condition of trying
to get the cars inside the garage
without
um
you know completely changing
the the driveway
so you're three feet if I look at the
top of this drop we have the three feet
variance from the three foot the three
feet at the top you're okay there yep
we're good it's it's back here where the
cities
uh the utility easement is correct
utilities that you're right up against
correct
and there's also a shed that currently
sits in that easement
and I believe when this originally came
in we had it against the north property
line yeah and then she did pull it back
from the side property line but so we're
just asking for
um to be right against the easement so
then they can get storage
that's really what we're talking about
here isn't it it's really not the width
it's the depth of the garage
is
well right now the shed is right behind
the existing garage so you can see that
and we're removing that shed
um but
um you know when they're building a new
garage they'd like to have storage for
all of their bicycles Etc so
incredibly that's
the existing garage is um a flat topped
roof and it's 18 by 18. So currently
they can't even put their cars in their
garage because the
um due to the garage door height
and and you you can't get the garage
further in this direction whatever
direction that is then it gets really
tight to get your car into the garage
you need more room right it's it's a
kind of unfortunate condition because
they really need the storage as well
yeah see that I think you know you know
how many people in Bexley do not need
more storage in their garage none none
not one right actually I everyone loves
this stuff and so everybody would love
to build right up to the easement line
if they could just to get an extra five
or ten feet of storage space I mean
that's a problem for us from the
standpoint of creating
a precedent you know why do we let one
citizen build right up to the utility
line
when everybody in Bexley would like to
do so okay
yeah then we have the problem of why do
we even have a setback from a utility
easement I imagine there's reasons why
we have setbacks from utility easements
probably to allow the utilities to go in
there and do what they have to do to get
to the utilities if there were a problem
right
most of these lines sanitary sewer lines
their access through the manholes and
you know
it used to be that if there was an issue
with the sanitary line you'd have to
excavate and dig up the line yeah but in
most cases now we are
cameraing these lines finding damage
cleaning them out and then they now
sleeve the lines which can all happen
through these manholes yeah so it's not
as intense as if it would be if there
was the shed sitting over the East
that's certainly not a good situation no
right well that that would have to
but most most properties have an alley
in the back but a few of these we have
uh
places where there's no alleys that have
ever been improved but there's still
utilities there so yeah we tend to lose
a few of these where they we don't
realize there's easements back there
what if the Eastman is not an alley
it is not there is a sanitary line in
that easement
and there is a manhole at the end of
that
row of lots
well
would your would your clients
um
be
willing to
lose some of their storage space
yeah not really I think you're really
upset about that
um you know and then we've also talked
about why don't what if we move and have
the garage wider right and okay you know
um but then then they lose a lot of
their yard so it's it's you know um
a little tricky situation right there
I did share this I had a couple cases
like these on the agenda this evening
and I do share those with the uh
gentlemen that work in the sanitary
department and their main thing is that
they have access to the line which like
I said they access through the sewer
line through the manholes yeah yeah I
mean this is unique where the it's truly
an easement I mean the property owner it
you know looks like at one time this
could have been an alley or was planned
to be an alley but the alley was never
put in and then this utility easement's
there but you know I mean according to
that the plat they own to the past they
under the middle of what would have been
the alley so I guess and how why how
wide is that easement 16 feet it's 16
feet yeah and then typically they're 10.
yeah and if you like if you look at
there's a lot 105 they've they've
they're the back of their garage
goes right up to the easement as well
this is two two lots to the maybe to the
north and one to the east but it's
celebrated as lot 105 and it's at the
very top there yeah but you can see
where they're yeah that one you can see
where the East meant in the back of
there they've got like a little
appendage on the back that goes right up
to the I mean I I guess my feeling is if
the if the city isn't concerned about it
then I'd I'd be willing to Grant the
easement and and I'd also like to do a
little bit more research to find out in
fact why they required the three foot
setback and if it could be based on the
size of these easement depending on you
know when they all contain sanitary
lines you've got a 16 foot easement as
opposed to a 10-foot easement may not be
as an issue
is is the easement for underground lines
not overhead lines or something I mean
that is I I always I always check for
the sanitary lines because that's
usually a you know major utility and
there is there is a sanitary line in
this location you know I mean I mean the
other thing we could do is we could
I guess we could prove it and say that
they'd be at risk
to have to move it yeah
well I mean this is the kind of
situation though though if in fact all
these things are true which I'm sure
they are by the way I'm not questioning
your credibility there Kathy but that
now we use sleeves now we can go through
manholes now uh now building up right up
against the easement is okay then you
should do that
City councils should do that and they
should say in these situations we're no
longer going to require an eight-foot
setback
as opposed to the bzap saying okay let's
pick one situation out here
and these people want don't want to make
it wide as they don't want to lose their
backyard and we don't want to make it
less deep because we don't want to lose
storage and wow wow wow I hate to say
that but you know now we set a precedent
that basically we're acting like city
council and Maya perspective
even though I love your project I think
it makes a heck of a lot of sense
and it's well designed and everything's
beautiful about it but I think that that
the constriction of the law in the area
is a little rough for me as a voter I'm
only one vote my Jason even though I I'm
talking more than everybody else does
I mean technically you still wind up
with four inches of concrete in that
easement for the foundation footer
so because my setbacks are typically to
the wall
of the structure I know I know
well let's let me ask if there's anybody
in the audience that is for or against
this particular application get that out
of the way
no I see no indication of such
um members of the panel if you have any
questions on Miss Alice or any comments
or
comments about my comments
all right
standard version of the
County Auditors site that snapshot like
can you go to the county library site
yeah I think I think and I think in
aerial I think seeing on an area would
help
the other thought would be to
is to ask like a proven contingent upon
the is it the service director
fi you know final approval that they're
okay with it I mean clearly there is a
reason that there's this uh setback and
you know you you know if you want to get
equipment in there to work in the within
the easement sometimes you might have to
be three feet outside the easement to
perform work
um
and in this case based on the the size
of that easement whoops
people and right
make it not as yeah and and they may say
there's all there's they may say it's 16
feet wide and there's one sewer line
down the middle and they're not
concerned about that's not to say that
in the future they wouldn't want to
put put other utilities down there yeah
I mean I think that's a great point but
this is a 75 year old easement
you know that would probably be a pretty
different process to do the type oh my
gosh I mean you do find fences in
easement but fences can be yeah removed
yeah
is
typical utilities there's an alley that
stops right below it
yeah
it stops yeah yeah to the to the to the
South oh is that right yeah I don't know
how far you want me to go which unit is
it which we're right there so it's just
I'm just kind of curious to see
what no I think you're right because
Ellie stops at Powell that's where the
alleys stops and then that's where the
easement starts so on the other side of
the alley they have a little Gap
right in between here and here and here
and here and here and here but you can't
tell that's two feet five feet eight
feet on this
and what um on the on the two Parcels to
the South there's there are those
there's like a
yeah what's happening there
what this is true yeah is that like a
separate parcel in between that
I think it's a driveway right Kathy it
could be
you're talking about that right here
yeah what is that yeah yeah who knows I
mean it could be a driveway yeah
it looks like do you know what that is
it's not if you click if you click on
that parcel what does this say or the
red line
yeah know where the red it's a separate
person okay
I'm like I I don't know it's not there
can you oh because they vacated and you
turn on the the aerial view that's what
happened yeah evictated that alley and I
wonder if both those Parcels are in that
same common name possibly
I sure hope so yeah there is a subject
property yeah yeah that's a good look at
it yeah
yeah they parked their car there on
purpose to show us the angle to get it
so what do we have we have a fence in
there somewhere maybe yeah it was
offensive there's offense dividing there
property from lots of big trees lots of
lots of big trees
yeah this I mean that's a 16 foot
easement just because of the fact that
there was never an alley or it was
vacated so or it was never improved so
that is a large easement oh it's
definitely large easement just perfect
for Sydney Council to say if there's a
large event that's unnecessary we'll
change the setback no but it's worth
investigating Patrick you like this
though
one is not exclusive of the other even
if you approve of this it is something
Kathy and I will put on our list so to
bring up sure that needs to be brought
up yeah
would you would you be comfortable with
us saying that we're gonna if if if the
board was to approve it that we make
that it's contingent upon the service
director approving it or do you think we
shouldn't do that
subject to confirmation that it's not
yeah confirmation that it's not going to
disrupt a city city services that if a
problem occurred there
that building that garage right up to
the easement is not going to affect city
services and in some cases there's whole
harmless agreements also that could be
signed the what the whole term harmless
agreement like if somebody wants to put
a retaining wall in an in a easement
along the sidewalk and they'll sign the
whole harmless agreement because it's in
city right away so the city's not liable
if there's any issues that come from
that
no no she's not going to be able to
answer that question here I don't think
I don't think you're a lawyer are you
you're you look like more of a design
type person and a lawyer yeah and I saw
that you're I saw your name on here so I
knew you were a design type person and
I'm guessing this this final approval is
still subject to a reman back to ARB
yeah right okay if that's what they want
right yes in this case yeah they do
I mean
to you can take your chances on getting
a vote here any way you want believe me
that's up to you to decide maybe you
need to run that by your clients to
decide whether they want to take their
chances on a vote because if you don't
get it then you're gonna have to come
back with another design that doesn't
infringe on it or go to city council try
to get them to change the law
God bless you on that one in terms of
getting it done in the next millennium
but I don't say that to be
derogatory in any way of city council
but just the whole process of changing a
statute is more rigorous than coming
here to get a variance right
right clarify myself before I get in
trouble with all the city council people
um we would like to proceed with a vote
okay
um
