right I'm hearing from both ends now
turn the volume on your phone all the
way
[Music]
down there you go I'm hearing from both
ends now turn the volume on your phone
all the way down I
did I
did
did that work well I don't know you tell
me yes I'm not hearing any feedback so
Bob oh I see
Ryan back to what I was saying was with
um you
have six members present
tonight of a and you have seven members
on the commission and it takes four
affirmative votes to approve anything
historically the chair has often raised
that issue told people advised people
that at the beginning it takes po
affirmative we have six out of seven and
in the past sometimes you've allowed
well typically the chair allows people
to choose to table if they want or at
least to have the hearing and then
choose the table if they want and then
you know have additional members it's
always a little bit problematic because
you if you don't have the same group
coming back um the second time they can
listen it doesn't it that's not a
concern in and of itself because they
can listen to the granicus and hear what
was said anyway so if you don't have the
same composition of the board if it's
continued to another day whoever's on
the board that day is going to need to
listen to whatever is being continued on
Gran we are um open to the
public
okay all
right well so we have uh we'll we'll
take a roll call but we have uh M
Mitchell Mr schik Mr Turner Ms Wagner
Dorne Mr
Levine and
me
right that's six okay I've got it
right
okay that's interesting all right
so I think we can go ahead and call to
order the January
2021 meeting of the Beckley Board of
zoning and
planning and uh with that I would ask uh
Miss Rose to call the role of the
members of the board who are present at
the meeting
tonight Mr schik present Miss
Mitchell pres Mr
Turner he's he's there there he is Miss
Dorne here Mr Levine here
thanks and I'm here as well all right
and uh did everybody have a chance to
review the minutes of the December 2nd
20120 meeting you'll recall we didn't
have a meeting on I think Christmas day
was the fourth Thursday so we met
earlier in December does everybody have
a chance to review those minutes and if
so do you have any additions
subtractions deletions or comments
regarding those
minutes hearing none uh do I hear a
motion to approve the minutes of the
December 2020
meeting Sean Turner moves thank you
Sean and I'll second Alicia thank you
Alicia all in favor of the motion to
approve the December minutes say I I I
or raise your hands maybe a better way
to do it
there I'm kind of Frozen okay so
um I'll see if I
can get everybody on here where I can
see them but
nonetheless everybody oppose say
nay I see no Nays therefore the minutes
of the December 2020 meeting are
approved all right uh then we have uh
instituted the uh period for public
comment on the general workings of the
board of zoning and
planning uh open for uh comment from the
public once again I need to um make sure
we understand this does not have any
comment regarding any of the cases that
are before us whether it's tonight or
any other night this is really has only
to do with the general uh workings and
uh procedures and uh happenings here at
the board of zoning and planning is
there anybody that is showing up on your
screen Miss Boer that wishes to make
General
comments Karen can you hear me yeah can
hear you I was just looking there is a
comment from Mr Joel GFF who I have now
given permission to talk okay Mr
greff thank you Mrs Boer Miss Boer um
just a quick question looking on the
website how come the uh bab rules and
guidelines are not posted out
there we actually did have those
uploaded we've been
mer merging information from our old
website to the new website and so I
relayed your comments earlier and they
are posted as of now okay great and uh
on the ARB side is the January 9th 2020
the most accurate because it says Bap in
the footer of that
document it could be a typo but I will
follow up and and make sure that they
are the correct version thank you
Mr GFF any other
comments uh not procedurally thank you
thank
you uh okay I'm just checking to see if
see if there's any other anybody else
that wishes to comment please raise your
virtual hand your virtual hand okay yes
I cannot see real hands I can only see
virtual hands I do not see anymore at
this
time no
more Mr Beall I have a procedural
question okay now I can't hear okay Mr
LaVine go ahead please so I I recently
learned that I am an alternate member
and not a regular member okay and I
looked at the code and the code
stipulates that four members that
alternates can participate only if there
isn't a quorum of
members so I'm wondering is should I be
voting should I be participating
tonight I I can address that we had
three regular members that could not
attend this evening and when that
happens I typically try to replace those
members with alternates so you you are
able to hear cases tonight and take a
vote so if I receive an invitation from
you um Miss Rose that indicates that
you've got enough regular members is is
that how I well I send it out to
everybody so they can let me know if
they're available and then I will follow
up with the alternates that I need if I
don't have enough members okay typically
I see sometimes I don't know until the
last minute unfortunately but I try to
let you know as soon as I figure this
out right and we probably should make a
pronouncement uh Rick that members of
the board you know it's we of course
appreciate when you let us know that you
can't make it that evening and of course
all of us have got commitment sometimes
that prevent us from uh showing but the
problem is that it's not very uh helpful
to the alternates when we have to call
them on the day of and they have to see
and scramble to see whether they can
make it or not so as soon as you know
you cannot make it it would be very
helpful to give Kathy as much notice as
possible so that Kathy can give the
alternates uh enough time to uh uh maybe
schedule something on their schedule so
that they can uh make an
appearance there you go all right uh
Karen any other uh people in the general
public wish to make a comment or can we
move on to the uh old business please we
can move on thank you very
much all right the first uh uh order of
business on the old business section is
section a application number B zap -
20-37 the applicant is Scott Baker the
owners are Ryan and Michelle odonnell
and the address is 30 27 excuse me 54
Sherwood Road uh the request is that the
applicant is seeking Architectural
Review and approval for a detached
garage the applicant is also seeking a
variant to Bexley city code section 12
52.1 15E as in Edward to allow a
21 foot high detached
garage uh this was tabled at the
December 2nd 2020
meeting um do we have the applicants um
on the U computer here on the
screen yes hold on just a second for me
and I will add
them and if you'd like I can give some
background while we okay great that
would be good while I get this organized
a little bit thank you the okay for the
board members that aren't aware this was
on our agenda
in
December and at the time they
were why am I
echoing
sorry okay uh at the time the applicant
had an an addition to the home as well
as a detach garage seeking a variance to
allow a garage to be 23 feet in height
and the code limits the garage to 20
feet in height so at the time the part
of this application was
approved however the garage was tabled
and they have made modifications to the
garage bringing the ridge height down to
21 and this has gone to the architectur
review board for a recommendation on the
current design and they are now bringing
this to the board to revisit that
variance for the garage height taking it
from 23 feet in height to 21 feet okay
who is here to speak on behalf of Scott
Baker I am looking for Scott because I
know I saw him it would be very helpful
if um if you're an applicant or an owner
that I'm going to move into the panelist
if you could raise your virtual hand
because it puts you to the top of the
list and just to prepare everybody we
have 70 people in the room so um that
would be very
helpful um now I see more hands being
raised I only need the applic for 2754
Sherwood I don't need in that are
here raise the hand right
there okay Michelle O'Donnell we see
you Miss O'Donnell are you going to
speak on behalf of the applicant or yeah
I can I can speak on behalf of us um and
I think Scott you know he I know he's on
uh because we're texting and um he would
be the one to answer any of the more
technical questions so all
[Music]
right
I'm not sure if you were addressing us I
hear it almost sounds like a piano yeah
that's what I hear too
okay
hand Mr chairman Beall before you get
started have Michelle oon but I'm
looking for Mr Baker okay chairman
behall before you get started if I could
just make a quick recommendation because
we've had these snapo with Schoolboard
stuff before it might help if you log
completely off and then come back in
and see if like just just get out of it
and then come back
in God bless you all right on my way
over I will join via the zoom phone I'll
be right back okay oh just just a
thought I'm you know I agree here's I'll
be right 2531 2531
Brentwood I'll open the front door uh
it's on the corner of C of cting here
hey um Everybody if anyone wants to
speak it would be good if if you would
say uh Mr chairman this is M miss
odonnell or this is Kathy Rose or this
is Alysa Mitchell because I can't tell
who's talking at one time here it's hard
for me to direct the uh three rings of
this lovely uh circus sometimes it seems
like to me on the zoom so I am on
Medicare so I do have my a good excuse
at least but anyway Michelle while we're
looking for Scott Baker he's on he's
here oh he's on now okay very good uh
why don't you give us a little rundown
on uh what has happened since last time
we saw you after I SAR them in oh please
raise your right hands you sare or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth yes yes
thank
you so as Kathy mentioned we came rep
for the board in the last meeting with a
23ft tall garage um the board asked us
to do what we could to get the height of
the garage lower the design was was okay
but just too tall so we have worked with
the owners
to kind of look at it from
several aspects of what we could do to
lower it we lowered the garage ceiling
down to8 feet using smaller floor joist
using smaller Rafters lowering the
second floor ceiling so we've kind of
gone through everything we could to work
as much out of it as we could and still
keep it as a somewhat usable space um
and we were able to get down to 21 foot
so which is of course why we're back
here looking for a
variance all
right members of the board uh how many
of the six of of us were here for the
December meeting was anybody not I don't
know Heidi if you were not were
you no I was not here
okay
um do the members of the board have any
questions uh about the modified
request
um or any comments please
Kathy does the cubic feet come into play
on
this well the fact that they are asking
for a variance to have the volume as
shown and the height still exceeds the
uh Ridge height limit it's it's they're
seeking a variance to this yes so it's a
variance in the height and in this and
and it would be also including this the
cubic feet right well it's to 125
2.15 which is it shall not exceed one
story in height originally not to exceed
20 feet without approval from the board
of zoning and
planning
okay so Kathy you're saying that the
variance the approval is as to the story
and as to the height yes because the
height Ridge limit is 20 feet uh and you
know with last month when they brought
this before the board it was a lot
larger and at 23 feet in height so we
tabled just that portion of it so they
could work on redesigning so they've
basically shrunk what was originally
submitted to and now only need a one
foot variance to the height
restrictions for an accessory
structure I think what's it's a little
confused conf using
because we are getting the con the two
concepts intertwined a little bit and I
think that's confusing I can understand
it's confusing me as well as as them and
that is we
are okay with the
design in terms of of the elevation from
a architectural standpoint we're not
okay because there's a limit in beex
says it's 20 feet and here there's
they're asking for a one foot
variance um so that they can use these
architectural features that they would
like to use is that a reasonable
statement well the volume I'm I'm sure
the volume exceeds it just based on the
the the design alone and last month it
also exceeded it however it was two feet
taller so they've brought down the
height
uh of the center and I believe I'm not
sure if the sidewalls were lowered as
well so I mean the board can comment on
the design change and if they feel it's
where it needs to be Kathy I think the
question is do they need a variance for
the volume as well in addition to the
variance for the one foot of additional
bridge
line uh Miss
O'Donnell yeah you know this this did
come up last month this very um same
topic and and I just reread the minutes
too when it was talked about last month
I
think um that had come up in previous
instances at least this was my
understanding that I walked away with it
had come up in previous instances
because there was a question of what the
Second Story would be used for and it
was you know at or below that 20 foot
height so um my understanding walking
away was that it it wasn't an issue of
volume but but rather height well if
Scott could address what we consider a
story is two if is two-thirds or more
the volume of the story
below which in this case I'm sure
it's it it must be larger than that
based on the
design yeah that's an accurate statement
the second floor is larger than two3 of
the first floor
okay and so so both of those are covered
under section 12 52.1 15E exceeding one
story in height so that's you know more
than two3 so it's two story and the
ridge height exceeding the 20 feet by
one
foot and do you know how much the volume
exceeds Scott can you answer
that uh
not exactly but I mean it's
probably
closer to four fifths than it is
2/3 yeah I I guess um you know
I we had a pretty lengthy discussion
last month and
th this came up and it was I guess I
just was led to believe
that that was not what we had to address
um so we we've spent a lot of time
addressing the height um you know we've
invested more money with our architect
addressing the
height um I I definitely understand the
concern I just feel like I was you know
led to believe the volume was not an
issue in this
case uh well it or maybe the overall
massing and I'll let I'll defer to Karen
if if that
was an item of discussion at ARB just so
you know I'm I'm Pro I'm probably the
one that brought it up I think and I'm
bringing it up this time I was bringing
up more because I personally don't have
an issue with it I don't know about the
other board members but if we need to
Grant you a variance for it I wanted to
make sure we're granting you the
variance for it is the reason I
personally was bringing it up because I
to somebody says you didn't get you
didn't get a space so that that's the
reason I was bringing it up this time so
because I makes sense thank you my
memory from my memory it's similar to
what you said that we weren't really
discussing the Volume last month we were
discussing the height so that's my my
memory as well so and I'm sorry because
I I seem to have gotten kicked off but
right back on so I and my internet's
pretty strong so I apologize if that
happens I'll continue to get right back
on and I hope I'm sharing the right
images um the the and I really didn't
get to finish my staff report because of
that but the ARB is fine with this they
they recommended this in the positive to
um to to you guys uh with and
acknowledge the effort of the owner and
the architect to lower that they did
lower the the massing is now two feet
lower architecturally it was um
satisfying to air what about the volume
uh of the building uh was that even
discussed at ARB Karen yeah it was and
and they did
um we looked at it as in relation to the
home and the site and ARB
felt architectural standpoint it was
recommended in the positive to this
sport at the variant right Mr beel
typically that our airb would not be
considering volume that's dis right yeah
just as a matter of a function of
appearance right M or architecture I get
you
and Mr Turner is correct if there is a
an a variance needed for the volume uh
volume should have been included in the
original application I don't see I mean
my link to the application's not live so
um if there is one for volume you can
certainly um grant that variance
assuming that I'm assuming that that's
why it's here because they need you need
variances so if the variances were
advertised you can certainly Grant the
variances to volume as well to Mr
Turner's point
point just question is how you're going
to identify and quantify it in your
findings right gotcha so
um Kathy just so that we're Square here
what is the uh limit and what is the
what is the square footage of this
request I don't have my plan in front of
me
okay and which i' prefer to defer to
Scott what those measurements
are
right well I know the garage itself is
618 square
feet the floor square foot to the floor
I believe so should and and accessory
structures
maximum square foot allowed on a first
floor is
624 square feet so he does doesn't isn't
quite that large which I guess is a good
thing yeah
okay second floor is you know
probably probably a little over 90% of
the first floor
area but I don't have that exact number
in front of me okay so the footprint is
is
uh is
618 square feet
yes all right and we're we're getting
one foot above I mean it just seems to
me like this is going to fall into this
this whole quandry that we have about
garages and how we're generally trying
to make some recommendations and I think
the board we ought to move more quickly
here on making recommendations of the
city about these garages and where we're
going to end up going with uh but just
for a point of note um we are we do have
a garage code work group that we are in
the middle of looking at that
okay all right so so technically based
on what he's shared with us it does
exceed one story in height based on
volume and it exceeds the 20 foot height
limit by one foot right so exceeds one
story and the 20 foot height limit and
the question so he he would need need a
variance for both of those problems they
would need I should say not Scott well
they're both listed under the same code
so I see code sections yes you're right
they are okay so two story garage at 21
feet in height is what he's
requesting
okay all right uh are there any uh
members of the general public that are
here to make a comment either for or
against this application Karen can you
tell um if you are here to
com car in your
[Music]
muff
yeah I I can't hear what you're saying
Karen
either it's that piano noise that that
theal mentioned
earlier I wonder if she's with us or
not well she
[Music]
just I wonder if she turned her phone
off that that would make a
difference
Mr Beall I believe her comment was
anybody who wishes to speak on this
application please raise a virtual hand
so that she can allow you in thank you I
couldn't hear that but that's fine and
and is she the only is Karen the only
one that can see whether there are
virtual hands up I assume that's
probably right that is correct I can
check and I can people
in there are none right okay thank you
um can you hear me at this time yes yes
we can yes okay loud and clear actually
to okay it happens again I'll switch to
regular internet instead of the phone
okay uh I'm seeing photos of the or
pictures of the uh drawings of the house
can I I see the human beings
again maybe if I talk does it show me no
not yet you should be able to
okay is everybody else seeing people or
are we seeing
drawings
both Bob did you select should speaker
view in the upper right
corner I believe
so I've been I've been seeing everybody
the whole time till
now uh
okay um that that doesn't matter let's
let's I'll have to do it without seeing
everybody's face do the members of the
board have any additional questions or
comments I assume the odonals would like
to have a vote on this at this time one
way or the
other yeah that that's correct I mean I
don't think we can table it again
because we can't with this design based
on the the work we've done with Scott I
don't think we can lower it we kind of
have to start from scratch so
our our vote tonight so let me tell you
this just so I I should probably tell
everybody now that we have a lot of
people in the queue here are watching
ordinarily there are seven people on the
board apparently three could not make it
tonight so
two substitute members were able to join
us so we have six that doesn't change
the requirement that you need four votes
to win and to make a successful
application
so the obviously uh getting four votes
out of six is more difficult than
getting four votes out of seven and that
would certainly we would certainly give
you the opportunity to table it if you
would like to uh for that reason with
the hope that next month there would be
a seven members on the other hand we're
certainly able to vote uh