can I can I ask one more question
um how many instances
are there of this where it's very
clearly an alley I mean you're worried
about precedent which I think we all
respect but is this like a totally
one-off in Bexley there's there's others
there's other locations
it was has a we should have had an alley
and doesn't have an ally well I don't
know but I've never had an ally
just never
yeah like that happens I mean Brentwood
and city park and right North right
there between Brentwood and Bexley Park
there's no alley in between
right also true yeah and and there are
they have to go through the manholes to
get to anything and yeah so they come in
your backyard and they bring all the
equipment into your yard in order to get
to the but that's the way it just ended
up happening on those streets you know
or if they submit a sight plan that
doesn't indicate that there's an
easement because we don't always do
easement research every time somebody
submits something you've got 20 cases
you're going through and yeah you know
she's brought in the original it did
bring in document that shows that he's
been and how large it is
foreign
of course I would
well
um
I mean we can always call the question
vote on it I I think that
that your client should be notably
making a decision here that says they're
they don't want to cut the depth of the
garage which they could do
easily here or the or increase the width
of the garage which they could also do
without further variance is that true or
not
they could go into their own backyard a
little further they're not going to get
any problems with the yard coverage are
they
of course I asked you that question
without any numbers which is not fair
question to ask you so did you
understand I'm saying she could widen
the garage
without variance
right
it wouldn't be able to be accessible by
a vehicle well but they use it for
storage I mean the back part of the
garage is also not accessible then it
just changes the Aesthetics so then your
drive your garage door would be offset
so there would be ecstatic
aesthetic you know things that come into
play yeah you know my brother's an
architect and I'm a lawyer and he's a
lot more interested in Aesthetics and
I'm more a lot interested in the law you
know it's funny how that goes you know
it's like you know it's the complicates
them yeah no I I that example it's going
to make your job more difficult to
figure out what the best way to do that
is I hear that and it may not be a good
way to do it yeah
well anyway I I don't know I think we've
got a pretty good idea of what we're
voting on right
and and I'm hearing
a
suggestion at this point that we make
the grant if we Grant
a variance in this case there's two
variances right let's see there's no
there's a script of appropriateness yeah
and and one variance right not even a
certificate appropriateness because we
would ask that you remanded back to the
architecture again okay
so that it be conditional upon the city
service director uh approving
the the location of the garage right up
against the easement does not disrupt
city services disrupt or even I think
yeah
uh negatively substantially interfere
with
you know
or materially interfere with
not as much as the current situation
well the current situation I don't know
who let that happen but you know that's
not our that's not our job at this point
to figure that one out somebody let
somebody put a shed back I think the
shed was pretty well hidden from the
general public when they put that back
there probably wasn't your owners it was
probably a prior owner that thing didn't
look like it was brand new no no shed
so
all right I mean you know it's it's
a
interesting is one way to put it and
probably difficult case from the
standpoint of
um
do we have to look at the particulars of
this case and what the owners are asking
for in terms of what the the variance is
a reasonable uh request so we have
guidelines as to what we have to follow
as to what when variances are
appropriate and this the we go over them
frequently so I don't know if we need to
go over them today but
um
we could if you would like to anybody on
the panel would like to but I think uh
the statute says
you know it's not the things that people
think it it is that make a variance
something that is something we can grant
it's a set of standards that uh
uh are all to be regarded or considered
none of them are conclusory
so anyway uh if we're
if you would like us to call the
question as opposed to seeing whether
there's another alternative I mean
you're going to be going back to the
um to the
uh Architectural Review Board anyway I'm
not sure if it doesn't
behoove you to see what the service
director says in advance and to see if
your clients are willing to give on any
of the uh spatial issues but
you know it's kind of a gambling thing
if you lose tonight I I think what has
to happen is you have to reapply
put a new deposit down and here we go
you know then you're a couple months
down the line before you get back here
so it's it's not like it's
you know
it's not like it's without consequence
if you lose
so I just trying to be I mean if you
were a lawyer you know I just ramrod you
here but since you're a designer I'm
sure you're gonna help you think through
what you're doing
and and you're speaking on behalf of
clients so it's really their decision
not yours I'm not sure so you need some
time to do that I mean are you going to
get started on this project in February
or March anyway
what we're hoping to whenever we can
right sure
so
um but you need concrete and you need
stuff like that they're not going to lay
Concrete in the middle of February
probably yeah unless you have a
beautiful day and they put a bunch of
calcium in it yeah
um
I think I'd like about
okay
all right let's call the Kathy can you
read us findings of fat and conclusions
the law the findings the fact and
decision of the board for application
number
bzap-282-47 for property located at 110
South Stanwood upon consideration of the
application proposed variance at
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria to Grant an area
variance in Mexico in section 1226 11c
have been met and a three foot variance
from Mexico section 1252.15 G1 to allow
a new detached garage
to be located at the edge of an
eight-foot easement in the rear yard
with the condition that there will be
confirmation from the city service
director that the location does not
substantially affect city services
and that the certificate of
appropriateness returned to the
architecture review board for review and
final determination and all improvements
and modification shall be in compliance
with the certificate of appropriateness
approved by the ARB
and did you did you maybe I missed it
there did you put the condition that uh
Mr Marsh brought up in into the wording
yes I I missed I missed that section I'm
sorry I was reading here and I didn't
hear everything you said I apologize do
you want me to read that just read that
section information from the service
director that the location
of the new garage does not substantially
affect city services
okay
is everybody satisfied with that wording
yep
Miss house are you satisfied with that
wording as well from your client's
perspective okay thank you
all right do I have a motion to approve
the findings of fat and conclusions of
law
so move Marsh
please a second
second second Mr behind
his Rose please call the roll Mr Marsh
yes
Mr King yes Mr Levine yes
chairman B Hall I vote no but the
variance is granted okay and uh good
luck with your project thanks
next case before the board is
application bzap-22-49
involving 2456 Fair Avenue the applicant
of Scott Baker the owners are Anthony
and Veronica Bradley I think we were
going to
Valerie has two cases of the agenda this
evening oh she does
well is everybody okay if we skip to her
next case or
everybody that's in here does anybody
have to get out of here or have some
other exigency
all right then uh let's skip down to
application
bzap22-51 381 South Drexel
the applicant is Valerie house again and
the owner is Sarah luck the applicant is
seeking Architectural Review
approval of certificate of
appropriateness
and
planning for a new pardon me a state of
appropriateness for a new detached
garage which will replace the existing
attach garage
the applicant is also seeking variances
from Bexley city code section
1252.15 A our favorite code section
which requires a three foot setback
three foot side yard setback to allow
the detached garage to be two feet from
the side property line and also to allow
the garage to be 78 square feet greater
than the 720 square foot size limit
all right
you were sworn in earlier but on each
case we got to be careful what we do so
if you don't mind raising your right
hand you swear affirm that the testimony
you're about to give is the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth I
do thank you so Kathy give us a little
staff background on this application
please okay this is in the R3 zoning
district and a standard lot size is 90
wide by 160 deep
uh
the original garage at this location had
a flat roof of the parapet wallet the
front the new design has a gable roof
which meets The Ridge in height limits
Ridge and Eve height limits the
applicant was before the ARB board and
originally proposed a new garage two
feet from the side property line the
board advised that the applicant could
consider a three-foot setback and the
applicant has since modified the plan
and will meet the three-foot side yard
setback
Mexico section 1252 a provides different
size requirements based on the size of
the lot if the lot is 14 400 square feet
or greater the maximum building
footprint for an accessory structure is
720 square feet
um
the the next step up for garage sizes is
a lot 24
000 square feet or greater and that
would allow a 936 square foot garage
this lot is 17
731 square feet the proposed structure
is 798 square feet the variance request
is to allow the proposed garage to be 78
square feet over the limit
to place this in a different perspective
the total building footprint is limited
to 35 percent of the lot with the
proposed new garage the total building
footprint will be at 15 of the lot Which
is less than half the total allowed
if the board finds the variance to be
acceptable the ARB requested a remand
back to the ARB for final design review
okay
Ms Boker that pretty much summed it up
okay and we did encourage
the applicant to move it
at least one of the variances so we're
only looking at one and I convinced yeah
good
okay
Valerie tell us a little bit about why
you decided to put everything where you
did
um yeah so really the the
um you know the only variance that we're
looking at right now is the size the
footprint of the garage so
um you know code
um is recommends 720 square foot but
um as cat
um Kathy Rose indicated we are asking
for over that for 798 square foot for
our garage so it's a three-car garage
um and if you just do the calculations
for code
um it's you know five percent of the
total lot and ours is 4.5 of the total
lot
so if you're looking at just lot size
we're within that but there's a range
obviously to zoning um
so that's really our case
in order to get a three-car garage that
will fit three cars it needs to kind of
be over 720 square feet
okay
so really the plan that you're looking
at right now is not the most current
plan okay
um yeah and I think I did upload
it's whether that'll show today
our current plan
um has the three foot off the South
no
[Music]
um
I have a hard copy right here you know
why don't you pass that around here did
you put it on Dropbox Kathy I thought I
did
I saved it under there it shows the
garage being clearly at three feet so
now question up is three feet nine
inches I think at one yeah
so it's three feet and then from the
setback is three foot nine now oh I'm on
the wrong case there you go there you go
yeah what's on our screen
matches would yeah yeah
so really the variances for the size of
the garage
and why the extra what is it 78 square
feet for what reason
um so this is they have a family of six
and they have lots of equipment and they
know that they're going to have more
than two drivers so they're just
thinking ahead if they're going to make
the investment in their garage they
wanted to
you know put in something that would
accommodate their needs
in the future
720 is the
new number right
yeah 720 yeah they're now based on size
of the lot in that zoning districts
right so the size of the lot for that
code is 14 400 bit ours this lot size is
17 731.