on this matter tonight with the six
members Mr and Mrs
odonnell yeah um no I I think we should
take the vote just because we've you
know the months are going by so we'll
we'll go ahead and vote okay
uh Miss Rose can you please read the
findings of fact conclusions of law with
regard to this matter
please the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bcap D
20-37 for property located at 2754
Sherwood
Road based on the testimony presented
the board finds it appropriate to Grant
a variance from beic code section 12521
15E to allow the proposed detached
garage to
be over two-thirds the volume of the
story
below um and that the height ex can
exceed the 20 foot height Li
MIT taking it to 21 fet in height and
that
the approval should be in substantial
conformance with the renderings and
plans
dated January 28th 20 thou
2021 okay thank you very
much
um Mr Mrs odonnell do you understand the
findings of fact conclusions of law that
as as read uh and are you satisfied with
with them and and uh willing to subject
the proposition uh to a vote Yes okay
thank
you do I have a motion
to approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law
please don't mov thank you do I have a
second second Sean Turner thank you
Sean um Miss Rose will you please call
the role on this
matter Miss Mitchell yes Mr
Turner yes Miss
Dorne yes Mr LaVine yes Mr shik yes
chairman
beho I
will vote no but the matter
passes and the variances are granted Mr
Mrs odonnell thank you thank you for
your work on changing the design and Mr
Baker as well and good luck with your
project thank you guys very much
appreciate it thanks thank you good
luck all right the next case on the
docket under old business is case bz
ap-20
d63 it involves the property located at
424 South Columbia the applicant is
Sullivan builders Inc and the owners are
suit and Shila sha the applicant is
seeking Architectural Review and
approval of modifications and changes to
the original approved
elevations and of a new or of a new
single family home some of which have
and have not been staff approved which
may uh include a proposed solar panel
installation uh the project project
originally
approved by the Bap then the bza I think
in February of
2018 uh has been built not according to
the approved plans the applicant is
before the board to go over
modifications of the original designs
and proposed resolutions Additionally
the the applicant is seeking approval
for the addition of solar panels on the
roof as
submitted uh this case is for the
issuance of a new certificate of
appropriateness
this is a situation where the original
Builder is was not Sullivan Builder Inc
as I
recall and uh the original Builder hired
by these folks did not build pursuant to
the specs and
approved um drawings that were submitted
and approved by the bza at that
time they brought in a new Builder
they've obviously had to make changes
and uh not they now have uh submitted
this new application so would uh who who
is here to speak on behalf of the
applicant
please Miller of the Bor Mr Beall this
is Joe Miller of the vor's law firm
hello Mr Miller how are you tonight good
good evening all right and are you
represent Mr Mrs Shaw I I do and I
suspect uh that um Brian Kent Jones and
Matt Sullivan will be joining me along
with Lea and Summit sha all right would
would you all Raise Your Right hands to
be sworn in please not not you Mr Miller
but the uh your
clients are are they all
present yeah I can only see the
house okay I believe that everyone that
raised their hand to as an applicant is
now in
all right do do you somly swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth
yes all right thank you all Miss Boart
may I ask is Brian Kent Jones admitted I
he's the only one I don't
see Karen could you tell if Brian Kent
Jones is in yes okay good and uh Mr
Jones if you could speak did you were
you sworn in
there BET's muted yeah
probably ban are you
muted sorry about that yes I was sworn
in thank you thank you I appreciate your
I appreciate it all right um uh Kathy
can you give us a little background and
I I tried to do so a little bit there
but you're certainly do a better job of
of bringing us up to uh up to
date well this job has been going on for
a while and as you said the contractor
there was issues and a new contractor
took over the job and at that time we
reviewed the plans and elevations after
there was comments made and
the the applicant was in was informed
that the changes that were made had to
be readdressed because there were a few
that were not approved and there were
some that Karen and I had actually
worked with the applicant so at the time
the house was not dried in so in order
to address making sure that it would not
deteriorate in while we got the new
plans ready to submit to at least reveal
what the changes were we allowed the
applicant to Contin continue to dry in
the house so at at this time uh they've
been working with us to
resubmit the uh the changes and I will
defer to Karen to go over
uh what those
are thank you Karen okay I'm just gonna
give um a brief summary of where we are
with this project and and then I'm going
to defer to Joe Miller who has prepared
a
slideshow um that I have and will
broadcast I think you can see the first
page now that he can go ahead and and do
the whole explanation um I did put out a
lengthy staff report
in we're losing you
Karen can you hear me now we can okay um
most of these
issues we lost you
again can you hear me now
yes
yes off of headphones so maybe that'll
help
no
um boy I hope we can stick with
it I can hardly wait till we're back all
in person okay I'm gonna give it to
Joe okay Mr Miller as a result of
technical difficulties here can you go
ahead and uh give us an an idea of where
this is headed from your client's
position please I can absolutely uh Mr
chairman and I know you have a lengthy
agenda tonight but I want to be fullsome
in my description so the uh so the board
understands where we are uh Karen if you
could back up this is actually the last
slide if you could go up to the first
slide um again I'm Joe Miller it's my
privilege to appear before you I'm very
grateful for your time but Summit and
Lake AA are extremely grateful for your
time in consideration this evening we
are here about the Residence at 424
South Columbia as you you know a
certificate of appropriateness was
issued for this home in 2018 it was
overwhelmingly approved by this board
the board at that time found that this
house satisfied the standards of the
Bexley city code um we're back before
you because you will hear and it's been
described changes were made to this home
without the cities or the Shaw's consent
you will hear that we're practical the
Shaws have done everything they can to
go back to the original design
and make accommodations uh as necessary
we are very gratified as you saw in Miss
Boar's report to have uh her
recommendation of approval with
conditions I can tell you that we accept
each of those conditions and we ask that
you please follow her recommendation
tonight this is very briefly a diff
different situation than you typically
face what I mean by that is there is
already An approved home approved by
this board previously deemed to be
appropriate so your discretion is a
little more constrained than maybe
typical tonight namely and I believe
Miss Cunningham your lawyer uh would
advise you consistent with this tonight
you are merely to evaluate the few
differences that I'll describe from the
2018 approval and whether those specific
changes somehow make this structure now
not appropriate I submit to you that
they do not and it would be arbitrary to
find otherwise I'll highlight each of
those differences uh so you can evaluate
them uh but first you'll hear from Lake
a shha about how the Shaws never wanted
any of this they wanted the home that
Brian Kent Jones designed and you
approved in 2018 and as I mentioned they
are trying to make this right but you'll
also hear from the Shaw's new Builder Mr
Sullivan as well as Mr Kent Jones that
we'll talk about what the changes are
and how they remain fully appropriate
um and they will tell you that none of
these changes should cause the board to
deviate from what it found
overwhelmingly in 2018 that this home is
deserving of a certificate of appropri
appropriateness um we've even made uh
kind of further renderings available for
your consideration tonight that the ARB
expressed interest in seeing how
Landscaping May uh soften the look of
the home and and frankly I think
conforming with Miss Boar's
recommendation and conditions for
approval so with that I'd like to turn
it over to Le Shaw briefly to explain
how we got to where we are right now
before I address each of these changes
Leica thanks Joe um my name is Leica sha
and this is my husband Summit Shaw um
first I want to thank the board um and
all the community members here tonight
just for their time and the opportunity
to speak um we have two daughters just
to give you a little bit of background
information on our family we have two
daughters uh who go to school school um
at Columbus School for Girls We're
originally from Dublin we currently are
living there um we fell in love with the
CSG Community um in the community of
Bexley so we decided to make our forever
home here in
Bexley um so we purchased our uh
property on at
424 South Columbia in
2017 the house um at the time had been
vacant for several years and uh needed
to be
demolished so at that time we hired uh
Bryant Kent Jones to design the home uh
for several reasons one of course um his
outstanding reputation um and we were
also aware that you know he had designed
several homes in Bexley so we were
comfortable knowing that he would design
a home uh that would fit seamlessly into
the community um prior to construction
prior to demolition any of that we um we
introduced ourselves to all of our
neighbors um surrounding our home and um
you know just thank them for their
patience as we kind of started this
whole construction process and um
assured them that you know if there was
any issues we'd work with them to to
resolve them uh we then received our
certificate of appropriateness in
2018 um from this board for Brian's um
Studio Brian Kent Jones um design and
then at that time everyone seemed to be
really thrilled with that
design um so we hired our architect for
first and then found a
contractor um who agreed to carry out
Brian's design and unfortunately that
did not go as smoothly
um so during the construction process
our um our prior contractor made some
changes in the design of the home um
that we as non-architects you know just
did not notice did not catch um but I
can tell you with absolute certainty
that these changes were made without our
knowledge
um there were some changes that we did
notice just from a design perspective um
and I had asked the contractor you know
can we make these changes and he told us
that he had gotten all of the necessary
approvals from Bexley so one of the
examples would be um and you'll you'll
see that later on in the slideshow is in
regards to the side porch I had asked
the contractor to um make it a little
bit more um straight line without any
traditional curvature to it and he I
asked if we needed to get additional
approvals for that and our contractor at
the time told me that he would take care
of it um and you know needless to say we
are no longer working with that
contractor uh so along with the fact
that he wasn't communicating with the
city um along with other Financial
issues and things with you know not
delivering when promised again we're not
working with him and we've also found
two other families who've had issues
with the same contractor and also
stopped their project Midway through and
unfortunately are are seeking other um
contractors
um so now we are working with Sullivan
Builders and we're thrilled with them
and um we are working with them to
restore uh certain aspects of the home
back to the original design um wherever
it's practical and
reasonable uh an example of that would
be the window L lentils um changing them
to the unpainted
Limestone um you know and I want to
mention too that during this process
it's important for me I just want to let
you know that it's really important for
my for you to know that um we are really
respectful of this process that you guys
have in place we're respectful of the
board and respectful of the neighbors um
and again none of these changes you know
were done without were done without our
knowledge um so okay I don't want to cut
you off but we have so many cases
tonight I think the kind of these softer
things that you're talking to us about
we kind of need to hone in on some of
these architectural uh issues and
building issues if you don't mind didn't
mean to cut you off and Joe I didn't
mean to cut her off either but no I'm
I'm happy to move us more into the
substance of things ume if you don't
mind no absolutely uh just very quickly
um that you know obviously this board
approved the home in
2018 the Shaws have spent 2020 frankly
trying to unscramble the eggs and
working with the city to determine the
differences that bring us here tonight
the ARB did not provide a positive
recommendation but be honest with you it
was hard to get consensus on what
conditions would allow for a
recommendation of approval uh the arv
heard complaints about drainage about
the sidewalk being block construction
complaints that I know aren't before you
tonight miss boar and and Miss
Cunningham were there and and can speak
to it but certainly the arb1 to see a
rendering with landscaping and how that
may uh reflect positively on the home
we've got that here for you tonight uh
and we are very grateful I'll say
quickly for the assistance of of Kathy
and of Karen uh they've been very
helpful in discussing the changes and
how the Shaws can make this right so
moving to the next slide just very
quickly this was the uh if Karen's still
on um she's advancing the
slides can you see the slides if you
could advance to the next
one how's that
not
yet can you see the slides yes but we
can't see the next one yet we want you
to move to the next one oh this
one we're not seeing any
change if you could share the original
structure it may have Frozen up
um how about if I just don't do the full
screen can you see
those we're seeing the project history
and that's all we're
seeing Mr chairman uh with your
permission I'm going to jump in with the
screen
share okay stand by please who's this
speaking Mr shik yes thank you Superman
squared here we
go so I send you the
slideshow there we go oh we can see
it let me hold my title of my favorite
uh bookmarks how about
that yeah there is can you hear me yes
yes okay there is an updated slideshow
that I received today that I'll Mr shik
I'll send you an
email okay well I think we've got the
right idea here
okay Mr chairman I'm I'm prepared to
move on this one um go ahead for the
next step could we have findings of
facts matter of law can we make a motion
for
that at this stage of this uh matter we
cannot okay thank you because we need to
give the audience a chance to speak to
this issue oh that that's working Mr
shik if you're doing that yeah you're
working it beautifully so get to the
slide you'd like Mr Miller uh well I'll
I'll be quick um I'm on two right here
tell me Mr Miller counselor would you
like me to go if you would go just up
above briefly to the 2018 design
and then frankly once you have a chance
to look at that members I'd then ask Mr
schik if you could go to the 2020 Slide
the next one oh just the next
one presentation okay as you can see to
my untrained eye these are incredibly
similar uh structures um and I I
reviewed the minutes and and video of
your 2018 meeting there were no
complaints about Building height there
were no complaints about window grids
side entry or some things I'll talk
about the subtle changes we're prepared
to discuss unfortunately though Mr schik
that is uh a presentation that isn't
updated with our Landscaping slides I
I'll try to adapt and maybe uh M boer's
uh issues that has that's that's not
that's not my problem with the PDF okay
understood and so um hopefully we'll get
uh Mrs boar back to show you the
Landscaping uh rings that we've worked
on um okay but you can advance to the
next slide if you don't mind Mr shik I
really appreciate your help of course
you know I this this commission or this
board knows well what standards guide
them I would just say and and and Miss
Cunningham if you feel differently stop
me that tonight is not a doover instead
we're focused on very specific changes
and whether they change the
determination that this is wholly
appropriate under those standards um I
don't believe the Aesthetics St do that
but I believe Ryan Kent Jones and Matt
Sullivan will give you comfort in that
regard as well let's let's turn to the
next slide if we could and here's where
this one has been updated as well let me
quickly walk you through what you're
about to hear you will hear there were
slight changes made to the window grids
uh but that those windows still remain
uh compatible uh the height of the home
has gone from 366 in as approved to 38
ft I am very mindful that Miss Boart in
her uh report determined the height to
be 39 F 3 in Mr Sullivan's going to
explain to you how we shot it with a
surveyor using the garage floor as a
base elevation and it's actually 38 feet
a difference of 18 in uh and until an
objective standard for measurement is
set forth in the code I believe Karen
would tell you she does not disagree
with our methodology that that is not
objectionable we believe the height
difference is actually 18 in and just as
a practical matter cannot feasibly or
safely be remedied at this point uh
there is a subtle difference uh in the
porch there is not in the front door we
have updated our presentation and
eliminated any change uh to the front
door same with the garage door uh Miss
boar as one of her conditions for
approval said go back to a carriage
style garage door we are doing that so
that's off the table we'll talk about
the side entry and the subtle
differences that Miss Shaw says we're
done without her knowing that City
approval was not obtained Mr Sullivan
will talk about the wall around the pool
and the Practical difficulties
encountered in construction as well as a
skylight that is not visible to the
public at large so uh Mr schik you're
you're very kind to do this if you could
advance to the next slide entitled
windows at this point I'd like to engage
uh Mr Jones and Mr Sullivan um you can
see hopefully members of the board that
there is a subtle difference between the
2018 design and the 2020 design a six
pane grid versus a 4 over4 pane design
as built Mr Jones are you able to hear
me yes I can uh I like if you could to
explain to the board uh whether this
changed in Windows in your opinion does
the home still remain compatible with
existing homes in the
neighborhood yeah while we see a
different change in light patterns we
think that it's really consistent with
things you would see within the block of
Colombia and uh you know stylistically
it's a subtlety um but we think it's we
think it's really consistent with uh
with with the
neighborhood thank you and if we could
advance to the next slide Mr
shik and so here we see the 2018 design
at 36 feet 6 in and our surveyed as
built in the field at 38 feet uh Mr
Sullivan this Mr Sullivan of course
you've heard is the current Builder not
affiliated with the prior Builder um how
was the as built height determined if
you could briefly explain for the board
sure U Can everyone hear me okay yes
okay um so what we did is we hired art
bruford from
bruford um surveying and he did a site
survey uh after the U meeting with the
ARB um there were concerns about the
grade so that we actually uh I went back
and pulled this the approved site plan
from
2018 we established benchmarks which are
the you'll see them in the sidewalks
these little metal pins and they create
benchmarks so that the surveyor can set
ENT zero sorry sorry to interrupt you
just if I'm just trying to pull up the
keynote I apologize if you see me doing
stuff so please continue so sorry that's
okay um the so we established zero so
that made sure that we knew that what we
were measuring from was what the 2018
site plan was we then in that site plan
if you were to ever pull it up you would
see Little Numbers at all the elevations
and we shot those to make sure that the
house wasn't physically built higher
that essentially the yard wasn't higher
than it was which is one of the
questions that came up in the ARB
meeting that frankly I was ignorant of
the answer we found out that all the
rough grade was within about an inch the
issue before us today is how do you
determine the height of the house so the
you know there's not you know as anyone
that walks around their home you you
know on one side you might have a you
know your driveway on the other side you
might have a planning bed and so you
have to kind of figure out a common area
to say okay this is how you determine
the height of the house so what we did
was we we located on the site plan the
closest um point to the floor of the
garage because we knew that that
wouldn't be artificially low because you
don't build a garage below grade of your
driveway and so we said okay that is as