and then the next step up doesn't occur
until you're like twenty four thousand
twenty four thousand yeah
so the it's 14 below that the 14 to 24
is roughly the the range yes yeah
and maybe if you go to the where it
shows the parcel map it shows how deep I
mean that Lots it's really to almost 260
feet deep
is that on here it's was that yeah I
also have it there if you just yeah if
you I guess you can zoom in on the on
the parcel map there it's
looks like it's 60
60 70
it's 68. it's already 250.
the picture up at the top 250.
yeah and then you look at that lots of
the north what is that almost looks like
two houses around now
I I guess it shows up better in my staff
report I have a site claim that it is a
shared driveway
right am I right
um there's a fence so I think it's
shared to a part portion of it oh yeah
yeah
Franklin County auditors if you pulled
up the
mapping
looks like the
lot to the north has a
another large size garage
foreign
I mean I I don't have a big concern
about it I mean to build a three-car
garage and again I mean that that's the
large it's a very deep lot so I think
it's proportional with what the code's
calling for so I I don't have a concern
about it it's actually under proportion
yeah
yeah yeah I don't even know what that is
really big
wow is there anyone in the audience
that's for or against this uh
application that would like to speak
I don't see any indication of such
um
you know
once again
you should put this on your list
that
if in fact the size of the lot
that we're trying to distinguish between
14 000 square feet and 24 000 square
feet Lots
as to whether we should not have garage
size restrictions the city council ought
to look at it and and say yeah that's
right if it's a big lot like that then
720 feet doesn't make any sense
as opposed to us setting a precedent
that now every time somebody wants to
build a big garage on a big lot that
we're going to have to let them do it
I I I'm wary of these kinds of things
you know and maybe unnecessarily wary
because it's not going to be the end of
the world if they build this big garage
there but
I mean
just just have an 18 foot Ridge it does
and nine foot Eve
so
to further put it into perspective if
this is allowed to have a 720 foot
square foot garage with a maximum height
of 20 feet this one's 18 feet Eve height
of 10 feet this is nine feet so they are
meeting the standard for a lower lot
size as far as height and ease so
because you step up to the next larger
upscale and they can go 25 feet in
height so I guess they're respecting the
height
so it's simply more of a massing issue
as far as with
and death
okay a question is that dry well of any
consequence uh in any of this is I'm not
sure I know what that means yeah of
course so the drywall is
um so for the drainage from the root
um is going to be draining into the dry
well instead of the hot like the expense
of having it kind of piped to the street
because of the site would be super
costly so this is a good alternative and
basically it's like a gravel well that's
six feet by six feet and then you can
plant grass over that
um we worked it out with a contractor of
not having this is like a good solution
and that is an existing is that a a well
that has gone dry is that am I
interpreting that basically
pushing some place for the water to go
so basically being absorbed with this
gravel mixture by the six feet but like
from like if you look at their backyard
it'll look like just grass yeah we're
not worried about how it looks you can't
worry about it I'm just is there is that
of any consequence to any of this no I
mean how many lots have wells on them
and Bexley I'd be curious to know so
it's basically um it's written that's an
alternative not not for domestic purpose
yeah but they certainly could for like a
garden and as long as this doesn't
create a drainage issue for the
neighboring properties it's it's
acceptable and it's green right for
whatever it's worth used to live about
eight houses south of there and all
those yards in on Drexel are just a fill
up with water so yeah we're trying to
not have that happen yeah essentially is
the existing garage built through the
property line the existing garage is
built um 0.7 feet from the property line
so it's almost on the property line
so it's approaching us at that correct
the existing garage and the new one is
fix it correct
okay
any other questions or comments for
members of the board
if not
can we have the findings of patent
conclusions along a fact and decision of
the board for application number
bzap-22-51 for property located at 381
South Drexel upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testing money before it the
board finds the applicant has proven the
criteria to Grant an area variance to
Mexico section 12 2611c have been met
and a 78 square foot variance from
Mexico section 1252.15 A to allow a 798
square foot detached garage to replace
the existing garage
copy granted with the condition that the
certificate of appropriateness returned
to the architecture review board for
review and final determination and all
improvements and modifications shall be
in compliance with the certificate of
appropriateness approved by the ARB
all right any problems with that
gentlemen
I think it's fine Ms Alice you uh is the
reading of the bindings effect
acceptable to you and your clients yes
okay thank you very much
uh do I have a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law
still moved do I hear a second
second Marsh thank you
um
Kathy please call the roll
uh Mr Levine yes Mr King yes Mr Marsh
yes chairman B Hall
you know either my vote makes the
decision or means absolutely nothing so
this is a little bit of a vanity vote
but I vote no because I don't want to
establish a precedent and so I want
people to watch this vote to understand
that these aren't just uh slam dunks
but nice design nice work thank you very
much thank you you have your variance is
granted
all right now we'll go back up to the
proper order and I apologize and I uh
thank those who uh got knocked down the
line a little bit there this is
application number
bzap22-49 involving 2456 Fair Avenue the
applicant of Scott Baker and the owners
are Anthony Veronica Bradley the
applicant is seeking Architectural
Review and and approval of a student of
a certificate of appropriateness for a
covered porch at the rear of the house
and a new detached garage which will
replace the existing attached garage the
applicant is also seeking variances from
back to the city code section
1252.15 to allow a new detached garage
to be 2.2 feet
or two feet two inches I think it is
actually from the side property line
uh six feet from the rear property line
and at the edge of a six foot easement
and an 18 foot 10 inch overall height
and eaves that exceed nine feet in
height
I'm not sure if I've got all those
correct but you can help me with that
later
do you uh want to raise your right hand
please
Mr Baker do you uh uh swear or affirm
that the testimony you give the board
this evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth I do
thank you very much Kathy please give us
the staff's report on this matter
this property is located in the R6
zoning District standard lot size is 50
by 120. this flat in question is 80 by
132. the existing garage is a 21 by 22
which is 466 square feet and is located
2.1 feet from the East side property
line so it's encouraging 10 and a half
inches and 5.3 feet from the north rear
property line and encroaches nine and a
half inches into the easement the new
garage is to be 21.5 feet by 21 feet
with a 17 foot by 6.2 foot side storage
Bay for a total of 563 square feet it is
proposed at two feet two inches from the
side property line
so it's encouraging 10 inches and six
feet from the rear property line
encroaching three feet into the setback
but not encroaching into the easement
the height of the garage is 18 feet 10
inches measured from grade which is 10
inches over the height limit
and the eaves are nine feet excuse me
nine inches over the nine foot height
limit
there is also a porch Edition proposed
at the rear of the principal structure
requires design approval only the ARB
has recommended design approval on their
consent agenda list for both the
addition and the garage with the garage
being subject to the Zone review and
approval
although the garage is slightly larger
it encroaches slightly less than the
existing garage
okay
Karen excuse me the architecture review
board did these uh voted on this
application as a consent agenda item
unanimously okay
that's helpful
all right
Mr Baker tell us why why we're doing all
these things and
what you'd like us to approve yeah three
flat roof garages all in a row huh
here's your third so existing flat roof
garage you know it's structurally
needing some work
um and the owners just looking to remove
the garage and build a new garage and
pretty much the same location we have
the same issue as the first application
you saw that we're proposing right up
against the rear easement where they had
a 26 foot deep garage we've got a 21
foot
two inch deep garage and where they had
about 30 feet between the garage you've
got in the house we've got about a
little less than 12 feet so parking on
this has a been a real challenge you can
only really successfully use one day of
this garage so you know I I don't like
the existing garage is too complimentary
of the house we were hoping to you know
match roof pitches match you know the
style of the house that's kind of what
we've we've got here
um we're a little tall we tried to break
the massing up with the storage shed as
being a shed roof off to the side keep
our Ridge down
um and then ideally we're asking to not
push the house any further from the West
property line than it is today
just because parking you can see half
the half the garage is behind the house
and it's only 12 feet from the house
so parking is a real big challenge
so this is along an easement that is
actually 12 feet six six feet on this
lot six feet on the lot behind it
um
well here I was arguing about precedence
and we have a case 10 minutes later you
know funny how it goes I don't remember
one like this ever my last easement was
16 feet yeah much bigger yeah much
bigger
this one is no no the other one oh the
first one yeah yeah
right all right members of the board any
questions or comments
um
so what you have in parentheses here so
the the the variance from the side
property line is 10 inches
of variance
the
rear property line is
three feet
of variance from what the code would
require and the height is 10 inches of
variance from what the code would
require
and I get that all right
I think the easements in the back and
it's a side that's a 10 inch variance
because it's two and a half
yeah and I think it's a 10 and
oh yeah nine yeah attendance variance
yep yep and then you have the the eaves
are nine inches higher than permitted
all right is there anybody in the
audience that is for or against this
application
I see one hand please wait real quick is
is you mentioned three things there's
there's four right yeah did you okay all
right then I then I came back and I set
it up I forgot about the heights of the
eaves yeah I hate the eaves
thank you it's all right uh ma'am would
you come forward or anybody else who
wants to speak
what is your name please Elana Specter
Alana do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're going to give this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes and
can you tell me what is your
relationship to this location uh we live
at 2444 Fair Avenue so we are that West
okay just checking one house or two one
one yeah directly so we would be on the
other side of the fence where you have
that 10 inch easement that they're
talking about okay very good that helps
us a lot so you certainly have standing
here and and I needed to establish that
but would you tell us what your
perspective on this application is we
have no objection we're fine with it
okay
that was that was quick and easy wasn't
it yeah do you need anything else I know
we don't need anything else thank you
very much
[Laughter]
is there anybody else that I didn't want
to miss anybody else uh okay thank you I
don't see any indication of any other
people here on this case
all right
members of the board any other questions
about any of the of the four requests
here
like and you talk to me about the height
and the eaves and why they need to
exceed you mentioned the
um character of the house and matching
can you elaborate on that yeah we're
trying to stay in keeping with the roof
pitch of the house which is how we got
Too Tall
um I think we can work with the roof
height I think we can pull those 10
inches out
I think this is the location of the
garage is going to be our critical
issue here
there were two measurements on there
that were a little confusing because one
was measured from top of block yeah
where the other one was from the grade
and typically it's from grade okay and I
think if I
think if I fix one I fixed both
well let me see
yeah the eve showed from the top of
block but the red showed from grade
you're welcome
yeah and what's your maximum E5 18 I'm
sorry what's your maximum Eve yeah nine
yeah I fix one I fix both
if I bring it down 10 inches I can I can
get both
and I'm happy to work with with Karen in
doing so
yeah I'm fine with that if this board
the I think the architecture review
board passed it as a consent because
it's such a small structure that the
pitch matching the house was
architecturally preferable but that then
therefore needs a variance so if you
would like him to lower it I'm fine with
that being a stipulation that he works
with me on it and ARB won't have if it
goes back or
there will be no issue with them if
there is no you you guys um are the
deciding board so they're just giving
you a recommendation ultimately it's
your decision
um I mean I guess technically you could
send it back to them remanded back to
them but I I honestly I've been with the
Kathy and I've been doing this a very
long time they're not gonna have a
preference they what they're saying is
although usually a very steep pitch like
this that matches the house makes a
garage Too Tall it doesn't in this
condition because it's such a small
garage
it's only 21 by
and if it's on a consent agenda that
means that they're all on board with the
design
did you speak to the consequence for
your design
to eliminating engagements for the
setback currencies
for the setback variances
I mean if we
we don't get the variance to the West
what's that 10 inch variance and we're
just pushing the garage 10 inches
further you know to the East and right
now they're having a hard time parking
in their garage which is we're proposing
to put the new garage so the further we
go to the right or to the east the
further we're pushing behind the
existing house making it just difficult
to park
see one
but what about the reason of the uh in
the rear being up against the user yeah
do you guys have 10 foot setbacks from
house to garage yes so if I push if I
push the garage forward to get the three
feet off the easement I'm gonna need
another variance to put the garage
closer than 10 feet to the house but
again the closer to the house the harder
it is to park so this garage is just in
a tough spot
this is actually this one probably does
have the I want to use the right word
practical difficulties
well
it how does the depth of the garage I
mean obviously the garage has some
storage area there or
third car area yeah
so if you were to come back off the
easement
um how far do they have to come back off
that easement uh three feet yeah what
does that do to you to the depth of the
garage yeah I mean I would say most
most new houses that we do we don't go
less than 22 feet on the depth of a
garage from out to out I usually aim for
24.
um the previous one that you saw was 26.
we're at 21 foot two
so we're just trying to not get any
closer to the existing house or trying
this to get out of easement we're there
a foot into the easement today
I'm sorry the the current garage is
about a foot into the existing easement
the utility easement yeah utility
easement I'm sorry if you look at the
auditor overview like you did the first
one it looks like every garage down
their side of the road and behind them
is all probably within either the
easement or right up on it you can't
stop the judge the auditor but they're
all super close
and we pull that up just to look at that
you're you're a great if you want it
might be one of those attachments I have
in there too as well
24.56 uh yes
24.50 Fair Avenue
thank you for not making me flip back
yeah
I can't confirm that the easement runs
all the way down between all those lots
but I bet you I mean typically they do
you can see all those garages are really
close
we know that our we know the existing
garage is about five feet
from the rear property line which is a
foot into the easement all the other
ones look the same or closer
yeah it's hard to tell how close they
are also here it is yeah the auditor is
not the best representation but no I
don't know right yeah that's the
property line there but it doesn't look
like a single one of those is nine feet
from the property line which would be
you know what we're required to do right
right
they're all pretty close the fence right
on it probably yeah
anything else you want on
the look at here yeah it's quite helpful
all right do we have the going back to
the height issues
well we prefer that he allow is allowed
to keep the pitch identical to the house
pitch and thereby need to be higher and
the ease be higher
or
have him withdraw those requests for
variants and knock the garage down so
he's not asking for those two height
variances but have a garage that the the
the pitch of the roof will not be uh
comporting with that of the house
I'll
probably lower the Wall height I'll
probably keep the roof pitch the same
okay
well that that would be I mean I I think
the fewer requests that you make the
easier you're going to have a good time
getting three votes just because once
again all this is presidential setting
stuff and we've got to be careful what
we're doing see
so would the board feel more comfortable
if you can reduce the wall size to to
get rid of the two height variances
in terms of voting I think I would
rather approve two variances than four I
mean okay we would be willing to do that
okay okay
you need to run it by your clients are
you okay you already did you're a fast
fast guy he worked fast
um
Rick anything you want to add to it or
okay I'm good Brian I would just comment
that I don't think that change in height
is going to make it match any less the
materials are going to be great the most
important thing yeah okay
all right
well with that in mind I'm stalling here
to give Kathy a chance to modify her
findings of fat and conclusions of law
I'm winging it but
Kathy can you give us
a reading please sure the findings of
fact and decision of the board for
application number
bzap-22-49 for property located at 2456
Fair Avenue upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven the
criteria
to Grant an area variance in Mexico
section 122611 c have been met and
a 10 inch variance
from the side property line and a three
foot variance from the
rare easement
in accordance with Bexley code section
1252.15
should be granted to allow for a
detached garage which will replace the
existing detached garage
the board further finds that
have to review the plans in
consideration of the application
evidence and testimony given and the
recommendation of the architecture
review board the board finds that the
certificate of Apartments should be
issued subject to final design changes
with the modifications discussed
discussed are subject to review and
approval by the design consultant
what should be the lovely Ms bowcar here
on my left
yeah the previous case we attached that
condition
I think it would be
in other words and also subject to
confirmation from the service director
that the location
does not
substantially affect city services
correct
are you okay with that additional
wording I am Kathy are you checking with
the service director yes okay
everybody on the board okay with that
change of wording yes
modification of The Vinings effect
conclusions of law
in that case I would
entertain a motion to approve
the findings in fact conclusions of law
so moved Marsh thank you Mr Marsh second
second thank you Mr King
Kathy please call the roll
Mr Levine yes Mr Marsh yes Mr King yes
chairman B Hawk
you know I already voted once on this so
I can't change my vote I vote no again
because I don't want to set a precedent
that you can build right up against
these utility easements
but nonetheless
the application is successful and you
have your variants so good luck it's a
nice project good design and we
appreciate your cooperation there and
try to think your way through these uh
issues for us thank you thank you
foreign
the next case is case
bzap22-50
and it involves 2831 Dale
the applicant is the Ryan brothers
landscaping Mr Pat Ryan and the owner is
Matthew gold the applicant is Seeking a
variance from Bexley city code section
126403b
which limits offense to 48 inches in
height
to allow us the existing 48 inch high
fence to be replaced with a six foot
high fence
uh replacing an existing four foot fence
and located two feet six inches from the
East side property line
the applicant is also seeking a variance
to allow the driveway to be expanded an
additional four feet in width
all right
gentlemen
State your names please Pat Ryan Matthew
gold gentlemen do you saw me swear that
or affirm that any testimony give the
board this evening will be the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes yes thank you very much Kathy tell
us what the staff's position on this
matter is and I and I'm not sure that I
read those fence things too well or
maybe it's not written too well maybe I
didn't read it too well but I'll clarify
the the six foot versus four foot
problem there okay
so this property is near Six zoning
District standard Lots 50 by 120 the
slot is 62.5 feet by 129 feet
and has an existing fence that they
would like to modify and move
this corner lot is platted to Dale to
the north okay the driveway is off of
South Gould and requires a 25-foot
setback
from the property line along gold for a
fence over 48 inches in height
there's an existing 48 inch high fence
and it graduates up to six feet high
as it runs along the South property line
it is also seven feet behind the City
walk along Gould
this the proposed fence is six feet in
height and the location would place it
one foot closer to the sidewalk along
gold
to provide it also provides a two and a
half foot wide space for planting bed
between the fence and the property line
and the property line is three and a
half feet behind the city sidewalk
there's also a five foot easement along
the rear South property line and it
appears that the existing fence runs
along the north edge of that easement
so I know there was some discussion
about you know trying to get more space
into the rear yard and
uh as I said you will find fences in
easements because they can be removed
when there's access that needs to happen
and those typically aren't an issue as