good a spot as any to claim to be our
zero point to measure the height of the
house so we confirmed that the basically
the driveway is at the height that was
approved in 2018 the um what's called
the the car park or the approach to the
garage the subgrade is within an inch or
so of the height that was approved we
don't have a driveway yet to say it hits
it straight on but we're you're within
shooting distance then we used the
height of the garage as our zero to
measure the house and that was how we
got to the 38 feet and we measure it
with a surveyor's laser instead of guy
on a ladder holding a tape measure so oh
oh I'm sorry Matt I was just going to
note that we had an opportunity to share
this uh approach to the issue with uh
Karen and and as I mentioned she thought
it was a legitimate way of of measuring
um the home Matt given that this
discrepancy appears to be 18
Ines can this feasibly be remedied can
this practically or even safely be
changed at this point I think well what
I what I know is that the Roofing
package would be north of
$100,000 um that's just the roof for a
house this size the framing the Dem
demolish it would you you'd be in your
10 to
$20,000 you'd probably lose most of the
lights electric insulation HVAC in the
ceiling have to take that down and that
would at least be you know like I said
the demolition 10
$20,000 $40,000 $50,000 to preframe it
um you're looking at North of 200
probably closer to three or $350,000 to
repair it not to mention the
consequences that could happen if you
had a roof off a building and a storm
came or you know mean the the drywalls
finished inside the can of worms would
be
uncal okay Mr Sullivan this is Bob
behold would would doing this demolition
that you're discussing right now
possibly impact the uh what word do I
want the uh Integrity of the remaining
structure beneath it in other words is
is there any chance for damage to
that I would say the most significant
damage would be un kind of unplanned
unforeseen problems um you we inherited
this house fully drywalled we don't know
how we don't know how things were
necessarily put together we have had
projects where we raise the roof on a
building um usually you have to
essentially um structurally tie in the
second and third di floor diaphragm of
the building that would be immense that
would be basically rebuilding the house
inside the house gotta I wouldn't
venture to guess how you do that safely
in a way that could be cost effective so
recognizing thank you sorry Mr Miller go
ahead please chair chairman behall I I
would like to also for the record uh
indicate that this zoning District has a
height limit of Two and a Half stories
and sha not exceed 40 feet so it is it
is under the allowable height so there
would not be a variance due to that
change okay well then Mr Miller let's
move on to the next uh issue please if I
could just for the record so we're clear
turn to Mr Jones because uh you're
you're determining its appropriateness
Mr Jones very quickly does the home
remain compatible despite this
additional 18 in uh under the standards
for certificate of
appropriateness yeah Joe yes in my
opinion it does you know I think all of
us none of us have authored this you
know 18inch variance within from the
original but still within the context of
the building code and I think one of the
things that's really important to sort
of remind ourselves when you think about
this lot this the subd the subdivision
of lots along Colombia in this area are
really kind of U uncommon so this lot
the house actually sits on a lot that's
really commensurate with much larger
homes that are you know across the
street and other areas of Colombia it
hap so so I think that's an important
reminder when we look at this home I
think it I think it really works with
the site and in those early uh you know
approval processes with ARB you know the
attention given to kind of keeping a
really small scale of that additive
element that's the guest house you know
this house could have been you know 18
inches lower but filled the entire
property right and and I think I think
it I think it really works within the
context okay Brian can can you uh get
Karen Boker out of the chat room and
also just your faces displayed on the
screen instead of uh any drawings in
case you didn't know that ran not
Brian the drawings are still there just
the drawings yes I don't I don't think
you shaped
today that's Ryan without a b right
right Ryan without a correct yes because
Brian was talking and you it sounded
like you said Brian I was wondering no
Ryan M Mr shik I I I don't see any plans
on the screen currently does anybody
else I see his face yes yes I see I've
got them on
mine uh Mr Miller why don't you go ahead
and we'll we'll look at Mr shik's face
while you talk Swit the screen
share and and and Mr shik just so you
know I appreciate what you're doing I
can see the slides for some reason so if
you could advance to the next one front
porch front door for those who can um
here I'll try to describe it graphically
um we are not seeking a change to the
front door now currently uh that is
withdrawn but while this slide is up U
Mr Sullivan if I could ask you about
Limestone band uh as well as Corrections
being made to the columns and beams
these are efforts to restore the 2018
design is that correct Matt that's
correct yeah we are we are returning it
back to its original design we're
installing Limestone beams for what it's
worth we had our first U Limestone
lentil installed this week um and it
looks great and it did not do too much
damage to the exterior so this was kind
of the test piece we did it on on the um
pool facing side so we didn't mess with
the valuable real estate of the front
and it went swimmingly so we have now
order the remaining
Limestone uh and uh should be in you
before too long I think they said three
to four weeks and then we'll be out
there putting it back in uh borrowing
any results from here so our plan is to
move forward with the Limestone
lentils and then you'll Resto you'll put
in post and beam construction on the
columns as requested by Miss boore
correct there the um the post and beam
construction across the front porch was
just partially done by the previous
contractor we're going to infill it
we've already ordered the remaining
amount of Steel so that above the
columns uh the beam will look like it
should be there and for those that can
see it Mr shik if you could advance to
the slide entitled garage door with a
big red
X yeah this is just to show you we're
going to go back to 2018 we're going to
do everything we can to keep this
well within the board's prior finding of
approval as Miss koric requested in her
condition next is the side entry uh Mr
schik um if you could go to the previous
slide that perfect uh you'll see um if
members of the board if you can see it
on the 2018 design is on the left the as
built that Mrs Shaw reference that she
was told was approved by the city is on
the right um Brian I don't know if can
see this slide but if you're able to
recall from seeing it
previously would you describe some of
the changes and whether this Still
Remains compatible with existing homes
in the neighborhood yeah yeah absolutely
and you know I think um I can see the
slide and the 2018 design um you know
had some curving elements to it the
house really has uh you know while it
has traditional characteristics has a uh
kind of a classical modern expression
that's occurring in a lot of the window
assemblies and uh we think that the way
it's been built is a simplification and
certainly um appropriate within the
context of of of the community of the
neighborhood in
particular thank you thank you Brian and
and Mr shik you're very kind we can jump
ahead over the next slide it's an
elevation meant to just show the side
entry again and we can talk about the
next issue namely the wall and the fence
on the south elevation of the uh home uh
Matt could you please describe what
we're looking at here for the members of
the board that can see it from 2018 sure
this is the 2018 design that shows a rod
iron fence with a uh with some kind of
landscape uh visual blocking from the
pool area um and then if we look to the
next slide perfect thank you Mr shik go
ahead Matt and describe what we're
seeing and what accounts for the
differences sure
so I think what is there are there are
actually two things going on one of
which is reasonably obvious um the other
one is not quite as obvious the uh
obvious part is the retaining wall that
is built between the shaw residents and
their neighbor to the South Common with
his driveway that wall is built for two
reasons one the pool is at uh the pool
and the associated deck is uh at grade
to the interior of the house which again
was to the best of my knowledge at the
um that was how it was drawn in 2018 for
the site plan so the retaining walls to
keep the spoils from that uh from from
that construction from falling off
precipitously to the sou um that wall
ranges I have not sck a tape measure on
it personally but it ranges in my
opinion from about a foot and half to a
couple inches as it goes towards the
rear of the property in the plan that
you were looking at from 2020 that we're
bringing shows the foliage protecting
the view of the neighbor from the pool
wall so the code requires a 4 foot wall
to prevent a child from falling into the
pool so there's a subsequent wall that
is four foot tall on the inside of the
foliage that is not shown excellently in
the slide that follows the the 2018
design so is it fair to say Matt that
all of these changes were necessary to
address great issues found on site
drainage and and buffering issues like
you just described to ensure code
compliance with a 4 foot fence around
the pool that that is accurate and to
further illustrate that there is a
drainage tile that I've spoke with the
neighbor about to the South and we
actually hamered that to make sure that
it works and it does time in all the
drainage on the pool deck and in that
buffer area between the pool fence and
the uh and the retaining wall it drains
that all into a primary um uh drain line
that then goes out to the storm water
system on the street okay uh very
quickly then moving on to the next slide
and next issue uh Mr shik thanks again
for your assistance so I've got a
question regarding the wall okay so you
want to maintain the retaining wall is
that correct yes please and the height
of that is it's it ranges because of the
grade from the neighbor's driveway um
okay I believe from about two and a half
like a foot and a half to two feet to a
couple
inches and then a 48 inch fence is
what's required around the pool is that
48 inch fence being placed on top of the
retaining wall no it's approximately 3
feet towards the pool so and if you go
to the Mr shik if you go to the
subsequent slide it is behind the
foliage that's shown on between the
retaining wall and the um it would be uh
slide 16 so the what you're see the wall
you're seeing with the black fence at
the bottom of the illustration is the
retaining wall the neighbor 's uh
driveway goes It goes uphill as it goes
towards the rear of the space and then
behind that Greenery that is where it
looks like you have Greenery and then
just pool there's a stone wall that was
done to prevent sound pollution and
light and stuff from the social
activities from uh disturbing the
neighbor that is inside that
foliage okay thank you for the
clarification you're welcome I have a
quick question um how close is that uh
this is Heidi Dorne sorry thank you how
close is uh the retaining wall to the
neighbor driveway that you mentioned
it's close I don't have uh I don't have
a site plan to speak specifically to
that um my assumption is it's pretty
close to the property line but I don't
know where the property we haven't
surveyed that
property thank you welcome and for the
record code allows a fencer wall to be
on up to the property line as long as
it's not on the neighboring
property okay thank you thank you and
and the last difference that we've
spotted just to be fully forthcoming
relates to skylights uh and and ARB
wanted to see where those skylights were
so we added a slide to show it for you
uh since you are the ultimate decision
maker here it's the next slide Mr schik
uh and and frankly they're not visible
from the Street um Mr Jones as silly as
this may seem is there anything about
the addition of those skylights that
make this home
incompatible uh no I don't believe so
and I think other part Sky skylights are
actually nestled in between other
building forms and U and and they
they're of a a very very high quality
and I think are commensurate okay and
then last at a very high level M on the
next slide we've itemized other issues
that the Shaws have taking care to
correct or or kind of address outright
uh could you quickly run through those
for the uh for the board sure uh the
first one is the pool house they rotated
the pool house um 90 degrees prior to us
coming on more 180 degrees rather and so
the ridge Line is now uh facing uh
perpendicular to the street and that was
approved by staff as as best I
understand it prior to us coming on um
the grade we shot the grade everything
from the street to the garage and it was
within like I said inches of what was
approved and we're not at F final
Landscaping so you know even if there
was some issues um I think we have
plenty of opportunity to clean the side
up and get that um on you know on point
but it's not far at all it's not off by
any substantive manner um the solar
panels are um are on a flat roof my
understanding is Bexley solar panels on
flat RS are reviewed by staff but um
that is not my
expertise um and then the I can comment
on the solar panels they they are
typically reviewed by staff when they're
not visible to city right of way but in
this case we just wanted to be very
transparent that that was a a request so
we just figured we'd add it in just so
that everyone was aware that this is
part of this approval
thank you and will not be
seen they will be on a flat roof and not
visible and then Mr Sullivan you
described how brick lentils were
installed before you became involved in
Sullivan Builders is taken care to put
take them out and put in Limestone ones
consistent with the 2018 plans is that
right correct yes okay great and last
and I mean this uh vard let me just talk
about Landscaping very quickly you've
been generous with your time a fair
suggestion was made at the ARB that we
should be able to see and depict the
home with Landscaping the next slide Mr
schik for those able to see it um
depicts a uh a sketch by Mr Jones
depicting a more Traditional landscape
as opposed to something a little more
with more modern elements that had been
previously discussed before the ARB the
Shaw took to heart some of the
complaints of their new neighbors and
worked with uh worked with staff to find
a more traditional Landscaping plan that
would frankly soften the home and
hopefully uh help to address some of the
objections of the neighbors um and Miss
Spar likewise suggested that we show the
condition of the Landscaping uh with
more mature trees and so that's the
final slide before you this evening the
rendering Mr shik that's in the next uh
slide
and to my untrained eye thank you very
much this does appear to soften the size
of the home and I would point out to you
this does not even depict two mature
trees in the right away on Colombia in
front of the home we wanted to show this
hopefully uh to let the Neighbors in the
neighborhood know the shaw are willing
to do anything they can in this regard
to to accommodate concerns expressed at
the RP and soften the home as it appears
from the street um I think think you've
heard loud and clear this has been a
nightmare for the
Shaws it truly has and they are very
grateful for Mr Jones and Mr Sullivan's
assistance to try to remedy these
problems that were fored upon them um
we're happy to answer your questions I
believe that the Shaws are deserving of
your approval tonight subject to Karen's
uh conditions uh and anything other than
that I believe would be arbitrary and
not something that this board should
should engage in after giving it this
home its overwhelming approval in 2018
with that I think all of us are happy to
answer your questions all right uh
members of the board this is Bob behall
again the uh if you have some initial
questions uh that need
clarification uh based upon the
presentation by Mr Miller Mr Jones Mr
Sullivan and the and the Shaws please
let me know right now and we'll let you
uh so
inquire chairman behall I do I do have a
quick question before we get into the
meat of it I just want to clarify Mr
Miller um your
clients uh are indicating that to this
board that the GC they had hired that
did the work previously made all of
these change orders without any of their
working knowledge no sign offs for the
cost the
expense um I'm just curious how process
was was going forward in terms of a
check off and a sign off certainly uh
certainly as to Building height you
heard I think Miss Shan I think we can
all sympathize if we're not Builders or
Architects to their like my untrained
eye the building height was was frankly
a surprise to them uh conversely the
side entry they asked explicitly is this
do we need approvals he's he said I've
got it taken care of and so um I think
what we have here is a case where folks
wanted to do the right thing and were
led to believe that they had done the
right thing in terms of respecting the
process and that's kind of where why
we're coming to you uh with kind of uh
all cards on the table as to what we
know and what we've been able to
reconstruct with the help of Kathy and
Karen and then other things that our
client was interested in a different
front door a different garage door or
different elements of landscaping we
retreated from out of respect to the
2018 approval and tried to replicate it
as much as possible okay I apologize I'm
occasionally freezing up and I can't
hear nor see anybody's movements or uh
hear their voices so I don't know what
the problem is it must have something to
do with the internet here but
nonetheless um does that answer your
question um Miss Mitchell would you
rather have the Shaws uh testify as to
that issue oh it does thank you any
other members of the board have any
questions because I'd like to miss Boer
to let me know if there's anybody in the
audience that is here to do to make
comment uh about this case Pro or con
people that have standing to do so
please are you asking now for I'm asking
you to to look to I'm asking the
audience to let you know by raising
their virtual hand whether they is
anyone that has a comment about this
case uh and has standing to to make
comments um I have four hand braids I
think rather than put them in now five
um I think I'll just go down and
and give them speaking privileges okay
but not them to put in not put them in
the panelist room trying everything we
can to lessen the load on on this
connection okay okay they are all have
privileges now if anybody else that um
that wants to speak to this could please
raise their um virtual hand I'll give
you talking privileges as
well all right you're gonna do this one
at a time Karen that's the only way it
can happen
right I think they can all be sworn in
at the same time as long as everybody's
unmuted okay would everyone that has
raised their hands that wish to speak uh
or raise your right hand and be sworn in
by the
uh zoning official Miss Rose please do
you solemnly swear or affirm the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the
truth I do I
do I do
okay all right uh do we have a certain
order here is Karen can give a name then
I think what do is I'll call a name and
if you could when I call your name just
um confirm that you did um you know
swear in and we're we're sworn in and
also give your address so that um I'll
ask
questions so who's the first person
please Jim Arnold Jim Jim Arnold the
attorney Jim Arnold yes one the Mr
Arnold how are you this night this
evening I'm doing well Mr chairman how
are you I'm fine who do you represent
and where do they live I represent Allan
and Carol rner they live two homes to
the north of the subject property okay
on South Columbia yes okay very good
would you give us an idea of what your
clients uh think about this uh uh
request for variance and well request
for approval I do thank you Mr chairman
and thank you to the rest of the board
uh we are here because on November 5
2020 the ARB voted not to recommend
modifying the certificate of
appropriateness and uh with all due
respect to Mr Miller who who knows I
have the utmost respect for him this
does appear to me to be a doover having
failed at the ARB to obtain a
modification of the certificate of
appropriateness they're here I don't
know whether or not the board is
acquainted with the painstaking effort
through which the ARB went but it's a
five member board it had a two and a
half hour
discussion and uh considered all of the
same issues that we are discussing
tonight they heard the arguments uh they
reviewed photos and drawings they
listened to the neighbors listened to
the Builder listened to the architect
and a vote was taken and it was not a
close vote it wasn't 3-2 it wasn't 4:1
it was a unanimous vote of a board