long as there's access provided uh
the purpose of the relocation and height
change of the fence
okay is to gain yard space
um
the applicant would also like to expand
the width of the driveway by four feet
Mexico section 126201 e limits a
driveway to 12 and a half feet in width
the existing driveway is 16 feet wide
currently and lines up with the 16 foot
wide garage door
I've suggested that they just expand the
drive beyond the city's sidewalk so
behind the city sidewalk but the
applicant is interested in widening the
approach as well
um they've got two examples to include
the different views one showing just the
expansion behind the sidewalk the other
with
um
a radius there's currently like an
angled concrete the approach is not to
code in that it's simply angled from the
sidewalk to the curb the board could
allow the drive only to be widened and
tapered back to the width of the
existing approach however if the board
allowed the approach to be widened to
match the four
what driveway expansion I would request
that a three foot radius for the
approach as shown in the last site plan
number two
I would also like to add that if the
fence is extended to the South property
line it may need to be angled at the
corner to provide a clear view of the
pedestrian traffic for the car exiting
the driveway just south of this property
line so there's side yard above the
front yard of the neighbor to the South
right there above the hand
is where you're talking about an angle
yes
up above all right so that was a
question I had are you proposing to
move the fence to the South property
line
sorry say it again Kathy are you
proposing to locate the new fence on the
south property line that runs along the
neighborhood property line would stay
and then we would just get the four foot
tall to the six foot tall and move it
back towards the sidewalk one foot but
you're not moving that existing fence
any further south no no no that's okay
well then that would give them the
clearance for the neighbor to see when
backing out of the drive we sat with my
concern so actually
um there's probably photos shown in here
Karen in your staff report
this yes
and they they have six foot tall or ten
foot tall are providing that are
existing on their property line anyways
so would not obstruct their line of
sight any more than it already does so
they're they're removing they want to
remove this fence and the new fence is
going to be pushed three feet further
away from the edge into that garage
because right now when you pull in the
drive you're going to open a door into
that bush or into that fence so that's
where they're looking to add the four
foot additional concrete
to allow easy access in and out of the
cars and whether the board if they allow
that if they want that into in a
different material so it isn't as much
of an expansion of concrete
and then they would like to raise the
height of that fence to six feet and
provide Landscaping in front of that yes
now the new fence do you show opening in
the top portion of that fence because
that's usually a standard I believe we
do on the rendering if not that's
something that we're uh I mean I think
you want that right it's typically the
board requires uh any 12 to 18 inch span
across the top or top portion being
lattice yes something like this
all right so
um
Kathy you don't have anything to do with
this case do you
Aaron Carolyn Kathy
okay can you have a name like Anna or
something like that then I'll be able to
remember nowadays Karen's not a great
name no isn't it yeah that's a good
point I hadn't thought about it come on
John come on it's all right no I have
nothing to do with this case other than
I would concur with Kathy that when I do
fence reviews the Kathy gives me for
Aesthetics it's it's just about making
sure that they you know look nice with
the some kind of a lattice or or you
know detail work on the top
does that have to be closed I mean could
be a cap and trim Karen where you know
you have the two two by fours on the
side so it's a little more decorative
and just like a regular dog you would
pick it yeah does it have to be open or
it just has to have a little more detail
I mean we have tended to want it to be
open so that it doesn't feel like a wall
but I would be totally open to a cool
design you know okay yeah as long as it
breaks to me it's about breaking down
the mass more than the um opacity or
non-opacity okay it's about a design
breaking it breaking it down not to look
like a big wall gotcha okay and being
the landscape proposed is actually on
private property I would defer that to
Elena who's our landscape consultant for
her review
okay
gentlemen you know would help me now
that I'm looking at the photograph as
opposed to these drawings if you were to
tell me exactly what's coming out or
those boxwood coming out or those three
years coming out what's what's going on
there do you stay those are all
neighboring properties actually they are
excuse me behind that they have uh
Cedars uh you can see one right in the
middle so there's existing shrubber on
the outside of that the that's actually
privet that comes out
um and then we have a new landscape plan
to go in front of that that actually
gives you a little bit more screening
from on top we had some horn beams going
in there so does the fence come out to
the to say
just one more foot than it is right now
correct
that's actually about 18 inches so we're
gonna go you know one third of the way
in there and then where the fences that
little short fence next to the garage
that's going toward the other side as
well correct so it's going to come
straight basically we're going to push
that gate back and then even with the
garage there's a walkway that happens
the back of the garage the back patio
um right yeah I see I see it there so
yeah and then you're gonna make that a
make the space that you're taking the
fence out of and make that the wider
driveway so that a car could get parked
in there that's not blocking the door of
the garage
issues that that you have specifically
is blocking the drive or the city
sidewalk I mean they drive mid-side SUVs
and they're still their bumpers hitting
the end of the sidewalk so you're able
to park at an angle a little bit it
would it would help out and then you
know you wouldn't be obstructing a
sidewalk at that point
how about
at the corner
that is let's see here
looking at the at the
dotted line
right there where the hand is yes you
got me
what about creating an angle
45 degree angle to give the person
pulling out of the garage or out of that
parking space a better look-see at who
might be coming down the sidewalk
a problem with that
I don't think I'm understanding which
corner or the at the street the the
closer to Gould Corner the closer to
Google Corner in other words so you have
the you have Gould I'll try to draw it
and I'll show you here in a second but
you're you're going to build you're
going to take the fancy gate with me
you're gonna go an extra four feet and
then you have the 16 feet here and then
here's the garage
and you're going to build a fence that
is currently here and you're going to
move it one foot closer to Gould correct
and what I'm suggesting is that at this
corner you angle it so that somebody
that's coming out of the garage has a
better view of what's going on on the
sidewalk
people walking in other words come on
sure chairman I do believe that the
pictures are like they're clouding how
much space from the garage to the
sidewalk you have I I understand what
you're thinking tonight I would normally
agree with you on that but the reality
of it is it's such a short driveway that
it doesn't make a difference whatsoever
you're going to be on top of the
sidewalk whether the fence is all the
way down anyway I mean it's
angling that I don't know how much that
would give you as far as can you yeah
they all want to hear what you're saying
so I'm sorry I was just showing him what
I was saying I understand what you're
saying but I'm curious
I think your explanation similar to
Pat's explanation but if you can just
fine so yeah my my biggest problem is
that when I drive into the driveway I
almost have to touch the garage door and
I don't have a huge SUV it's a mid-size
SUV and it's just so short that I'm like
sticking out over the the sidewalk and
when we have one car parked in the
driveway like that there's not enough
width to even back like the other car
out of the garage because it is a really
tight driveway and then on top of that
there are these boxwoods and that gate
that when even if you park in the
driveway you can't even open the door
because you hit the fence so to give
Extra Space on the side so that even if
I parked exactly where it is now I could
at least open my door
and we decided we planned it turned out
really nice the plan is that we moved
the gate from being parallel to the
driveway to perpendicular to the
driveway to kind of open up that space
so it would swing into the yard and then
um so I won't have to worry about that
gate because sometimes I'll park in the
driveway and I can't get out of my my
backyard because I'm hitting the car
um so there's just a lot of little
things that the person who put this
fence in didn't think about no no let's
put it let's be blatant now so you hear
what I'm saying is King and I understand
Pat he was telling me when you were
talking but what you're saying is you
think the fence even moved one foot
closer to Gould
is still far enough away from the
sidewalk
that somebody can back their car to the
point where they can see up and down the
sidewalk easily without angling the
fence there is that did I restate what
you said correctly okay
but it sounds to me like as soon as you
put the car in Reverse you're still
shielded until you're well into the
sidewalk anyway right yeah I think it's
actually the opposite yeah that's right
I think to move it at all it makes no
difference yeah it's it's
to move I'm not saying to move the fence
at all no but to even enable it it's not
going to doesn't make any difference
well you're never going to see anyone
anyone coming
well if I mean yeah unless we we took it
from the gate and getting some crazy
angle back to where those other shrubs
are right there
I mean I guess I just I'm concerned
about a six foot high fence being a foot
closer
and how are you going to see anybody
coming down if they're riding their bike
down the sidewalk or riding their bike
down the street how are you going to see
them backing out of your garage
why that is this way to begin with
yeah that's why it's four feet Kathy
that's a lot of times over the years
when we do Grant variances there's
usually
uh
allowed at that height and then it
graduates up to the six foot just
because it it inhibits too much of the
view pulling out of you've got a
driveway on both sides of that
actually your drive was probably worse
than the neighbors but if you allow that
four foot expansion
they're probably about the same thing I
guess you're right if a neighbor is
driving backing out of their driveway
then they also have the problem of being
able to see if there's anybody coming
down the sidewalk until they get their
car they probably wouldn't be in the
sidewalk by the time they have an
unobstructed View
at six feet from the sidewalk to the
fence six feet
so where does the
I guess the from the driver's Viewpoint
this way as you're backing out six feet
would be adequate
to see if there's anybody coming down
the driveway
around the sidewalk I'm sorry
well at least to the
to one side yeah
is that right for the South it would be
you'd have the same problem in that huh
yeah yeah right I mean I mean you could