comprised principally of Architects not
to to Grant a any variances or
modifications to the certificate of
appropriateness and I'm sure it was a
difficult decision to go to to uh to
arrive at because of some of the things
that U undoubtedly uh it's uncomfortable
because of the Shaws but they did what
was necessary and they fulfilled their
statutory responsibility and the
homeowners are here asking you to
essentially overrule the arb's decision
and permit them to build a house that
doesn't conform to the orig certificate
of appropriateness and ignore not only
the ARB but the neighbors views about
what has
happened I submit that when the ARB is
unanimous it should be an even higher
hurdle to change or modify the
certificate of appropriateness and make
different
recommendations now what we focused on
today uh for the most
part is lentils Windows Landscaping
columns that's not what this is about
the elephant in the room is the ridg
line and the homeowners say the ridg
line is below the maximum permitted 40
feet and therefore it should be
permissible but that's not the issue it
doesn't have to be above the maximum
permissible height to be wrong all it
has to do is not conform to the original
certificate of appropriateness and it
does not this height was not approved
whether it's 30t 38 ft or 39 uh2
5et now I don't know uh are you able to
see me or is this just visual no we
can't see you Jim you can we cannot oh
okay well I had some photos I wanted to
show you because I noticed that we have
artist illustrations and um drawing
Karen can you get can you get
uh Jim so that he can make his
presentation
okay he should be able to be seen at
this
time
hello yes
Jim hold on I just had to unmute for
some reason yeah we're we're all muted
there for a while who's speaking who who
is speaking please say your names
because we can't see nor in some cases
here so if somebody pipes in please tell
me the chairman who you are and what
you're trying to accomplish so I can
control the situation which is hard
enough when we're in person let alone
Zoom am I visible
now no still not is there something else
I need to do Karen to do that uh your
video you need to probably turn your
video on where it says stop video or
there you go there you are okay oh it
looks like I've got a screen that I
didn't intend to
uh yeah that was for a different uh a
different Zoom
meeting but I I've got a couple pictures
here I I hope these are visible I I
don't know if it's
disappearing oh it is it is dis
disappearing hold it back to take your
background you have to turn off virtual
background oh yeah I don't know how to
do it
well I'm going to describe it to you and
then I'll try to submit it to you later
uh because I'll tell you some of the
descriptions that we heard from the
people at the ARB on the meeting of
November five I only listened I wasn't
present but I listened to the video
presentation sir if you if you can't if
you can't suspend your virtual
background I don't know what relevance
these photographs are going to have
later if we're going to take a vote
tonight well you make a good point I
agree with you but I don't know if we
have a record later or not but I don't
know how to suspend the virtual
background okay so I I just I move that
mere descriptions of photographs are
probably not
sufficient well why don't we allow him
to make the argument in in a verbal way
and then uh uh if he can later figure
out a way to submit either by scanning
and emailing uh to somebody who can show
them we can figure that
out J I don't know what you have
available you know uh at your beckon
call there but go ahead and try to tell
us uh we have a pretty good idea because
we've seen this uh case can can you take
photographs of them with your cell phone
real quick like literally just text
message them to
us uh I probably can okay um to whom
would I text it let me see if I could
chat this directly to you so I'm not
broadcasting this all over YouTube with
the um millions of people that are
watching
us Jim yeah Arnold yes would it would it
uh be helpful if maybe we heard another
speaker while you and Mr schik do this
because we've got quite a few cases on
our docket tonight and we need to get
through this I don't want to interrupt
the flow of your discussion and argument
however uh I appreciate that well I'm
going to just continue without the phot
okay because I think it's going to be
more efficient and I don't want to waste
anybody's time well thank you very much
so what these photos would depict if I
had them would show you that if you draw
a straight line from the adjoining South
property owners
uh ridg line over to the proposed home
uh there are several feet it is several
feet higher uh than the adjacent home
and that's what this is about more than
anything else the the homeowners have
made clear both here tonight and at the
ARB that they don't believe there's any
remedy that involves uh tearing off the
roof uh and so the only thing we can do
is continue to object to the uh
modification or to the modification of
the certificate of appropriateness now
there's an explanation or at least there
one was one that I thought was offered
at the ARB uh Miss boar uh stated and
I'm reading verbatim from the or I I
took verbatim
notes uh she explained what happened
because the floor plate she said is much
higher than the grade it's not what we
expected to see from the original
drawing so it does bring the elevation
quite a bit higher than from what was
originally
proposed now miss Tony on the E on the
ARB echoed she said it feels to me like
the grade was never taken down to the
grade the previous House was built on so
we started 3 feet higher and end up with
a house that's five or six feet taller
than expected during the ARB meeting on
November 5 chairman Bardwell described
the house as a having a monstrously high
Ridge line Miss Tony didn't disagree she
said her biggest problem with the house
is it feels like a monster and she went
on to elabor Abate I approved the
original drawings with the feeling that
this house was only going to be a couple
feet taller than the houses next to it
when I look at it now the house feels
like it's six or seven feet taller and
it is than the hous is next to it it
makes the house to the south of it look
like it's down in a
hole the neighbors
concur uh Mr Weston who lives across the
street calls it a monstrosity and Miss
yach I think she lives behind the house
calls it the Pac-Man house because it
looked like it's eating the other homes
on the
street now we've heard
from the homeowners that se several
things that they think is going to cure
this like uh the final grade is not in
and and on a rough grade it makes it
look taller well adding more dirt or
more Landscaping is not going to lower
the height of that home uh they do
appear to want to place most of the
blame and perhaps rightfully so on the
prior Builder but that isn't going to
change the height of the roof of this
house
what has been uniformally called at the
ARB a monstrosity and the neighbors who
have to live here should not be made to
suffer for what the Builder did because
the Builder was picked by the homeowners
they had no voice in
that I want to tell you that as I've
been in this
case dealing with these issues it
reminds me of the phrase and it's the
poster child for that that it now it
appears to be easier to ask forgiveness
than for
permission and I think that this home
should be made to be built in Conformity
with the original certificate of
appropriateness roof and all
irrespective of the expense it should be
only Built as it's originally improved
and ask you to follow the recommendation
of the ARB and not modify the
certificate of
appropriateness Mr may I respond no you
may not uh we will listen to the other
uh folks in the audience that have
comments and then you can respond okay
because I need to move this along and we
have other speakers so I appreciate it
your
request uh Mr Arnold thank you uh M uh
Boer who is the next speaker on your
list please um next on the list would be
Carol and Alan
Radner okay Jim Arnold was my attorney
I'll defer any time back to
him
okay we we are not
back we're just giving each speaker and
um David
Weston
okay good evening chairman behall uh
board I appreciate your time tonight and
appreciate the pain uh as this is going
to be a long evening uh so I I do have a
couple of comments that I've prepared
but uh a few notes from a few comments
from the previous uh ones before uh Mr
Miller noted that this is a nightmare
for the Shaws it's also a nightmare for
the neighbor
uh and Mr Weston excuse me this is Bob
Beall can you tell me where what where
you live absolutely yeah sure 399 South
Columbia Avenue so I live uh across the
street and down a house uh okay to the
north uh from the from 424 South
Columbia that's fine I appreciate that I
just wanted to get that on the record
thank you very much please absolutely
please proceed so Mr Miller also
mentioned a went took a lot of time
talking about a sad story with the show
and and how how they were wronged uh I I
will tell you that we're currently doing
a very large project at our house as
well which makes the street fun uh but
at the same time I I I am personally
responsible for how that house ends up I
am the one that's responsible if for
some reason that that house does not
look the way that it was approved in the
ARB and it was approved in the Bap board
that we came in front of you last year
so I I do not uh go with the the comment
that uh it's you know it's just a sad
story we were we were a victim here they
have every responsibility as the owners
they need to be held accountable for
that uh whether it's $20 whether it's
$300,000 that should not be a concern
they need to be held to the to what was
the expectation for them so uh to my my
uh my comments now just to we do believe
that uh we want the owners to comply
with the original plans that were
presented and approved several years ago
the owners can that the modifications
that have been made to the house that
deviate from the original plans are
minor and should and should be allowed
to proceed unfortunately the totality of
these minor changes significantly
altered the expected outcome of the
house narrow Windows extended height
roof lines of several feet significantly
change the appearance of the house to
the neighbors and take a house that was
already much larger house than the
neighbors to one that is grossly
disproportionate notice that the owners
are only presenting artist drawings of
the recommended changes here tonight
could that be because showing you the
actual photos which unfortunately Mr
Allan Mr Arnold couldn't provide tonight
uh but showing actual V uh photos the
views that we neighbors have to
experience every single day would show
how significantly different these
changes make the house and how
disproportionate the house now looks
compared to its neighbors the owners
contend that regardless of the changes
made to this house from what was
originally approved by the ARB no do not
matter because the changes are still
within bexley's code if this board
agrees with you donors then the board is
effectively making the ARB a hollow
board with no value to the city while
sometimes a pain to get plans approved
through the ARB the board that board
currently provides an exceptionally
valuable service to Bexley ensuring that
houses and additions maintain the Bexley
field if a homeowner can throw away can
throw any set of of plans to the ARB and
get approved and then build as they see
fit then there is no purpose for that
board a vote today to approve the
owner's request is a vote to make the
ARB irrelevant we we are not opposed to
the owners building a house that is
larger than all the Neighbors in fact
there were two other houses built on our
block over the past couple of years that
are beautiful additions to the street
what we are opposed to is a saga the
owners and their Builders have created
over the last two plus years a clear
disregard for their neighbors through a
work site that has been poorly
maintained mud that continues to pour
down by our houses sidewalks that are
impassible a clear disregard for the
regulations and processes the city has
put in place a clear disregard for
boards like the ARB and this board the
owner's presentation states that the
height of the roof is now 38 ft yet two
months ago the owners were stating that
the roof was 38 and half fet other
measurements have indicated that the
height is closer to 39 and2 fet any way
you look at it the height is not what
was approved the roof was already higher
than any other house in the area by
several feet any deviation above the
approved height only makes this house
more disproportionately taller than
anyone else in the area add to this that
the grade the house has been built on
was clearly raised several feet higher
than the neighbors and you get a house
that now appears grossly out of place
when compared to its neighbors please
note that we are not arguing what was
approved by the ARB several years ago we
understand the system and we know that
any chance to raise concerns about the
approved plans passed when the ARB and
and Bap approved those plans several
years ago had the house been built
according to what was approved we would
not be here today and neither would the
owners their inability to follow the
approved plans are why we are all
spending a good portion of our Thursday
evening dealing with this issue the
owners need to be held accountable for
their actions and be required to do what
every other Bexley Bexley resident has
done follow the approved plan the owners
knew many months ago that they were out
of compliance with the approved plan yet
have continued to build hoping that you
will ignore their disregard for bexley's
processes holding the owners accountable
for their actions now will send the
right
message thank you very much all right
thank you Mr Weston now let me uh make a
a comment about procedure here uh we're
not here to particularly make political
decisions we're here to make building
zoning planning decisions and I'd ask
the future speakers number one to try to
keep your comments to under three
minutes if possible and number two uh
you can avoid the politics we are well
aware of the politics of the situation I
realize the proponents brought political
issues up so now some of the opponents
are bringing them up and I and I'll
certainly give some Lee weight for that
but I'd like for you to concentrate on
the your comments on the physical
attributes of the building please who's
the next speaker Miss
Boker Karen are you
there yes sorry I keep getting my SC the
screen expanded and I keep reducing it
so I can see the
name
um Maxon Izzy and I apologize if I
didn't pronoun that pronounce that
correctly all
right would the next speaker please uh
introduce yourself and give me your
address Maxon
please well this is Angela Yak Maxon
Izzy's mom uh apparently it's his login
that I'm using on the uh call tonight um
so he's a minor um so he will not be
joining us he's watching the Blue
Jackets game so
any read whatever's on the screen yes
okay so I'm Angela Yak y c and I live on
short Briden and that's 2240 Briden Road
um
Kathy Rose are you able to display um
the email and the pictures I sent to you
um earlier today I did not receive
pictures but your email was forwarded to
the chairman so we just typically have
you briefly reference what what you had
sent us being that you have to be in
person to present okay Angela just tell
us you you live around the corner uh if
if I go were to go down Columbia till
dead ends into brighten I would make a
left to get to your house so pretty much
the back I'm in my master bedroom right
now and when I look out my window um I
see
um three houses uh the last house being
um the Shaw's house okay all right
that's fine please continue let me know
what do you think about the issues that
before
us are you
there is anybody hear anything I have
these
black are you there Angela yes can hear
okay so I forwarded to Kathy to post to
you guys a email that I sent to her
dated on November 8th 2018 in regards to
the height of the new structure um I
indicated that we were concerned about
the height she indicated that it was
approved for 36 and a half feet
obviously that's not where we're at
right now right um the other the other
thing I sent to her today were pictures
to show the difference in height between
the Shaw's residents um and the highers
and the next house would be the damascos
here's my prepared statement tonight I'm
speaking on behalf of my family and the
numerous homeowners on Drexel bright in
Columbia who are afraid to comment on
this project afraid of the retaliation
for voicing their concerns I believe in
equality hold on now uh Angela let me
stop you here you cannot speak for
another person okay we're really
interested in is hearing what do you see
what is bothersome or positive I don't
know which way you're going to go on
various aspects of this uh to the issues
that are related to why the house does
not conform to the original approved
plans so could you just tell us what you
think and what you see and why it's
bothersome or why it's positive one or
the other
please and I know you have prepared
speech but you can't tell me what other
people have said because I can't talk to
those people and I can't cross-examine
them and I can't get to them so I need
for you to be kind of factual for me
please if you will I speak I'll speak up
on myself but these were other concerns
from our neighbors okay yeah okay but
but that's because they told you and now
you're telling me but I want to know no
no no no no no you sir I I respect and I
appreciate the time and effort this
whole committee is um they do to the
community but you know what this is my
neighborhood this is where I live tell
me what you think willing for me to
fight for okay tell me what you think
okay beex is a community
chor I feel the homeowner showed no
interest in working with the neighbors
to find a resolution to the numerous
issues with their build there's been no
consideration to safety of the
neighborhood children should be able to
use the sidewalk safely they shouldn't
have to be bleeding when they're walking
their dog have to Ride Scooters around
parked and passing cards on the street
and having bike tires popped is there
something Angela Angela excuse me excuse
me Angela is there some problem with the
design of the sidewalks that I'm not
aware of no because I've reached out to
the city numerous times them I'm
sorry is there a problem with the design
of the sidewalks
no it this has to do with the project
the design no okay but we're not talking
about the how the project has occurred
we're talking about these design issues
that are different than the approved
plans do do you have a problem with any
of the design issues yes that's the
issue is because I sent pictures I want
you please tell me what they are yes
tell us what they are is the height of
the structure I brought this to Kathy
Rose's attention in November
2018 we we don't care when you did it we
want to hear about it tonight yes okay
hear about it tonight my concern is is
that the height and the ridg line that
have been built is not what was approved
by the boards and therefore it is and
why is that offensive to you why is that
offensive to you that's what I need to
hear as a neighbor there are there's
property law privacy creation of light
pollution and reducing of sight lines
there you go okay how does that affect
you I just said property value privacy
light pollution sight
lines okay is there light pollution to
your house
yes okay and how does that happen let us
know how that
occurs because of the windows on
the North side and how the building is
built out the light is now coming
flooding into um what essentially is our
backyard the north side of the
building South Side Shaw's building the
South the South Side South Side that
makes South Side okay thank you yes the
South
Side so the sun shines from the south on
their south side and reflects from
Windows onto your property is
that no the how this the the main
concern I have right now is because of
the the height of the house I wish those
pictures had come through because you
will see that it is not we're not
talking about just like a foot or two
we're talking about it looks like a
whole half story taller than the H's
house that's what I see out of my back
window of my house is when I pull up the
blinds now and just that's what I see is
the H's house the house to the south of
the Shaw's
house yes it goes Shaw H and then it
goes to the damascos who they're not on
this call right now okay okay thank
you please
proceed so I am asking i' I've spent
numerous hours just like other families
have on um working with the city uh
being on the um architecture review
board meetings and I'm just asking for
for the board not to approve the changes
the ARB said that they agreed with us um
I feel that um no one's taking ownership
of the numerous mishaps on the project
everyone's passing the buck and we just
need to get some sort of conclusion on
this so everyone can move forward and
yes it's unfortunate that everything is
getting blamed on the you know prior you
know contractor but as neighbors we have
suffered too and if if the if the owner
had just reached out and tried to you