say angle the fence at both corners
and give everybody a little bit more of
a view down Gould
both driveways
I mean you're telling me these big three
years that are hanging over the fence in
this picture
are gone they'll be gone oh they will be
gone okay
so
angling the fence somewhat on both
corners
would what reduce your backyard space a
little bit
that doesn't really bother me if he's
opening them
I mean I would feel a little more
comfortable with some angles there and
you don't have to be severe but I think
they need to be
give the driver a better chance of
seeing what's going on down that
sidewalk
would that be three by three chairman or
four by four
it's a 11 foot seven inch span
a long gold that section effect 11 feet
7 inches eleven feet seven inches that's
all it is 11 feet two steps
three steps so two fence panels it's a
very short piece yeah yeah it looks long
here but
it's gonna look weird to have this well
I I would think a better solution at
least visually would be to not go the
foot not given the foot
keep it where it is yeah it's going to
look like a little it's gonna look very
strange I I think it's just I think it's
a safety issue pushing the fence farther
out I mean it's already we've everyone's
already said it's a bad situation today
and then they're asking us to make it
worse I I just
I can't see how pushing it out of foot
helps you that much it well it just
nonetheless yeah and then you couldn't
see anything you couldn't see anybody
and your neighbor couldn't see anything
and actually if you're willing to do the
ankle you're going to lose as much space
as you would just pushing yeah that's
true
I think just in when we were planning it
to get rid of those boxwoods and put it
there
um is what we were thinking but if the
foot doesn't make a big deal to me no
it's mostly privacy and and trying to
get rid of it that was there those trees
are in bad shape and they just need to
be taken out yeah they look like they've
lived their life yes we have a few of
those too don't we Pat
the three years that have lived their
lives yeah
well
uh
we're talking
the East property line so
so are you looking for a place to park
an additional car without interfering
with function of the car that's parked
in the garage okay that's important so
if if you put that fence just in line
with the face of the garage and had some
Landscaping along the
gold side of that little patch of what's
left there
and put concrete in there to create a
parking pad with that help where you
actually pull into the driveway turn to
the left and park on a pad
yes and just screening it with landscape
don't know it's such a big percentage of
the yarn and I don't know if you can get
the I've looked at that because we have
a neighbor up the street that has a
whole circle around about that's just
awful yeah and and I look at that and
I'm like I just don't want it to look
like that and then there's another house
down that has that side
our yard is already pretty tiny because
of the sideloid garage I don't know well
that's why I was surprised if you
weren't going to move the fence to the
end of your property line well there's
an easement correct right
and it's our property actually extends
them in this picture you can see our
property line is almost probably to the
middle of that car where their driveway
is it's five feet this side of that cell
of the fence is the property line so
there's a five foot easement between our
fence and our property line
so we can't I mean we can't move it that
way makes sense I think you could move
it South you could move the fence south
I mean where that car is parked that's
not a An approved parking location
that's a driveway a driveway should lead
you to your approved parking which is in
the rear yard so when I look down to
this View and I saw that other fence
that was yes that's your neighbors well
you and your neighbors share the same
property line correct so you could
continue your fence out this way from
that corner of their fence
yeah yes
if this is the rear your side yard
whatever it is set back
their property line is five feet from
that fence here right so what's the side
yard side what's the setback problem
here
the setback is from the street from
Gould and they think no side yards set
back no that's his rear that's his rear
property line
that's the real property line there's no
setback
correct between this house and this
house correct
now you're also telling me that this
distance from here all the way to that
end is 11 feet
nobody what he's proposing after he
widens the driveway four feet and moves
that fence down that's 11 feet
what long is it now uh I think 15. I
mean because it's no no because it
should no the one the one drawing shows
25 feet
that's the
why but that's what I'm saying if you
wanted more yard space and you moved
that fence South to your South property
line
and then put a turn around or something
in that side that you could screen with
Landscaping
I'm just throwing ideas
I don't know it's a big piece of I don't
think I would
I'd have to ask my wife I don't know I
mean you could always table this and do
some research and bring it back next
week too
well or I mean unless the board members
have suggestions are are you okay giving
up the one foot let me ask you that yeah
so we'll start with that
that helps are you okay with having a
lattice on everything above four feet
Yes I I you know I
I would like to talk about
and I think Karen sort of touched on
this like or somebody the like
kidnapping in the back property I have
six feet in the side property have four
feet is it can it taper can we do
something there I mean if we're
concerned about kids riding their bike
and not being seen it's hard for me to
support a
six foot fence in this situation
regardless of where it is
right I mean on a corner lot the side
fence is limited to 48 inches in height
anything within 20 feet of that side
property line so that's why the other
fence tapers up yeah okay that and I saw
that yeah how tall is this right now
it's like three I think it's a little
over three like maybe probably 42
because that used to be the old code
would allow 42 inch fence on the
property line we changed the code to
allow a 48 inch fence on the property
and you want to take that fence to six
feet yeah four it's 48 inches and then
less I mean about eight million fences
like that investors I understand but
this that are a lot closer to the street
than this one it's going to make it any
of these less visible you don't think no
from someone sitting in their car
backing from 42 inches to to 60 inches I
think the bike is not going to be
visible either way
well
now
understanding the three issues that he's
raising here I mean how many six foot
high fences with a lattice
are built right up against the sidewalk
I mean within two or three feet of the
sidewalk in Bexley about 500 of them
down and I mean and you're worried about
this one there's 500. I mean I'm just
saying
we've had a conversation on this that's
why I bring it up and that's the concern
of backing out and not being able to see
what's coming down the sidewalk there's
a way to deal with that yeah where it's
not putting in a six foot fence yeah I
hear you yeah so I mean I I can't talk
to the 500 or 499 other ones or whatever
I'm just saying in this case given the
proximity and I think another factor is
the the lack of depth in the driveway
right that's
sort of coupled with all this makes it a
different situation and certainly
some of the other 500 that have been
allegedly yeah plus or minus I don't
know yeah no I I just I think it's a
safety issue and
I don't I don't I couldn't support
a taller fence closer to the street in
this location
makes you taller fans in the same
location no no I just think it's I think
it's for me it's just a safety issue and
it's again why why make a situation
worse than we would than it already is
you can buy code put it taller than it
is now
because that's what 42. that's 42.
you're allowed to put a 48 inch anything
within 25 feet of that side property
line
is limited to 48 inches
you have to be sworn in if you're going
to say something sorry
do you swear our firm the testimony
you're about to give me the truth the
whole truth is nothing but the truth yes
thank you tell us your name yeah I'm
Todd Friedman Todd what's your
relationship to this building
um the attorney representing the the
homeowner I love it that's good
um the only thing I wanted to add here
is is that with those two trees there
right now you've already got cut off
visibility
um so I'm not sure that you're
if you leave it the fence where it is
today
and you allow it to go to six feet
you're really not changing much of
anything
there's a lot of Truth to that so I
look at this car yeah and imagine this
car backing out yeah
the driver's head is at the fence that's
where it stands now right so what is a
taller fence gonna make changing
that's not working in my opinion but
I mean the the defense defense is sick
no defense is six feet at the car but
it's only 42 inches at the street it
tapers
but the tree's there the current tree is
there
so you you've you've got you've actually
got a worse problem because the tree is
taller
and the homeowner could plant even more
trees there they
right so I I think we're actually
helping the situation by not allowing
tall trees to be there
in
in this particular case if you decide to
go for six defense we six foot fence we
can also stipulate that what we were
talking about before isn't just
decorative that it is transparent for
the top 18 inches whatever you wanted to
do that too but that would help and it
would give you some privacy much more
privacy than you have now but it would
also
you know giving some transparency
12 inches 18 inches down and so Karen
when you say transparency your meaning
lattice
thin vertical I mean that's something I
can work with you know when Ellen is
dead of the landscape there's all kinds
you know they're trying to go I mean to
the to the point of I don't have an
opinion one way or the other but to the
point of what you just said or whoever
said about the existing trees
the the applicant will likely then just
decide to put really tall trees
that's true
um
that's a tough one we can't control what
he puts on the inside of the fence
so when I'm just from me backing out
I've never felt unsafe I think it is
right now maybe it's like six and a half
or seven feet from the edge of that
defense to the to the to the sidewalk I
mean it's a good distance oh yeah it
stops I've never not been able to see
but
my neighbors I've never pulled them in a
driveway
um it's the same line but
yeah I mean I think the fence is so far
off the street that he can slowly back
out you only need to get Maybe
a certain amount of the car out of the
garage before you can see all the way up
and down the street
I think
yeah there I mean I just don't see it as
a safety issue there where it is now now
you start moving it one foot closer and
now you start to get into well I'd
almost have to do the math to figure it
out which is why I suggested angling it
but really angling it doesn't make any
sense any more than just giving up the
one foot you know trying to give up but
I don't need them
I'm just doing this before you asked me
to
this will tell us anything or not but
we've got on top of the 500 examples I
gave you earlier we have lots of
situation or where we have alleys
that are on of course behind people's
houses and they've got six foot high
fences that come right out to the alley
from the alley right to the sidewalk
almost and those situations are I think
they're more dangerous than buy a long
shot than this
you know at the corner of uh of uh