know work with us then we wouldn't be
here today once again we understand we
understand all these issues this is the
first that we as a board have heard this
case okay so we are trying to gather
information about these design issues
but I certainly appreciate your patience
tonight and waiting and giving us your
perspective especially from your point
of view uh over there around the corner
on brighten thank
you uh Taren who's the next uh speaker
please um the next speaker will be
Stuart
young okay Mr Young good evening Mr
chairman I live where do you live Mr
Young I live at 435 and that is a house
opposite the uh the house that's
basically has his application before you
this evening all right 435 South
Columbia that is correct sir all right
thank you can you tell us what uh your
perspective is on this matter and and
try to keep your comments related to the
design issues that we have to deal with
please absolutely sir but before I begin
I have two quick questions for Miss Rose
Miss Miss Rose I could not find a copy
of the definitive revised architectural
plan on the Bexley website for this
meeting please can you confirm that the
plan that is being brought before this
committee for review and approval does
not include a circular drive as the
request for a circular driveway was
previously denied by this
committee uh that that is correct there
is not a request for a circular drive
and that was not previously approved
thank you very much and then secondly
Miss Rose would it be possible to put up
on the display that schedule sp1 from
the um original approv plan that you put
up at the previous ARB meeting that
shows the ridge height illustration in
the architectural submission by um the
home
that's a Karen question um I'm not sure
if if she has that available Karen I
will
work thank you I Mr I have requested
that
Kathy please Who's Talking Alan rner I
had requested that in an email to Kathy
two months ago okay let's try to pull
that up ladies if we could uh C either
Karen or Cathy thank you thank you Mr
rner Mr Young would you would you like
to proceed without that drawing or just
to give them some direction if they go
to the agenda for the AR the special ARB
meeting in November I believe it's the
last file if you click through on that
um agenda item it should be the last
file Miss Miss Rose quite kindly loaded
up for the meeting but I will continue
okay thank you in February of 2018 the
submitted archit Ural plan made public
and on which the ARB recommended a
certificate of appropriateness be
granted included a ridge height
illustration is this schedule here
schedule sp1 that depicted the roof
height of this new build would be
comparable to the neighboring houses to
the North and the South in fact if you
were to contrast this with the picture
that's on your screen now this
Photograph the roof the ridge height
would in fact be if you drew a straight
line from the house to the South the two
houses would basically have the same
Ridge height plus or minus a foot what
has actually been built as you can see
from the photograph does not conform to
the ridge height illustration that was
submitted quite the opposite in November
of 2020 after reviewing a revised
architectural plan and much deliberation
the ARB in discharging their
responsibilities under the city's
ordinances one of which is architectural
compatibility voted unanimously that
they recommend to Bap that the
certificate of appropriateness not be
issued for the revised plan as submitted
and before you today the ARB in
performing their review of a new build
and deciding whether to Grant or make a
recommendation to beat for a certificate
of appropriateness places a level of
importance upon the roof height of a new
build as compared to the neighboring
houses this was evidenced by the
discussions in the ARB meeting for the
two other new bills on South Columbia
around that same time
namely the gimpa residents and the
tishkov residents further a rid height
illustration has been one of the
documents that the city has requested
for a new
build given that the city of Bexley is
obliged to treat every resident
equitably should beap decide to overrule
the recommendation of the ARB and to
issue a certificate of
appropriateness I believe the rationale
for the overruling arb's recommendation
will carry greater significance than the
vote count itself in particular the
rationale why beap decides that
disparity in roof height as compared to
the neighboring houses is
inconsequential together with the many
other changes as documented in the
Beckley staff report that lists those
changes that did not receive ARB nor Bap
approval will set a precedent at the
very worst a precedent that implies that
for all future
construction and an Architectural Review
is no longer required and the ARB is now
redundant in effect build now and
receive Bap approval later or that a
resident can build to whatever height
they choose provided it is under the
codified 40 feet irrespective of any
comments by the ARB given the city is
obliged to treat every resident
equitably and with that I thank you Mr
chairman thank you Mr Young I appreciate
that uh Miss voker do we have any other
uh uh folks in the audience that are
have raised their hand on this case
please I do not see any raas um I I just
want Mr young to know that I'm working
hard to try to find that drawing um and
if I find it I'll I'll share
it Karen that drawing was used in the
entire ARB
meeting I realized that but I I realized
that but it's not posted on the website
so I'm looking right now at the city's
internal um applications and it just
takes a little bit
longer and I've got a question for who's
who's speaking please this is Kathy Rose
the zoning officer and I've got a
question for Mr Young um just out of
curiosity do you by chance know the
ridge height on your
home and and I'm only asking because
when you've got neighboring lots that
are smaller than the the Shaw's lot the
lot in question your lot and the lot to
the north of you are more comparable in
size and the houses there are appear
larger and I I was just curious because
when we're comparing this to the houses
to the north and south of of this 424
South Columbia those are smaller Lots
so I think it's it's proportionate to
it's not an to Apples comparison is what
you're
correct in response to your question
Miss Rose I do not I do not have a
measurement of the ridge height for this
house what I would say is that sp1 which
was the document that was made public at
and on which we the residents and the
ARB made comments and decided to grant a
certificate of
appropriateness showed a rid that was in
line with the neighboring house what has
been built is not in line and in fact is
inre egregiously disproportionate to
what was led to believe would be built
so my my my question comes back to the
the submission was inaccurate we were
misled and if you put up sp1 you will
see
that well P any let me ask you I I don't
know what you're referring to because I
wasn't at the ARB meeting nor nor am I
on the
ARB
but a a
design that is submitted rarely shows
to or as built uh uh depictions of
neighboring
homes I mean just to look at that home
on the right side I think they earlier
referred to it as the Hilman home it
appears that that house is is uh
significantly shorter in terms of height
than the uh housing question so I I
don't know that that uh and and a lot
that's half the size I I believe
according to my uh review of the various
lot sizes there nonetheless uh is there
any other speaker Karen that has their
hand up and we can certainly provide
that document as soon as we find it e if
any of the city staffers can find that
document that that'd be
fantastic this is Heidi dor can I ask U
Mr Young a quick question since he may
be in a position more to know is that
house to the right that we see in the
picture is that a three-story home it
appears to be I'm I'm just wondering I
know it's a smaller home but if is it
three stories in height I do not know I
have not been into that house above the
ground floor okay thank you I I I can't
say that the um the homeowner is in the
audience okay Mr
hman H Mr H I'm
sorry uh Mr H does he Mr H you wish to
speak you have your hand up yes he does
okay uh can we bring him
on has he been
sworn I no I don't believe he was was um
sworn at the time okay Mr Mr H please
raise your right hand and be sworn do
you Solly swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth you got to unmute yourself Mr
hire there you
go did you say I
do Mr H we're not hearing
you I see you've unmuted yourself is
anybody else um hearing Mr hire no okay
no um there's also Jody Weston who
raised her
hand Weston okay is that uh same Weston
w s t i n as David
Weston I believe so
okay yes I was not sworn in but I I can
be sworn in okay please would you raise
your right hand come back Mr hire we'll
come back to you but we cannot hear you
so do you saw me swear from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth
yes what what uh comments would you like
I actually have a I have a question I
guess for you or Kathy um when listening
to some of the other Bap or ARB meetings
you had said that the roof line never
come into play yet the house on East
Broad was forced to come back at least
once or twice to show the roof line and
the depiction so Kathy Rose could see
where that roof line was in relevance to
the other two houses so why is that
house different from this house when
we're saying the original plan showed
the roof line would be more in line with
the other ones and that's our biggest
concern because had you shown that this
roof line would be this much bigger we
would I would have come to the very
first meeting and said no way don't
approve so now are you saying that you
don't look at those when you looked at
it for other houses that's my
question my job is to look at the height
and determine if there's any variance
involved with that which in this case
there is not however there is a a change
from the original design and that's what
we're aware of and that's what we are
okay but I'm going back to Mr Beall
please correct me if I'm wrong Mr Beall
just stated that the drawing that we all
to be put up on the screen from the
original thing that it shouldn't matter
because it doesn't really matter so I'm
misunderstanding what you said yeah
here's what I said I said I don't think
that the that normally when we get a a
design or a set of specs we don't see a
as built of the surrounding houses we
have on numerous occasions asked
the applicants to give up us an idea of
how the house sits with respect to the
surrounding homes because we are
interested in exactly this issue and and
so sometimes we'll ask the applicant to
go back to the drawing board and give us
uh additional information now we can of
course and do most of us do drive by
these sites so that we are looking at
them with our own eyes uh but
nonetheless it is helpful to hear what
surrounding homes look like so that we
can make decisions about the uh relative
sizes of homes as they appear from the
street and and otherwise so yes it's an
area that we look but what we're not
getting is we're not getting uh you know
somebody quoted the size of this house
uh the U hire's house and I
mean I can't tell how high it is and I
don't know how anybody else could either
unless they have a measurement or a
drawing and so we need to have some
facts and what we're trying to do here
tonight is gather facts as best we can
so that we can make a decision about
this particular case so that's basically
the answer to your question I don't know
which house you're referring to on Broad
Street because we' have several houses
on Broad Street over the years and I
don't know which one you're refering
it's a new it's a it's a new build and
um that's again that was my question
because I guess I feel you're saying it
really shouldn't matter what the
drawings look like and I'm saying it
should because that's what we went off
of and that's why I did not go to the
original ARB or the original B app to
complain about anything because the
depiction showed that it would be more
in line not this monstrosity that it has
become um I understand okay that was it
thank you for your time thank you for
yours uh all right um unless we have Mr
hire back Ain Mr H is that you is that
is that the approved drawings this is
Alan rman oh okay Mr hire do we have you
yet well I hope so can you hear me yes
we can now yes we can we couldn't
earlier have you been sworn in Mr hire I
did say yes you didn't hear okay but
I'll say yes again all right thank you
for thank you for doing that and just
for the record your address is 436 436
South Columbia the house immediately to
the South all right and we've heard from
you before whether was for the prior
house that was on that lot or the
situations that have Arisen before us on
this house have we not you have yes okay
and you've been pretty forthright with
us in the past and I'd like for you to
do the same tonight and tell me what you
think about this situation that we're
faced with here well two two things I
was going to respond to one was a uh the
the question about is is our house the
brick red brick house immediately to the
South three story house or two story
it's two stories and a finished attic
okay FYI and then in and then in terms
of uh discussions with and cooperation
by the two prior contractors sorry uh
the the initial one and Mr Sullivan's uh
firm uh and uh the Shaws themselves had
conversations with all of them my
principal concern has always been the
the drainage from the uh the new house
immediately to the north into my
driveway that runs East and West along
the property line can you Mr Mr hire
hold on for one second somebody needs to
mute themselves because they've got kids
or something in the background sorry
thank
you okay uh again I my biggest concern
has been with drainage from the property
the new new house to the north Shaw's
house into my very long driveway okay
and I had conversations about the
drainage U uh matters they have been
planning and I've observed they have
built into the current
plan uh and I'm
I'm very much appreciate it and uh I
think it will solve the problem and I
think I have the Assurance from the
Shaws if it doesn't they'll work with me
to to uh uh take care of it and and I'm
I'm comfortable with that okay all right
well I appreciate once again your
participating in our hearings and giving
us your perspective because you're the
uh closest neighbor and it's important
uh what you
think you're welcome thank you sir uh
all right Mr Miller
would you care to respond to some of the
comments that you've heard I would Mr
Beall and I recognize excuse me chairman
could we have the S this is Alan rner
again it's mindboggling to me this this
came up immediately when we requested it
at the ARB I sent an email to Kathy two
months ago requesting that it be put up
during this hearing and now
apparently I it still isn't up on the
screen what what which was that from the
November meeting do you
know yes yes November 5th I was not in
involved with that I actually was out
with Co at the time and I know that
traffy I sent you an email on it right
and I and I'm we've transferred
everything over to the new website but
when I pull that up there's nothing
attached to it and Karen's actually were
trying to even look at the uh original
application that's in
my my building department software to
see if we can even find it
there but Beall I'm aware of what Mr uh
young has referenced um that sp1 drawing
is not a ridge height study as you had
sued it shows the home that the Shaws
have built and it simply shows what
other homes in the area look like it is
not a ridge ridg line study it will not
show you Ridge Heights for surrounding
if I may Mr you proceed thank you Mr
Beall and thank you members of of the
board I appreciate your time the Shaws
so appreciate it very quickly to hit on
some of the points I've heard despite
some implicit suggestion to the
otherwise there is no evidence that the
Shaws went rogue here that they are
anything but victims and I want you to
know that under the code it's very clear
Mrs Rose would back me up on this Bap
makes this decision the decision lies
with this body under the city's codee
and while I'm very respectful of all the
neighbors opinions and
thoughts respectfully to Mr Weston we
are not saying the ARB is irrelevant
however as this board is aware under the
code the ARB can only do one of three
things they can only recommend to
approve approve with conditions or deny
and there was simply no consensus and no
clear Direction on what those conditions
could be nonetheless
heart nonetheless may I who's who's
speaking please Karen I'm sorry this is
Karen um because I think I have a it's
an important point to make exactly to
this I think it's very important that we
all understand that um I believe that
ARB this is a really difficult situation
for everybody I feel for everybody
involved the ARB I truly believe as
staff was on its way to a recommendation
with a very long long list of conditions
at the time the applicants
representative decided to ask for a
motion with no
condition so so it wasn't the
representative it was
Dr wait a second folks I'm the chairman
and wait a minute speake who is it Mr
rner Mr rner please I need to control
this situation or it'll be a
circus so if you don't mind allow Miss
Boker to speak if you would like to
speak when she is done I will certainly
allow you to have the
floor is that all
right I would just like to clarify that
thank you thank you Mr chairman I would
just like to clarify that the motion was
strictly to recommend the application as
it was submitted to beap
that recommendation was um asked to be
voted on by the applicant's
representative at the time at the
meeting which at the time was not bored
um makes no difference that's what the
applicant wanted the motion to be that's
what they voted on as the staff person I
would like to clarify that that was not
my recommendation my recommendation was
to vote positively to vote on a
recommendation to move it to bap with a
very long list of recommend of
conditions of approval which I think is
where we are with this I mean
respectfully though Kathy should we I'm
sorry this is Alicia respectfully though
we we're not weighing
what what was possibly going to come
before us we're weighing what is before
us correct I'm just trying to understand
from a process that is correct I
understand but it is important that the
board understand the context that's my
job as the staff person from ARB to to
give you the entire
picture Okay so Alyssa let let's hold on
because I'm gonna have Katherine and
Kathy give us a a a little bit of a
legal orientation as soon as we're ready
to consider but I would like
toer I'd like to allow Mr Miller to
finish uh his uh rebuttal please thank
you and and thank you to Karen as well
for that Clarity I think what we tried
to do though was take the concerns that
there was no visual demonstration of
every change there wasn't a
demonstration of the landscaping and
bring that to you tonight as the
ultimate decision maker uh and the
evidence you've heard tonight uh as
referenced a little bit ago is this lot
is over 75 of an it's over three4 of an
acre well double in size of many Lots
surrounding it ran Kent Jones preeminent
architect in central Ohio says it is
proportional it is appropriate and it is
compatible that is the expert opinion
before you tonight as well as Karen's
expert opinion that this should be
approved with conditions we have
accepted each and every one of those
conditions and given that there's no
objective way to measure the building
height we are left with what we believe
was an appropriate surveying standard
that this building is 18 inches above
where it was in 2018 that's the evidence
before you tonight and to deny it
otherwise based on everything you've
heard would be arbitrary contrary to law
and needlessly open the city of Bexley
up to liability that that frankly isn't
warranted either based on Ohio zoning
law or the Aesthetics and the actual
expert evidence you have before you
tonight we're also pleased that there
are written expressions of support for
this home in the record from Jennifer
sarelli the head of school at CSG Chris
and Gina Olen and others that uh I'm
told are part of the record before you
tonight unate let me clarify that
because I I don't want any
misstatements they may have sent uh
Communications to the staff the staff
makes us aware that they receive
Communications and once again because we
can't cross-examine them and and uh you
know they're head of of head of school
at CSG really doesn't have much to do
with anything here tonight so uh those
are not part of our record okay they're
not part of our record understood and I
appreciate that Mr chairman then what I
would say in closing is what we have is
a home that is well within your code
that is unfortunately 18 inches taller
than was proposed in 2018 and the
evidence before you is it's not even
clear whether that can be safely
remedied let alone remedied at any cost
that's proportional to a foot and a half
in height and instead that it is a
beautiful home that meets your standards
compatible with the neighborhood we will
gladly satisfy the conditions that Karen
has proposed for you for your approval
tonight and we ask that you vote in that
way thank you I appreciate it ladies let
me quickly go back to you Kathy and and
Karen have we found the uh document that
has been referred to by Mr Young Mr
rner we we have not and and based on you
know what what Joe shared it's it's
really irrelevant because it's not a
Hardline actual height comparison as
opposed to maybe characters of
structures
okay all right thank you but I'd also
like to clarify um CH chairman Beall
that since the architecture review board
meeting the applicant had tabled at the
board of zoning and planning that it was
supposed to be heard at and and after
that tabling they have been working with
staff submitting new drawings to that
are revised
to show and reflect the changes made in
the field and the proposed new
solutions to the deviations from the
original submission and that's what they
are requesting if the board finds them
acceptable all right do those conditions
need to be part of whatever it is that
that we're going to be voting
on yes I have Karen's recommendations
for conditions and that's what I plan to
implement into my findings okay I'd like
uh to ask uh kathern Cunningham to give
us a little orientation as to what we're
voting but I'm guessing uh Katherine
that when we hear the findings of fact
and conclusions of law as to whether we
are approving the modifications to the
certificate of appropriateness or not
one or the other that uh Mr Miller will
hear them and will uh let us know that
he is um satisfied with with what is
being submitted to the the board for
vote and that his clients are willing to
move forward with those
conditions um am I stating the
procedural aspects of what's happening
at this point correctly
Katherine uh yes what's before this
board is the let's start with the
original certificate of
appropriateness um was determined by
this board not by a B in this case um
and the reason for that was I think that
there was a variance Associated a couple
of variances Kathy can or Karen can more
detail those but as I recall one of them
was denied I think somebody mentioned it
tonight there was a request for a
circular Drive which was a variant would
have been a required a variance and that
was denied by this board in 2018 and
then in
2018 um I think there was a variance and
again Kathy and can probably address
this better relating to the pool or the
pool house in the because it was going
to encroach into a sidey I believe um so
because of that there this board as you
know your jurisdiction on architecture
is either specifically limited by
District or if there are V any variances
or conditional uses then architecture
comes to you also for final decision or
you do have the option to remand or have
have it sent in the original instance to
ARB in this case this board granted the
original certificate of
appropriateness um so it came to you
with a recommendation from ARB and
because of that when it's before you for
reconsideration uh Kathy's typical
process is to go ahead and send it back
to ARB for another look and review but
it's only a recommendation they were not
a decision maker under your code you can
weigh that as you deem appropriate it
does not trigger a super majority or any
other change in the vote you need four
positive votes to make an
approval um Karen let me let me ask you
this Katherine just along those lines
yes would essentially the ARB makes the
decision as I read the uh new code and
it comes to us for in in much the way a
case would go to the court of
appeals we can
agree uh with the recommendation of the
ARB we can add conditions to it or we
can disagree with it is that correct
right under the standards of the Bexley
zoning code you are you um have an
obligation to consider it but you do not
have the obligation to defer to it or
give you know you can weigh it as you
deem appropriate there's no there's no
um discretion or um requirement that
that that it triggers anything other
than one of the facts that you consider
as you are considering a case the same
remand it to them if you want because
your code would allow you to do that too
but um it it is uh one factor of
whatever it is you hear at this hearing
and otherwise and from the applicant and
from the
opponents it's much
like much like an appell at court does
not have to R stamp what the trial court
does but it certainly can give some
consideration of what the trial court
did and didn't do in deciding whether
the trial court correctly ruled so we
have the same Alternatives the pellet
Court could send it back down to the
trial court for retrial we could also do
that here right except that you you we
treat you more in your scenario as the
original trior of fact okay but and and
in this case in other words we have more
discretion and power than the AR RB does
yeah it's your order I mean it's your
it's your certificate of appropriateness
you have complete discretion but you do
have the obligation to consider what the
ARB the the ARB and their recommendation
of course as we always do yeah as you
always do um and when you have
jurisdiction you control how you weigh
and decide that as you always do this is
no different uh than any other case
where they are not the final decision
maker so you do you do um have the right
to make the decision you do have the
right to make a decision and impose
conditions on it if you so
choose um and that decision can be in
the you know you can you can approve you
can approve with conditions or you can
not approve okay a modification to the
certificate of appropriateness all right
I appreciate that very much do any
members of the board have any questions
about the protocol or the uh uh process
here I do I also just point out that I
did put up that
image you did put
what I don't know if you can see the
image but I found
it oh okay um is that what's on the
board right
now I I have a question for probably for
Katherine so Katherine if the question I
have is because the
height is below what the required height
is if we deny this this evening could
they almost come back in and apply for
application for a roof line of that and
be approved without having to go to
zoning because it's underneath it's
under the height restriction for the
district you see what I'm saying I see
what you're saying um and they
they the the question is whether it's in
material compliance with what was
originally appr approved or whether it
would be in violation of the certificate
of appropriateness in terms of zoning or
a zoning variance it is in it is
certainly in compliance with zoning
there is no zoning variance associated
with that I think Miss Rose was trying
to express that earlier when I think
people were asking her about Ridge
height and the change of height and you
know how can that happen well when
applications come in typically what
staff looks at to start with um is what
is not in compliance with code so the
increase in rdge height is in compliance
with code there's nothing to prohibit
that and no variance is needed
associated with that the question then
becomes is it in compliance with uh the
approved certificate of appropriateness
or not and um the applicant it has said
that you know
they they're asking for an amendment of
the certificate of appropriateness to
allow anything that varies from the
certificate of appropriateness whether
or not that is a material part of that
and the height was a condition of that
is certainly a question I think the
safest course is to address the issue
directly in your decision one way or the
other does that make sense and does that
answer your question yes thanks okay any
other questions from uh on procedure for
members of the board I have question
this I'm sorry who speaking please this
is Heidi Dorne hi Heidi tell us what you
think can we ask Kathy a question about
the original proposal now or is that
something we should wait and ask later
when would you ask it I don't know
that's what I'm asking when you may as
well ask now there there is not gonna be
any later because I'm gonna move right
just really quick um on that original
2018 approval that the bza did um was
grading approved on that as
well well here's part of the problem
there's there's a perspective that may
even make this look taller because we're
dealing with a construction project that
is not at finished grade you've got
grades that shift around on the property
are dug away pushed back during the
construction process and this house is
is far from it its finished area which
is why the applicant indicated that they
use the garage floor because that is at
grade and so the grade if it's not where
it needs to be it will be put back and
that might even add some better
perspective of of what the neighbors's
concerns are uh but but they can't if
they're changing the grade I mean I've
got site plans that show where the
actual grade is and that will be
verified because you know they they have
to work with that to make sure they've
get proper drainage and and that the
house sits where it's supposed to sure I
I understand that but but my concern I
think is is the grade on this this lot
higher than the grade of the surrounding
Lots therefore making the house it's
start at a higher level and there you
know even though the the roof line may
be technically within our zoning is the
grade higher to start with so when you
put that up that roof Line's going to be
higher even though it's within you know
the the roof line limits of of our code
um that is my concern here if the
grading itself was in in that plan Mr
Sullivan do you have I saw your hand up
do you have an answer to that or some
information to relay yeah this is this
is Matt suvin uh yes the grade on one of
the subsequent pages of the
2018 application has grade markings on
it telling you what the yard grage is
and that is where the driveway and the
basement floor are heard that
drawing okay are those are those grades
in the the 2018 approval I I just want
to they are yes I believe they're two P
I believe it's either the next page or
the page after I don't have the drawings
in front of me but if you scroll down
they are part of the 2018 submitt
because that was brought up at the ARB
and it hadn't occurred to me whether
most residential plans frankly don't
have grade lines and and these drawings
do and we shot them with our Buford to
make sure that they were
accurate and Miss Dorne I would just add
Mr chairman if it's okay that who's
speaking please this is Joe Miller on
behalf of the applicant I would simply a
couple points uh the actual grade of the
property was approved in 2018 as Mr
Sullivan points out and in any event you
can't apply the code differently as it
relates to the different grade on a
different different lot that would be
arbitrary and in fact here I would make
the point while Mr H's lot is at a lower
grade all that does for appearance's
sake is Make this House appear larger
when in fact it's only attributable to a
natural difference in grade that can't
be held against the Shaws and frankly
can't be applied against anyone in the
city that would be
arbitrary I I understand I just was
making sure that it was in compliance
with the original plan thank you okay
thank you Heidi chairman behall this is
Alicia I have um just a couple of
questions if you don't mind
okay um this question would be for Mr
Sullivan really quickly Mr Sullivan as a
contractor a general general contractor
when you are um completing a project for
a client um what's the process for a
change order for could you just walk me
through
that well cents are different to be
honest I would say um some clients want
what the the heart wants what the heart
wants and that you know they are time
material and you Bill what you've spent
to date and they pay the bill um I would
say um most of the people we work with
are like us they're like me I should say
and they want to know where their
money's going so if you were to um you
know change out Plumbing fixtures and
build them more they would want to know
where that is what that money was thank
you Mr Miller
yes um could I ask you really quickly um
by chance um as the homeowner
representative H has the homeowners saw
any rest restitution to recover costs
and expenses that were that they're um
stating um were taken without their
approval
they're the honest answer is they're
evaluating what claims they have against
the contract or they haven't taken
formal action yet frankly they're trying
to get some peace and stability in the
in their life and their girls life and
and get into this home but they are
evaluating that we well within the
stature limitations and so they've
continued to build even though they have
so far to date had a home that was
delivered at a significant
investment without seeking any sort of
action you are correct they have not
sought any action what we did was seek
out guidance from the city terms of
making sure this house was was tight and
safe and that construction has proceeded
a pace that is true as as Kathy
explained okay thank
you uh I went blank there so I didn't
hear any of that but but um I'm not
sure what the relevance of whether
somebody has proceeded
to the reason I was asking the reason I
was asking was merely just to clarify
you know the the argument that Mr Miller
made or presented to us was Mr Sullivan
sorry I don't mean to put that on you Mr
Miller but that you know the proposed
corrections to bring this home to the um
approved original approved plans and he
you know spouted off some of the costs
and expense yeah um that might be
involved to correct these actions that
were taken by this Rogue general
contractor and that you know two do you
understand why I was asking I I I
totally understand why you asked the
question before you asked while you were
asking it I understood where you were
going I just so I was just trying to
process you know I it's part of my
deliberation process so I just had to
ask those questions all right that's
fine I appreciate that all right um Mr I
have one more are we I'm sorry to
interrupt Leah are we done taking public
testimony I have one who is who is
speaking please this is K that's Karen
Karen sorry Karen Karen Karen Karen
please Ken I'm trying to move this along
you're helping you're hurting
me well I just needed I have a hand
raised so I needed to know whether
you're still taking any public testimony
or no I think we're done taking public
testimony in this matter we've heard uh
pretty much everything there is to be
heard and we gave given everybody a
chance
he's aware that that is likely the
outcome so I'm just asking thank you
thank you all right uh so let me ask if
I can have uh proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law Kathy from you so
that we can hear the proposition that
we'll be voting on and give the
applicants uh a chance to hear them as
well and Mr Beall not to interrupt but
just also um there should be opportunity
for board members to debate whatever the
terms and conditions are or discuss them
before there's a vote sure I always ask
whether there's anybody that wants to
amend or add or whether somebody's
willing to make a motion so but I
appreciate the help here because as you
know I have multiple motivations here
one of which is to get through every
case tonight but go ahead uh Kathy when
you get a chance if you would give us
the at least an iteration what the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
would be around surrounding this case
Okay the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for 424 South
Columbia based on the testimony
presented and the revised plans
presented on 128 2021 the board finds
that a certificate of appropriateness
should be
issued with the following
conditions that the landscape
plan updated with mature trees and
softening of the fence and the property
line to the South be submitted for final
approval to the tree and public garden
commission that the window lentils be
reworked in Limestone per the original
submitt that the columns be detailed to
accurately reflect post and beam
construction that the garage doors be
installed per approved submission with
more Carriage like design
and that the solar panels proposed which
will be limited to flat roof areas be
included with this
approval and that the otherwise plan be
in substantial conformance with the
revised plan submitted and reviewed by
the board on January 28th 1921 I'm sorry
2021 okay um right Mr chairman who's
speaking please Karen Ken yes
ma'am um I'd like to ask if Kathy could
please modify the mature landscape as
determined by the city's landscape
consultant I think that's too subjective
and I'd like to have some um somebody at
the city just confirm what mature means
when when the I I don't want to see a an
a subjective determination by the
owner okay so the landscape consultant
instead of the tree and public garden
Commission
okay no I think landscape Consultants is
fine okay and Mr Beall I would also
suggest that it be an amended
certificate of appropriateness be issued
with those conditions because as I
understand it you're still going to be
in compliance with the original
certificate of appropriateness for all
other things thanks Katherine is that
right right yeah okay and actually that
was what I was gonna ask Council for the
city uh this is Ryan chick that's I was
going to ask Council for the city um
what if any uh ability we had to attach
contingencies on that because we had the
direct testimony of the individual who
lives to the South talking about reparan
issues with regards to this property I
drove by it the elevation is of concern
if I live next door I would be concerned
with it um could we have the inspection
um be to satisfaction that there's uh
that the water rights or that the water
distribution is not flowing onto the
neighbor's
property you you do not have to make
that a condition I understand the
concern but the storm water regulations
both in the state of Ohio and under the
Bexley city code require that no storm
water be put onto the neighbors's
property so in order to get their final
certificate of occupancy City
engineering and storm water would have
to be met so would EPA requirements so I
if you want to put that as a condition
you can but that is required it's
already it's already implicit it's it's
implicit and it's really not an
architectural design issue it is a storm
water issue the city the city and it is
required to be met regardless of
whatever architectural standards you and
we will absolutely continue to work with
Mr hire we're absolutely committed to
that than you Mr a lot of us have had
we've had water problems in the
basements from neighboring properties
and I just wanted to make sure that we
avoid any future conflict so thank you
Mr Miller uh are you satisfied with the
uh findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the conditions that are
Associated there withth as read and
amended here uh by m Rose and Miss Boer
yes yes Mr behal we would abide by those
conditions
okay and are they adequate as well to
satisfy the needs of your client in
terms of getting a vote tonight is that
what they want voted upon yes okay very
good thank you very much um do the board
have
any uh suggestions or um desire to amend
or in any way modify the findings of
fact and conclusions of law as iterated
by Ms Rose and Modified by Miss
Boker
no I hear none um do I hear a motion to
approve the findings of fact conclusions
of
law uh as
iterated
I hear no so moved thank you do I hear a
second a second second thank you Miss
Mitchell Miss Rose would you please call
the roll on this
voting all
right uh Mr Levine
no Miss
Dorne
yes Mr Turner
no Miss Mitchell
no Mr shik
no chairman
behall I vote Yes but the matter
fails two to
four as I counted those votes did I
count them
correctly two to four you counted those
correctly all right um all right thank
you very much folks I appreciate
everybody who came in and gave us
information and I uh appreciate the time
and effort from both all
presenters next case I tell you what I'm
going to do here is we're going to take
a 10minute recess no more than that 10
minutes thank you it's uh quarter till
let's see it's exactly we're going to
start again at 5 till nine so that's Mr
chairman uh very very quick point of
order um when we resume can we uh limit
uh public commentary to uh 90 seconds we
can thank you thank
[Music]
you
for
e
okay
hey
Kathy hey um I sent you a
email and I don't know if you had a
chance I'm sure you didn't have have a
chance to look at it because you glance
at it really quickly before we hop right
back into
session it's just a a question about
process that I just wasn't um sure about
before I bothered Herman behall with
it you're you're
muted you can't bother me alista oh um
chairman behall I just wasn't sure about
um how recusals work on this board in
terms of protocol um when you recuse do
you recuse from discussion and hear
hearing so everything okay I thought I'd
read that before but I just wanted to be
sure um we try to give it the appearance
of no participation at
all um
I I don't have the agenda in front of me
to see what
um what's next uh what's next is 2106
East Main uh yes Main Street
now which is at the corner of brexel got
it right here okay that's not the one
okay thank you Alicia what are you look
what are you looking for Alicia I got it
right here um so the Cassidy and
Livingston
Avenue