Bexley Park and uh casting a hammer the
new pool is over there on the west side
that fence that he built there comes
right out to the street almost yes and
it actually
[Laughter]
it has released
part of the design yeah there's plenty
of space yeah
you're already approved but somebody was
sensitive to the issue that I'm raising
yeah
you planned that
all right
so let's let's look at what we're
requesting here and I'll just real quick
how tall is that fence
that's your standard white six foot
with lattice at the top
space yeah
you've got good plants there on the side
of it that are that really hide the
fence but uh but they don't grow out
they grow up your your fence but yeah I
mean it's there's a lot of situations
like this in Bexley I mean I just
happened to pick that one out I didn't
know you were here but that was your
answer but there are
lots of fences on Corner Lots
period just from my research just
looking to see you don't see 42 inch
fences any no I don't see any on my
street they're all there's a neighbor
down at the corner of Gould and Bexley
park that's like 12 feet tall I mean
it's a giant mess and it it's right
along this it almost touches the
sidewalk he's got maybe a eight eight
inch bed
it's crazy right and I'm like how did
you get that
if you're just going across the street
you'll be in Columbus you have to worry
about us
a bit of 12 feet tall no it better not
be yeah
all right
shoot me an address all right so
let's see here what do we got we got
the 48 inch height so so you're wanting
to go to uh six feet
six feet same location same location
it's parent top
with lattice on top
or or some kind of transfer I mean it
would be prettier sense to not do
lattice and do like you know I can work
it yeah
and the driveway width so when we look
at that driveway you have a two-car
garage
so you can pull two cars in there or you
could park two cars outside of the
garage as well
it's pretty narrow I've tried to
identify how much narrower I don't know
on the side of the driveway there's like
that little four inch band like where
the stamp is like where the line is ours
is like so it's a little I think it's a
little bit narrower but it's it is a two
car where I drive okay so right now your
fence is a bad problem because you can't
open a door so you move the fence over
and you've alleviated that issue at
least now you can open the door of your
car without banging into the fence right
right so now you're going to put four
feet
of additional width on a 16 foot
driveway already right that's what we're
doing here right now I know there are
some three-car garages
right off of Drexel there we approved
one that's got to be wider than 16 feet
yes so help me with that so a driveway
is limited to 12 and a half feet
however in the case where you have your
double-wide garage that's difficult to
accomplish and typically they're going
to put that straight out so it's
non-conforming but it's existing
non-conforming but in order to expand
that that's not something that I could
approve that's subject to a variance to
anything whiter
and the board can opt to allow just the
expansion past the sidewalk to
accommodate whatever they're trying to
accommodate
or or determine it whether they think
it's appropriate to have those both come
straight out and then cut into the
radius
it's got a angled approach right now
that's kind of odd I'm not sure who the
contractor was but it's hard to get a
five six radius when you've got such a
short curb grass
oops
we're losing Karen right you're losing
me that's right
but in order to not see as much
Hardscape along the street
typically
they'll request that the expansion
happen beyond the sidewalk
okay
I think we've beaten this horse pretty
badly I feel like unless you're like
really have or they're saying
experiencing it it's hard to understand
yeah what it's going to feel like we're
we're looking at it as a from a bird's
eye view to make a decision about
something that mm-hmm
well maybe if we say keep the fence
where where it is in terms of just in
terms of distance from the street
uh then we can basically what we're
doing is we're saying can you raise it
to 48 inches with with lattice on the
top two feet
and can you widen the driveway by four
feet
to give you another parking space there
essentially
so I mean this isn't that complicated I
think we should call the question and
vote on it driveway only or driveway and
approach
oh driveway only or driveway or approach
okay where's their photo or uh drawings
of the in my staff report I've got it
I thought you had the I thought it was
up here at one point
okay hold on I might have to pull the
staff report up again
oh this is this is your staff report
just tell me when to stop
there you go
so do we have to that that's a pretty
wide approach from the street to the
sidewalk right it is because it angles
usually that that approach usually comes
straight out towards the street and then
curves yeah this just kind of cuts it
off so you don't like the neighbors
right we're gonna go with the extra four
I think that they had to replace they
didn't know
so can't can't we leave the approach the
way it is and he comes in he can come in
this way if you park in a car in four
feet you're blocking all the ways to get
cars out of your garage aren't you
so yes and no it depends on how you park
I've tried to visualize it but as far as
changing the approach I don't I don't
have one way or the other I just really
want the space so that I can park
slightly over so that that driver can
comfortably back out without being
really worried I mean I only really want
to be over maybe one foot but then if
you only if you put one more then you
have this issue with the where the fence
will be because we've we've uh
yeah it moves the it's hard to visually
to understand it but I I park here every
day so where the fence is now you you
can't open anything so if you only move
it you have to move it far enough I hate
to move it one foot and then and then
you open and you don't fix the problem
so making it just a straight fence and
this and then bringing the driveway out
to match where that new gate is because
the new gate is going to be
parallel with the garage door if that
makes sense so the gate's going to move
from pillar to the driveway to parallel
to the to the garage door and then just
continue that concrete straight down
from the edge that's where we got the
four feet is it's just continuing it
straight down from that gate and then so
the four feet will do less of a parking
area more of a loading unloading it's
just gonna be there so yeah that's what
it really looks like it's going to be
wide enough
all right
can we have a finding effect in
conclusions a law based upon what what's
been said thus far and see how it goes
the findings affecting decision of the
board for application number
bzap-22-50 for property located at 2831
Dale
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to granted area variance in Mexico in
section 122611 c have been met
and a three foot variance from Mexico
section
1264.03 B to allow a 72 inch fence three
and a half feet from the East side
property line which is also the location
of the existing fence be allowed and
also a variance to Mexico section
1262.01e to allow the existing 16 foot
wide
driveway to be expanded to the South
by four feet
and this is all subject to final review
and approval of the landscape plan by
the city landscape consultant and City
staff for the final
design of the six foot fence
okay
now that's we're reading okay with you
okay thank you I'm not trying to just
but when you got a lawyer you know you
guys are nothing now yeah
anyway just joking uh
members of the board any problem with
that wording
all right do I hear a motion to approve
the findings of fact conclusions of law
so moved moved second
thank you
Kathy please call the roll
Mr Marsh no
Mr Levine
yes
Mr King no
once again my vote means nothing I vote
Yes uh the variance does not pass and
we're gonna have to go back to the
drawing boards
you need three votes uh you weren't here
earlier at the time but you need three
out of four which we announced to the
group so we can voted
no Mr King voted no
Mr Lavon and I voted yes
thank you
back to drawing board
can I get any advice on what the change
no not from us but you get advice from
the from the city staff as to what you
can do and can't do
sorry about that gentlemen next is
case
bzap 22-52 2521 Bexley park there there
we go
Craig heidner is the applicant and
Andrew Indiana Flora my neighbors yes
yes are the owners
the applicant is seeking Architectural
Review and approval of a certificate of
appropriateness
uh for a Pergola the applicant is also
seeking a variance from Mexico section
1252 10a2 which requires detached
structures shall be located a minimum of
25 feet from the side street property
for a 100 wide foot lot
or 100 foot wide lot probably to allow a
proposed pergola in the rear yard to be
17 inches from the side property line
along cassingham Road I think I read
that right
Kathy or gentlemen raise your right hand
to be sworn thank you
State your names Andrew Flora Craig
hibner you gentlemen swear or affirm
that the testimony you're about to give
the panel of this evening will be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes yes thank you very much
all right Kathy
you haven't you're having a
uh
yeah consternation on your face 17
inches but uh okay this is in the R6
zoning District right
um there's an existing swimming pool in
the rear yard
that has a patio along the south side of
the pool the applicant would like to add
a 10 by 20 pergola
and the idea is to Center the pergola
alongside the pool which would place the
corner post of the pergola 20 feet away
from the East side property line and the
overhang of the pergola would be 17 feet
from the East side property line being I
typically use foundations of structures
for setbacks I would consider this 20
feet from the side property line okay so
it's only encroaching five feet which is
a setback for accessory structures on
Corner Lots uh
the swimming pool most likely had
received a variance and also encroaches
in the side yard set back and is
actually closer to the lot line than the
pergola oh okay
um the actual distance from the proposed
pergola and the street curve is a little
over 35 feet
so there is a good distance there the
pergola is designed as an open structure
with working louvers for weather
protection when needed if the board
finds it appropriate to allow the
pergola and the proposed location I
would like to share that the area is
very well landscaped but if additional
is suggested it should be substitute
staff review and approval by our
landscape consultant
okay
Karen
Boker
I'm gonna get your name correct here
thank you
um you're not part of this one
but I can play it's beautiful yeah okay
Karen and I would typically review and
approve these type of structures but
it's because of the location that is
before the sport okay so the location
the the structure itself has been
approved in terms of it likes the
structure she would typically on that
but I would have approved this okay all
right yeah don't Prejudice us now I'm
just telling you tell me um
what gentlemen why don't you tell me
what why you picked this particular
location and and uh why we should Grant
the ovariance the the this particular
location for the pergola is simply based
upon where the existing Pool and Patio
is today so you can see where the
furniture is now that's the edge of the
patio the Pergo would cover that section
to meet the setback from the street
would negate the need for the purpose of
the pergola to cover the furniture