projects yes are a long way down the
list they're they're like I think we're
like nine or 10 away from
them you can lie to me um well the
reason I was just asking was um just
because of my um professional
affiliation I may need to um recuse from
those two okay thank you
discussions okay thank you for telling
me so when we get there yeah because
then there'll only be five voters see so
we need to tell those people Advance
yeah all right so you'll that I think
we're we're back in session now because
I think everybody can hear everything
anyway right so uh we're back in session
uh and that next case if I'm not
mistaken correct me if I'm wrong M Rose
is B
z-20
D40 the applicant is Maddie clausman at
signcom and the owner of the land is the
same as the address which is
2106 uh Bexley land
LLC the address of the property is 2106
East Main Street and the applicant is
seeking Architectural Review and
approval to allow a blade sign on the
south side of the building the applicant
is also seeking a variance for beex city
code section
12605 f as in franked and the Main
Street design
guidelines which under codes which which
under section c
26.5 limits the maximum permitted sign
face of a projecting sign to 10 square
feet in order to allow a proposed
projecting sign to be 20 square feet on
both sides the applicant is also seeking
approval of a wall sign based on the one
square inch per building foot
Frontage
restriction
Mr on1 North
Direct
did I skip a
case not that I'm aware
of I I've got six new business 481 North
Drexel no I've got 21006 East m is my
next that's the agenda that was sent to
me maybe it's
wrong I have
the North Drexel 481 North Drex pool
pool
Edition I'm going off my staff
report
um
gosh 41 North Drexel is that your what
you're saying 481 481
481 North
Drex it's new business letter
a Mr chairman yeah Mr chairman it's in
bold that it it actually is not on Karen
staff report because it was all strictly
zoning and you are correct
Sean and that's because it was a late
submitt and it was a variance that we
had to hand deliver
notices um
and Sean if you could give me the
uh the application number I would
appreciate it because I just have my
staff report in front of
me
39
157
39 yes all right which if you you can
tell by the number itself it was
submitted under a a variance application
that actually wasn't supposed to be
active in our system so we honored it
only because they had submitted by the
deadline
and if you don't mind it is actually on
the agenda it's just not in Karen staff
report but I'm happy
to talk about what that what that is if
we want to hear that next
well Mr chairman may I propose that we
uh continue with the report that you
were already on with b and then go back
to a afterwards
I I would prefer to do that as well just
because we've written read that entire
and I don't have anything to read about
the one you're suggesting because I
don't have that on any of my agendas
here so I apologize but let's move
forward if we could and then we'll go
backwards and we'll catch that case um
Mr chairman before you go on yes sir I
need to refuse myself from this case oh
okay fine 2116 East Main yes thank you
very much so if you don't mind uh you
won't participate in any of the
discussion or voting obviously but uh
thank you
Rick uh okay um is who is here to speak
on behalf of the applicant somebody is
Maddie kman here
or Karen do you see a speaker in this
case yes I um have two hands raised
one's name is Brian Griffith Griffith
okay and the
other I have given him talking
permission and the only the only name
that's associated with is Jim H so
they'll have to identify themselves
please okay all right Mr Griffith would
you go first tell us your your wrote let
me swear them in well I I want to find
out who they are first so let's let's
see what's going on Mr Griffith M Mr
chairman the 902 rule I asked I just
wanted to make sure that and yeah this
is a very one yes uh my name is Brian
Griffith I represent the N Meyers okay
and that's the owner of the building
they the the the owner of the residence
on D okay this is 21006 East
Maine Brian you'll be
next okay that's fine then I I'll wait
for the next one thank you and Jim
H yes Jim Harley with
shom okay there you go and you're here
on 21006 East Main is that correct sir
correct all right and would you raise
your right hand to be sworn
please you saw me swear and or affirm
the testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth I do thank you okay
um Kathy can you give us some staff
commentary on this uh application please
yes uh the applicant seek an architect
review and approval to allow a blade
sign on the south side of the building
blade signs are limited to 10 square
feet and the proposed sign is actually
20 square feet and is mounted on the
south side of the building near the door
which is the appropriate location um I
will add that the the window sign is
actually an approved sign meets code and
does not need to be reviewed by the
board however the blade sign being that
it exceeds the sides requirement allowed
under the Main Street guidelines um they
are seeking a variance to allow 20
square foot sign instead of a 10 foot
square blade
sign okay and uh is there and then is
there a separate request for variance
for the wall sign no no the wall sign
meets meets code and and it's approved
it's fine it's actually on the building
but the blade sign proposed does not be
it's hanging on the side of the building
yes it protrudes out it protrudes out
the I'm freezing up here I'm getting
some cellular difficulties where I'm
getting Frozen and I can't hear or see
anything so and then it takes about 10
seconds I get it back so okay there we
go you're back now please so so right
now they have a monument sign on the
Park viiew Avenue side of the property
where you enter into their parking lot
they have a wall sign on the East glass
windows facing Park View however on the
Main Street side there is no signage so
the applicant is proposing a blade sign
okay and the blade signs 20 square feet
to stick out from the north uh from the
southeast
Corner uh it's actually mounted against
the South Wall just to the west of the
entrance okay the the the southeast
entrance yes which is an employee only
entrance there okay all right um Mr
Hartley can you please give us uh your
perspective your client's perspective on
what we're trying to do here why we
should Grant a a variance yes sir thank
you for your time uh the client was uh
frustrated they had no identification on
East Main they contacted Kathy she
suggested we look at some other examples
and one of them she suggested was suab
bees just down the street I went and
field surveyed that sign it is 4T by 5T
so we designed a typical design request
reting a similar sign to a neighbor down
the street uh the sign uh from the wall
to the curb it's 12 feet the sign only
projects five feet so they're still
seven feet um from the sign to the curb
no obstruction with traffic or
pedestrian uh it is actually a
minimalist sign based on the scale of
that front
elevation um but we will um and that
that's the reason we propos that size we
were directed to look at an neighboring
uh sign that was approved by
bar okay
uh
um C I guess Kathy uh how did that sign
at South of be there uh get approved did
that get approved by BAP or was that the
signed
commission situation I believe it may
have been approved by the Main Street
commission that was
at you know functioning at the time and
that one
also encroaches in city right way so
there was something else special about
it that we had to
consider okay so this board did not
consider that
sign I believe that is correct yeah I
don't recall it so not that I've been on
the board forever but seems like it
anyway
uh all right um members is our anybody
in the audience Pro or con this
case Karen you see any indication of
such are you able to share screen Karen
or
no um I I don't I think I am I'm not
seeing anything on this do we have a
picture of the sign yes okay it's on the
city website but it's
also Oh I thought mck was still doing
that but happy to take it
over yes no Mr shik are you still doing
that I've got it right here if you want
me to put it up okay thanks Sean please
thanks Sean thanks
Sean you're handy
Sean you guys see that yes I relinquish
the uh Bap it title onto
you okay I've got this other be sign up
too if you want to see
that so uh let me ask you something uh
uh I know that the beex
Le I can't think graphics commission for
decades mandated black
dark uh background backgrounds and and
light numbers this appears to be a light
background is that not the case any
longer
it is
policy and it would Al further reflect
what's on the
window what you see the wall sign that's
existing on the glass in the photo to
the right yes so if I can if I could
comment to that that that's not a black
background it's actually glass so you
use white on glass for contrast I
understand oh I understand thank
you we weren't aware that opaque
backgrounds were the norm we certainly
if we need to make that a contingency we
can make that an opaque background or we
can reverse the colors we have the
ability of making the background not
illuminate at night so only copy would
or maybe an outline of the copy because
they're dark colors or we can look at a
reverse uh with a dark background and
and white
copy let me ask there's a monument sign
that's existing on Park viiew yeah is
that a has same face as this white
background yeah so it's it would be
consistent with the monument sign
correct is that sign already up yes sir
it is not visible at all from East Main
it's mainly to note the entrance for
parking um okay all right thank you and
and that didn't have to get approved by
us because it was within the T the
limits I believe it was part of their
package yeah
okay all right is there an overall sign
square footage signage square footage
per like they're allowed to have to not
individual sign but total because I mean
right now they're looking at this one at
10 but they've got another sign that
faces the same direction that's probably
another three so we're actually looking
at 20 26 square feet of signage Facing
East and and total area of all signs on
a building should be limited to the size
equal to one square foot per Frontage
foot of building phas up to a maximum of
70 square feet okay okay thank
you all right um is there anybody we've
already we've already asked about
whether there's anybody in the audience
or did we Karen did you check to see
there's anybody that's here to talk
about
that I do not see any more hands up no
okay members of the board do you have
any questions about why the sign uh is
being requested at size or uh anything
else I think I would ask that we you'll
see the Street south of e signs is dark
background with white lettering and
there's a reason for that obviously and
I think we ought to try to be consistent
throughout Bexley I know Mr swedo was a
humongous proponent of that for many
many years and as a result the signage
in Bexley is muted and and a little bit
uh and it gives uh
surprisingly uh important effect to the
street scene on Main
Street so I would ask that that be a
condition but does anybody else have any
other uh desires or wishes or
questions I mean there's a reason is is
that the proposed sign similar in size
or the same size to that SES sign exact
same size yes ma'am that's what we used
as the example yes okay thank
you
uh as a as a question to uh Kathy and
Katherine as well once again a
legislative body with elected
officials has decided that 10 square
feet is the
maximum and H there's no reason why a 10
square foot sign couldn't be seen in
this location so I'm not sure what how
the request uh in any way comports with
any of the um
uh variance
standards I mean we just can't change
the law as a
board if if city council wants to change
it to make it 20 feet they can do so but
we're stuck with a law and there's now
if there were some physical situation or
some something that would uh uh I
realize there are many many facets to
that statute
but is there any reason why we would
Grant a variance in a situation like
this where a 10- foot sign could
certainly hold the same
words and would certainly be visible
from Main Street in both
directions if if it's my turn to respond
we were directed to use this as an
example and we designed accordingly the
building is larger taller further from
the street so you've allowed or they
they've been approved uh a neighbor has
been approved for a same siiz sign with
less setback on a smaller
building uh even at less uh clearance so
scale-wise you've uh a a neighbor has
been approved for such sign we were
directed to use as an example that is
why we've post 20 ft uh based on the
scale of the building it will not look
out of place at all um but that is you
know it's certainly your decision it was
the direction we were given to design
around so let me ask you can can you get
all the on a 10 foot sign absolutely
it's it's just half as big yes sir
there's no reason you couldn't it'll
just be much much smaller and it will
look uh in my opinion if you go back to
our picture it'll be similar to the size
of the crosswalking sign um and it'll
look um more like an under canopy or a
pedestrian oriented sign than a building
sign but that's certainly something for
you guys to consider and vote on if
there's a more uh compromising size that
might be halfway in between we'll
consider that but the precedent was set
down the street so that's what we based
it on all right are you suggesting are
are you suggesting that I'm getting a
lot of feedback here are you suggesting
that this sign is more in scale to the
building compar even more so than soube
yes well I'm not worried too much about
Souther be I'm more worried about this
sign yes Visa the size of this building
very much so it is still very small 20
square feet on this words you think a 10
square foot sign would look out of
proportion is what you're saying it'll
look similar to that crosswalk sign that
is in that same picture to the right on
our
design I'm sorry I blanked out my my
machine blanked out I could not hear
what you said so please answer that
question again if we reduce it to 10
square feet it'll look similar to the
crosswalk sign if you can see the
crosswalk sign it'll be that
small with the hand on it yes sir 3 by3
I think that's about 2 by3 so similar in
scale but we we can consider any size
the drawing is the scale if you think
that looks out a size to the building we
can consider a smaller size but it is uh
this building is much larger and further
than the street from the comparison we
we're told to look at
so are they're both zero lot
line um no the other one encroaches the
right away I believe Kathy said and
we're actually within our RightWay
line and I wasn't referring to the subbe
sign for sizewise because I did share
with the applicant that if
you code it could be staff approved
thank you that's just what we used as an
example that's where I was pointed thank
you okay uh members of the board any
other questions or
comments um I would just say um just
being in Property Management myself the
importance of wayfinding signage is
probably
um really really important to any
business and and just the the heavy
pedestrian traffic that potentially can
be coming down there I don't think it
necessarily detracts from um adding it I
think it adds to the customer side of it
and if it can be opaque uh and be more
in line with what we're what we have as
far as an expectation on Main Street I
would I would think it would be
okay could I could I once again um I
think for maybe the fourth out of five
weeks Shadow Miss Mitchell and say
anything that is good for the attraction
of businesses both on Main and Broad
Street for beex for small business I'm
all in favor of so that's my
comment
okay any other comments or
questions Kathy can you please call or
read the findings of fact conclusions of
Law and would you like me to add the
condition of light letters on a dark
background I would okay the findings of
fact and conclusions of law for
application number bz a-20 D40 or
property located at 2106 East Main
Street the board
finds that based on the test the
testimony
presented board finds it appropriate to
Grant a variance from bexy code section
126.0 5f referencing c26 in the Main
Street
guidelines to allow a blade sign on the
south side of the building to be 20
square feet with the condition that it
be converted to light letters on a dark
background Mr heartley did you hear that
uh rendition of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law yes sir and are they
satisfactory to you and your client and
and uh okay for approved for submitt for
a vote tonight yes yes sir all right and
you understand that we have five voters
tonight because one of our members had
to recuse himself probably because of a
legal or relationship with the uh
building owner perhaps so sir I
understand I'll need four out of five
thank you thank you exactly okay I
appreciate your uh grasping that quickly
um do I have do I hear a motion to
approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law
please move I have a second do I have a
second second Ryan Chik thank you Mr
shik uh Kathy will you please call the
role Mr
shik yes Miss Mitchell
yes Mr
Turner Miss Dorne well I didn't hear
that vote I'm
Sorry Miss Dorne I didn't hear Mr
Turner's vote yeah yes yes Mr Beall yes
thank you and Miss Dorne I think you're
Mike's
off I think it's on yours is on okay yes
okay and chairman
beh I'm GNA vote Yes also but only
because I think a smaller sign would be
way out of proportion for the size of
that building so I want to qualify my
vote otherwise I would stay within the
bounds of the city council has
established thank you Mr Hartley your uh
variance is granted and you may move
ahead thank you thank you sir for coming
and uh giving us the information we
needed thank
you all right um the next case involves
now we're going to the 481 North Drexel
um I'm gonna need somebody else to read
about this case I have nothing about it
in front of me thank you okay Kathy so
um this is application number
15739 uh Quinton Ward with Easy Living
pools the owner Angela and Eric near
Meer located at 41 North viw and their
bza request is the applicant is Seeking
a three-foot variance from bexy code
section
12521
A2 which in a residential district
accessory uses and detached structure
shall be located a minimum of five feet
farther back from the side street
property line than the principal
structure is allowed to allow a swimming
pool in the rear yard to be 27 ft from
the north side property
line and a little background is this
this applicant was well the owners were
before the board and they proposed a an
addition on the back of the house and
the pool that they were proposing they
they could meet the setback but they
felt it was
architecturally aesthetically pleasing
to line it up with the back addition of
the house and
the fact that this is flush with the
ground and it's also Beyond a six- foot
fence that runs along that North
property line so it's not visible so the
applicant is requesting the variants to
allow
a let me see here three- foot
variance a three-foot variance so
instead of being how close it's going to
be how close instead of being 30 feet
it's going to be 27 feet okay and that
would would be if I were to draw from
the back of the pool to the to the North
Boundary yes
okay all right um so that pretty much is
your staff report isn't it that
is Kathy do or Karen do you have any
comments on this matter um no I don't
this is all Cathy's but I do need any I
have Angela near to um in the panelist
room if there's any body else um I
didn't see a Quinton word but I do see a
Claire word but if somebody could
anybody that wants to testify could
raise their hand that would be
appreciated
okay
um you see all 75 hands there 75 people
there I see 77 people but for this one
we just have Angela NE and um um
um sorry Brian Griffith who okay all
right who are now inest room so Angela
and Brian would you raise your right
hands to be sworn please yes sir do you
saw me swearing or affirm the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth
yes Angela you're mut you're muted
Angela can you say I
do okay hello yes Angela
you you do okay you were sworn in all
right you you raised your right hand I
couldn't see you there I want to make
sure you
know
anyway um being sworn in is important
stuff now so we have to uh you have to
know you're under oath when you testify
who would like to go first Mr Griffith
or miss m near Meer you sure uh this is
Brian Griffith uh I am uh representing
Easy Living pools uh we are a pool
installer here in uh in Columbus uh
Quinton Ward is on the application uh
just because he he handles our kind of
permits midds but uh I am our company
landscape architect and prepared the
design and the drawings for the ne
Meers um we are looking at installing a
swimming pool in their property uh and
uh as as mentioned by staff uh the um
the addition that was installed is just
a a nice covered porch and as you can
kind of see maybe on page too you might
be able to zoom in a little closer uh
and I also have some photography
submitted as well but uh there is a
Gable for this porch Edition and uh we
just felt like the pool and the entire
uh outdoor living space uh would feel a