right in other words if you move the
pergola that way west
you're you're not
you're not achievous yeah
no no the alley is are the used along
the back that fence is our our side
again we have a garage slash drive like
that the trees yes
when you say trees
the enthusiasm or whatever they are yeah
the tall you start are the alley behind
that are the alley right here I think
there's a okay
to the left to the left is the outlet
yes
and you'll notice the
six foot eye fence with the lattice on
the top two feet there we were just
talking about that's on the west side of
your lot that we're looking at but
there's a similar fence on the east side
that borders cassingham
right
and and really they're seen from the
back of our house the alley is along
behind those behind him so nobody is
going to see this burger with a view
pretty much yeah how tall is it
it's about nine feet oh nine feet
and those trees are taller than that
there now you can see the you can see
the yeah actually you could actually see
what you were mentioning earlier
[Applause]
so the bump in allows you to see what's
going on down the sidewalk when you're
going down the alley there yeah that's
that's pretty funny that I would sure I
didn't even notice that it was on the
docket to be honest with you so I it
wasn't yeah yeah I wasn't picking I
wasn't picking on you but certainly
sounds like it
um
all right so there's a good view of what
from the pergola toward the back of the
house right okay
all right I mean does anybody have any
oh first of all is there anybody in the
audience that's four or against this
case that wants to make a comment I
don't think so okay
you don't want to make a comment do you
okay I just just checking on you there
my dear
[Laughter]
all right um
members of the board any further
questions or comments about it I think
it's pretty say it looks great clear
yeah
um Kathy you want to read the findings
of fat and conclusions along please yes
the findings affecting decision of the
board for application number B
zap-22-52 for property located at 2521
Bexley Park upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence testimony before it the board
finds the applicant has proven that the
criteria to Grant an area variance in
Mexico section 122611 c have been met
and a five foot variance from Mexico
section
1252.10 A two
to allow a Pergola to be 20 feet from
the East side property line should be
granted
as submitted
all right and
um yeah I think that's right
anything is is the reading okay with you
in terms of being accepted acceptable
and members of the board and problem
with the reading all right I'll
entertain a motion to approve the uh
findings effect so moved Marsh thank you
Mr Marsh
second
thank you
Kathy please call the roll
Mr King yes
Mr Levine yes
Mr Marsh yes
chairman B Hawk I vote Yes also
gentlemen good luck good project very
interesting thank you thank you
all right now we're at
um
application bzap-22-53
394 South Columbia the applicant is
yazar and the owner is yasar the request
is the applicant is Seeking a variance
from exit city code section 12
62.01 e which limits the driveway to 12
feet 5 inches in width to allow a 14
foot wide driveway wow that's a lot not
much footage to have to go through all
this nonetheless
would you raise your right hand to be
sworn do you a swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give the panel
this evening will be the truth the whole
truth of nothing but the truth yes thank
you very much
Kathy pull us in from the staff's
perspective please uh this existing lot
is 133 feet wide by 250 feet deep that's
also where a new house replaced the
original structure
the project does not yet complete the
original driveway jogged slightly to the
north and was straightened out when
replaced the contractor did not realize
that the site development permit was not
issued yet for the drive and it was
brought to their attention the new
driver was widened at a point to to
where a side load attached garage was
proposed they ended up replacing the
entire Drive in line with the expansion
at the garage which ended up being 14
feet wide at the street
Mexico section 1262e allows driveways to
be eight feet minimum to 12 and a half
feet maximum in width
the standard is for all zoning districts
we believe the original driveway was
around
I have eight and a half to ten feet but
I believe it was closer to eight and a
half feet which is actually pretty small
for these Lots yeah based on the fact
that the driveway is for a lot 133 feet
in width does not impact any City trees
nor does it seem to be as much of an
impact than it would be for a standard
90 foot wide lot in this District
if the board finds it appropriate to
Grant the one and a half foot variance
it would not require anything further
okay
um once again Karen you're not involved
with this case I assume there's
apparently nobody in the audience that
is interested in this case
that would have standing at least
so
um
Mr SAR anything you could add to that I
mean it seems pretty cut and dried yeah
we just want a little wider driver and
yeah we like it a little wider yeah just
to get in and out easy and just made
sense to us because the logs are so wide
yeah lots why yes yeah
all right questions from the yeah
okay the property is not owned by Mr
Sonic
is that a concern I mean apparently it's
his contract
yeah I own the company that owns this
law
so you own the company that owns a lot
yeah my company New York fine homes is
an LLC and then I bought it as an LLC
but I own in the LLC basically okay so
basically you can own an LLC be the
owner
that's a good question
um I mean he's the applicant of record
yeah he's applicants all the time that
are here without the owners applicants
but I think it's a question or what he's
trying to say
that it stated that Mr SAR is the owner
your fine homes is the owner well I mean
I know he owns your fine home so I just
write it in okay
sometimes we'll get into a hassle where
the person who's here and says there the
owner is not the owner then we bring
intervariance so somebody's not the
owner so you got to kind of make sure we
have the the proper owners in this slot
but here we can certainly amend this
what do you mean they're one and the
same your fine homes is listed as owner
of the property and yoaz owns your final
yeah but you don't know who owns your
fine homes property
let's see he can testify to it but there
might be 17 shareholders for all you
know you know
okay yeah but a corporation is different
than a person
or an LLC is different than a person
analysis its own person except if it's a
single member LLC for the IRS it's a
disregarded entity and therefore it's
not really an entity from that
perspective but we're not here
discussing IRS law tonight for what it's
worth I'm pretty sure he's not up to
anything shady yeah no we we think he's
probably got a legit request here all
right what what the
with the amendment to the application
that the owner is actually an LLC or
fine homes your fine homes LLC
uh we will proceed
and your indication is you're this are
you the manager of your fine homes LLC
I'm the owner you're the sole member
your wife is 20 so it's a it's a
two-member LLC and you're the manager
yeah that's the issue who has the right
to make decisions right all right
any questions on the substance of the of
the request no if not uh Kathy can you
please give us a findings of fact
conclusions of law
the findings of fact and decision of the
board for application number bzap 22-53
for property located at 394 South
Columbia
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to Grant an area of variance in Mexico
section 12 2611 C have been met
and a 1.5 foot variance from Mexico
section
1262.01e to allow
a 14 foot wide driveway to remain at the
subject property
right
any problem Mr sorry with that sounds
good members of the board okay with the
reading of the findings and the decision
of the board the proposed decision of
the board
if so I would entertain a motion to call
the question on the approval of the
findings of fact and the proposed
decision award so moved Marsh thank you
Mr Marsh second thank you Mr King
Kathy please call the roll Mr Marsh yes
Mr Levine yes Mr King yes chairman I
also vote Yes your variance is granted
sorry you had to go through this hassle
for a foot and a half thank you so much
thank you good luck man
all right is there any other business
before the board Ms Rose or Ms bokar or
any member
um yes I would like to tell you all and
I'm very excited about this that city
council
um approved and adopted the design
guidelines oh good and I did give a lot
of credit to border zoning and planning
and actually almost our entire
architecture review board came Connie
was there representing the historic
preservation committee which kind of
started the whole thing and I'm really
excited to be online next week sometime
beautiful and I'm going to be creating
links to
for the people that know how to use a
computer can find these things out yeah
so if you want to know what a
transparent fence is on the top you can
click and see if
it all right uh
um and I have one other item
um just just to keep you in the loop to
you know with the applications of with
the zoning code change they've allowed
staff approval on certain accessory
items and Montrose School has actually
submitted a application to install these
Shades over the play equipment just to
lower the temperature and the children
are out playing and keep the sun off the
uh equipment for a good part of the day
and that's something that can be signed
off as a modification to an accessory
structure but what I've decided to do is
take a little further and send a notice
out to all of the neighbors surrounding
the school property just to make them
aware and I've posted it on the website
so they can look at what's proposed and
ask me any questions or if they have any
concerns
and if I'm not comfortable going forward
with it based on what I find then I will
take it to the architecture review board
for a formal review okay but I thought
I'd do that as a courtesy yeah I got the
nice approach yeah good approach yeah
there's no pzap implication to this no
it's all design and it's you know it's
horizontal it's a dark navy blue and
yeah I mean you may not know what's even
there
sounds like a terrific amenity yeah
when I when I was a kid they put in a
stainless steel slide that would get up
to a thousand degrees no cover no
covered at all and we loved it loved it
uh uh I can say it was the father of two
little boys who have my same skin tone
uh which you know I get nervous and yeah
they they would go to Aftercare at
Montrose and just
be miserable getting blasted on by the
Sun so I've known about this project and
I'm I think it's terrific and glad Brian
oh yes yes yes absolutely yeah I talked
about it a little bit because there's
some other projects coming down the pipe
that
um we're gonna try to make it a habit as
much as we can of just sending out an
informational email when things like
this happen because like I we know you
guys get approached from citizens in
your neighbor saying like oh I know
you're on the whatever board and you
don't know about something and it's a
little weird sometimes but some staff
stuff that we feel is appropriate yeah
well there could there could be some
information come out that you know no
one's thinking about right a neighbor
might make a recommendation to make it
better or whatever so I think it's just
a good good practice Yeah
I agree all right there being no further
um business before the board
uh entertainment motion to adjourn so
moves thank you motion passes you know
automatically