lot more balanced and a lot more
connected to the architecture uh if we
could uh align the center line of the
swimming pool to this architectural
feature and uh just felt that it would
make the space a little little nicer uh
on the North side is uh on the street
side to the north there is an existing
six- foot wood privacy fence uh that is
to remain so uh any of the public visual
of this is uh completely screened uh and
then to the uh to the West uh is a it I
wouldn't necess call it a vacant lot but
is a large tennis court uh and so we
don't think we may uh probably wouldn't
be uh uh you know uh you know hindering
anybody's views there so um but yeah
that slide you just saw there is is kind
of a view of existing and um I'm sure
the um uh the structure has come along a
little bit further in the meantime since
my photograph uh but it does kind of
show how we'd like to Center that pool
on that space and we think it would be
wonderful for the uh for the
homeowners all right is there uh anybody
in the audience that is Pro or con this
particular application
Karen can you see any hands
up I am
looking no I see no hands raised at this
time okay thank you a members of the
board you have any questions or comments
of either Mr Griffith or Miss
near no I hear none
um Kathy would you give us the findings
of fact and conclusions of law on this
matter please findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number
15739 for property located at 481 North
drexal based on the testimony presented
the board finds it appropriate to Grant
a three-foot variance from Bexley code
section
12521
A2 to allow the proposed swimming pool
to be 27 ft from the north side property
line thank you do I hear a motion or Mr
U Griffith and Miss near Meer are you
satisfied with that uh rendition of
findings effect conclusions of law for
us to vote on yes yes
[Music]
yes I'm I'm
I haven't heard I I got blacked out
again so I couldn't hear the the their
approval this is Brian Griffith uh yes
thank you sorry Angela n Meer yes thank
you thank you Miss near Meer all right
um do I hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of
law so moved second second thank you
thank you
Sean uh Kathy please call the role okay
Mr
shik yes Mr okay yes Miss Miss Mitchell
yes Mr
Turner yes Miss Dorne yes Mr LaVine yes
chairman Beall I vote Yes also the
variance is granted good luck with the
project thank you have a good night
thank you thanks for your patience
all right that brings us back to the to
the list that I have which is uh brings
the next case up before the board B
z-20
d41 located the property is located at
171 South cassingham
Road the applicant is John Hamlet the
owner is James R James and Kayla
petkus the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review and a
recommendation for a certificate of
appropriateness uh for a second floor
addition over an existing family room at
the rear of the principal
structure the uh
uh the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review and approval to
allow the second floor Edition over the
family room at the rear of the principal
structure the applicant is also seeking
a two- foot variance from the Bexley
city code section 12
5209 R6 uh which requires an 8- foot
setback from the sidey yard property
line to allow a second floor Edition
over the existing one-story structure
that is already six feet from the sidey
yard property line in other words inside
the setback already Kathy did I steal
your thunder there and give you the did
I give the panel the staff's
position pretty much they're building on
on what's existing so they they chose to
keep it in line with what's there so I
can defer to Karen if she has any design
critique that she wants to share sure
Karen um yes um first of all I wanted to
ask the owner or um or applicant to
raise their hand an apologize I do
recognize names but there's SE there's
about 70 people waiting so I need hands
raised okay I'm G to put um give them
permission to
talk um I just have Robert Rasin is that
the only person if not please raise your
hand Mr
Rasin yes sir uh let me go I give a Qui
can I give my quick staff report first
yes is that okay uh I want to find out
who Mr Rasin is first but Mr Rasin
what's your
relationship uh I work with the clear
company uh we are the design build
Remodeling Company that is working with
the petus family to build this structure
okay and is Mr Hamlet one of your co-
horts yes he's he's generally the person
that does the paperwork okay thank
you Miss Boer please give us your
perspective on the design issues here
okay this um this application uh had a
positive recommendation from the board
from the ecture review board to the
board to you guys to the board of zoning
and planning with the condition that the
applicant work with the city's design
consultant which is of course myself on
Final design details I have included in
my staff report which I won't go over
the um the design critique and um
requests that eventually were formed in
the conditions and the applicant has
agreed to all of them okay thank you uh
Mr Raskin would you raise your right
hand to be sworn in
please
yes Kathy you somly swear or affirm the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth yes thank you thank
you Mr Rasin you heard Miss boker's
review uh can you tell us whether you're
in agreement with the conditions that
have been set forth by her in the in
your prior
discussions uh yes absolutely and uh we
we have the revised drawings complete
and I actually agree I think they look
much
better okay and
um what what is the major uh uh I mean
you're building on top of you're not
going any further into the sidey setback
than is already the case is that correct
that's correct we just wanted to use the
existing um uh structure to uh just go
straight up and build our new
structure okay members of the board do
you have any questions or
comments
have we shared the site plan so they can
see exactly what where this is located
that would be helpful
yeah the the addition looks new was
there a variance granted for
it yes there
was I believe it was in the late
90s it was by a previous
homeowner uh Aron would you ask if
there's anybody in the audience that is
uh here to discuss this matter Pro or
con raise their right hands raise their
their virtual
hand I do not see
any and I actually happened to have
their property file and there was
variance granted in October of 1992 for
the other room Edition you see
existing okay and what were the
conditions did I miss that did you say
there were some conditions there there
are several conditions which um you they
are I if you'd like but um they're all
in my staff
report okay that's fine if you'd like me
to read them out loud that's no problem
at all I was just in the interest of
time it was mostly about window window
proportions and placement um minor do
with the
massing okay yep I read those I was just
checking thanks okay
great
um Kathy I think you can give us
findings of fact conclusions of law
which will include those
uh
conditions okay the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number
bc-20 d41 the board accepts the
recommendations of the architecture
review board with
conditions based on the testimony
presented the board finds it appropriate
to Grant a twoot variance from bexy code
section
122.0 n R6 zoning with the condition
that the applicant work with the
residential design consultant on Final
design details in accordance with the
ARB recommendation for certificate of
appropriateness
okay and Mr Rasin are you you uh
satisfied with the conditions that have
been iterated by uh the staff uh as uh
conditions to the application that you
were requesting for your
clients yes sir all
right can I hear a
motion uh to approve the findings of
fact conclusions of law
Please Mr line is there a second
please second oh second thank
you um Miss Rose please call the role
Miss
Mitchell
yes Mr
Turner sorry
yes Mr
shik Mr shik sorry
yes uh Miss Dorne
yes Mr Levine yes and chairman Beall I
vote Yes the matter is uh the request is
granted and the variances are granted
and the uh approval of the Architectural
Review is also granted thank you very
much Mr Rasin good luck with your
project thank you have a great night
thank
you all right
the next case is bz ap-20
d43 the location is 90 North
Columbia the applicant is Pete Foster
the owner is Thomas Hadley and the
applicant is seeking Architectural
Review and a recommendation of a
certificate of appropriateness to for a
covered Terrace addition to the
southeast of the existing principal
structure uh Kathy is that your or is
this a
Karen uh well it's it's me okay give us
a little bit of perspective here from
the uh staff's point of view so so for
sighting this is a corner lot and the
front yard actually
faces
uh my gosh I'm going blank on the side
street Clifton thank you which has an 85
foot average front
setback
and the proposed covered terrrace is
proposed at 69 feet from the front
property line which is a 16 foot
variance um excuse me for interrupting I
am having connection problems again Mr
schik if you would be so kind as to
share the
images and I'd also like to point out
there's a swimming pool involved with
this as
well which is located in the sidey yard
which is technically to the east even
though the address is to the West the
front door faces West it may appear as
their backyard but technically it is
their side yard so that would be a
variance to code section 12 5215 G which
uh allows accessory structures permitted
in the rear yard and that is to allow a
7 foot by 10 foot proposed pool in that
East sidey
yard 7 by 10 feet
okay a small pool yeah that's a small
pool okay all right
um who is here on this matter that would
be sworn in that would be Mr Foster Mr
Hadley
and for the record Mr Foster has another
case on the agenda if we could go to
that one right after this one if that's
acceptable okay if you if the applicants
could raise their hand Mr Foster Mr
Hadley just because there're 72 people
on here so it's hard to it'll put you to
the top so I can easily find you thank
you okay Mr
Foster has I'm moving you to the
panelist room got it
okay and I'd recommend we put either a
site
plan and I've
asked Mr shik to share his screen
because mine went blank so um we're just
doing the best we can thank you
okay say all right Ryan is that you have
the screen now I do I would go to the
next plan
can can you hear me yes yes oh okay
thank you all right um Mr Foster would
you raise your right hand to be sworn
please do you solemnly swear from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the
truth okay you're muted but I lip red
that you said I do I do okay thank you
all right
um
um so the fight plan is in the upper
lefthand corner okay Clifton runs along
the south side of that picture or the
lower lower portion and Columbia runs
along the left-and side that little
round circle that is just an open
Terrace but there's well that's the
covered Terrace correct Pete no that's
just a little fire pit the the new
covered Terrace is that white area
that's up um okay there we go yeah okay
and then the pull of course is to the
right all right uh Karen do you have any
uh uh comments on this application if I
may too Kathy there should have been an
updated image that was sent in that has
this bottom um right corner of the new
Pavilion should be squared off and not
clipped at an angle the upper corner uh
remains clipped but this bottom corner
should be at a right
angle was it uploaded to the Viewpoint
application it it should have been yes
um it's I mean every to be honest
everything looks the same other than
that is a a 90 degree Corner versus a
45 okay nothing else has changed the
railings are the same the proportions
are the same um but if I may uh continue
this is an odd lot in that as you can
see from the dashed lines on my site
plan that's actually buildable area on
this site and obviously a home was put
on this site some time ago and I
actually did the addition to the north
of this quite some years ago but um if
you could back out uh if you could back
out again there you go so you can see
that the the initial home the original
home was non-conforming by quite a
substantial amount um um and so uh the
desire is just to have a new covered
Terrace area um on this south east
corner if you will um and if you look at
the East
Elevation um if someone can pan out a
little
bit uh and see the
image there a way to do that there
[Music]
we there we yeah keep going there there
we go thank you very much um the goal
currently if you see that sort of
octagon breakfast nook if you will in
the center um on the right side of that
is existing family room with an existing
rod iron Rail and um by doing this
covered Terrace on the um south side of
that octagon Nook we're merely trying to
image that um sorry mirror that and and
gain a little bit of symmetry on this
ground level even though this is an open
piece we wanted to try and get some
consistency with that railing um and
again the the house obviously like I say
is is very non-conforming but um this
addition sits still considerably back
from the farthest Southern point of this
house and uh if you've been by the site
grade is considerably
higher um at the point of the house than
it is from when you're walking along the
sidewalks there on Clifton which I
believe are new sidewalks um excuse me
so um this this piece really does not
feel like it's uh imposing as it comes
to the South um and then the little
cocktail pool again is just exactly that
it's about 18 inches out of the ground
and um and just a 7 by9 more of a water
feature both from the inside from the
breakfast nook is I think the homeowners
intend to have a small fountain in there
as well as just a a noise feature as
well as another sitting space uh with
when they're in their rear yard or I
guess it's their side yard but when
they're in their uh when they're in your
yard okay thank
you
um members of the board you have any
questions or
comments and Pete I apologize I did
check the application and all documents
show were uploaded on December 15th so
unless it was emailed but I guess we
could you know the board would be
comfortable with you working with Karen
on that minor
modification Karen you're okay with that
are you
not absolutely fine yep okay okay
there's a good picture there all right
um do um are there any folks in the
audience for or against this application
please please raise your virtual
hand I see none
thank
you members of the board do you have any
questions or
comments we're doing Architectural
Review and approval and then we have two
variances one is this lot is long
and not deep and as a result anything is
more than 85 feet from the
street seems like to
me all right all right Kathy do you have
findings of fact and conclusions of law
for us to
consider findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bcap p-20
d43 the board accepts the recommendation
of the architecture review board based
on the testimony presented the board
finds it appropriate to Grant a 16ft
variance from bexy code section 12 52.0
n to allow a covered terrrace to
encroach into the front yard setback and
to also a variance from bexy Cod section
12 52.1 15g to allow a 7 foot x 10 foot
pool in the East sidey yard as presented
in plans on January 28th
2021 okay and I guess we should all
always note in situations like this that
the uh B that the uh ARB did approve the
design yes they did and also with the
condition that the applicant work with
the residential design consultant on any
minor
modifications right very
good any modifications to that reading
of the findings of fact and conclusions
of law if not I would entertain a motion
to approve the findings effect law is
there a
second second thank you uh Mr uh
um Foster are the findings of fact and
conclusions of law satisfactory to your
client for us to vote upon tonight yes
thank you Kathy please call the
role Mr shik
yes Miss Mitchell
yes Mr
Turner yes Miss Dorne
yes Mr Levine
yes and chairman
Beall chairman Beall I don't know if
anybody can hear me or not but I vote
Yes as well thank
you well technically he has his tongue
stuck out but um at least on my and I'm
just going to screenshot this just for
posterity oh I lost it
darn could you hear me vote Yes there or
not Cathy hear if we if we didn't see it
then then it didn't happen it didn't
happen yeah right it's like a tree in
the forest right chairman chairman just
move on thank you so so Mr Foster has
another case on the agenda if we could
continue with him and this is for 100
South Cassidy
which
is case number
bc-20
d49 yes the applicant is Mr Foster once
again the owner is Lisa fer the address
is 100 South Cassidy and the applicant
is seeking Architectural Review and a
recommendation on a certificate of
appropriateness to allow a second floor
addition over the existing first floor
family room located at the rear or east
side of the principal structure Kathy
any uh comments from the staff regarding
this
request
um uh like the like a previous case that
we had prior to the 90 North Columbia
this is building on top of an existing
first floor structure so I will defer to
Karen for any design details uh special
in the recommendation from the
architecture review
board this application was I'm sorry
this application was actually approved
for was recommended for approval at this
board at Board of um zoning and planning
by the architect review board as a
consent agenda item which means they had
nothing to add and were very much in
favor of the
design okay thank you very much Mr
Foster do you have much to add to this
what what would you say about this plan
uh all I would like to say and I don't
know if again someone could put up the
drawings just so we could um I could
maybe add some clarity um the existing
structure as in the previous one as
Kathy stated uh one of the previous
projects um someone put an addition on
at some point in time uh but the
original House itself was also built um
uh too close to the property line uh in
this particular Zone we're required to
be a minimum of eight feet from the pro
well I it's it's um in this case we're
we're eight F feet is as close as we get
to the property line and I'm sorry Kathy
I didn't see the numbers again I think
we're like 6'8 or something 6' 8 Ines
from the property line right um and
again the way our zoning Cod is set up
the eight feet between properties uh
between structures would give us a total
of 16 feet uh if the neighbor had been
conforming but in this particular case
um the neighbor is actually I believe
about 10t away so even though we are
non-conforming that's sort of important
in between space is still being captured
or is still being saved and that we
exceed the the 16 feet that would have
normally been what the zoning code was
shooting for
so so again want to build up for ease of
construction and obviously for um the
Aesthetics of architecture and lack of
bad maintenance in the future so uh so
we just went straight up and again we've
we've still exceeded the amount of space
that's required by zoning between
structures all right and should be noted
that the ARB approved the uh
design yeah all right I'm trying to
access these
plans I'm not sure why they are not
showing up on the
website
um
wow
well well I'm going to to Viewpoint to
see if I can pull them
up is there anybody in the audience that
is for or against this matter Karen can
you tell that please raise your right
hand if you are here to speak on this
matter uh I believe we had an email from
the neighbor to the South which we are
close to that I sent in that might be
able to be
read well I I don't want to read it but
I will say that it was a posit positive
letter or
email sent uh supporting the proposal
okay from the neighbor immediate
neighbor thank
you can you guys see my
laptop
yes uhuh I mean this is really
Hightech yeah oh there you go thank you
Karen I don't think I did that oh
that lower piece that lower piece uh
below that White
Band uh was a existing uh with a shed
roof on top of it and we are putting a
second floor on top and using the White
Band to separate old sighting from new
siding because no doubt there'll be a
little bit of a color variation but it
will match what's down below uh but we
just thought it gave it a little bit of
scale and a little bit of detail and
separated old sighting from new
sighting
okay all
right um is there anybody in the
audience Pro or con this matter with you
see any uh virtual hands
up I do not see any virtual hands thank
you uh do the members of the board have
any questions or comments of the
applicant or about the
project I see no indication of such uh
as a result Kathy why don't you read the
findings of fact and conclusions of law
please the findings of fact and
conclusions law for application number
bz ap-20 d49 for property located at 100
South Cassidy the board accepts the
positive recommendation of the
architecture review board and based on
the testimony presented the board finds
it appropriate to Grant the 1 foot4 inch
variance from beex code section 122.0 n
R6 zoning to allow a second floor
addition over the existing first
floor okay okay
um
Mr Foster do did the the reading of the
findings OFA conclusions of law satisfy
your client's needs uh uh under this
application
yes thank you
uh do I hear a motion to approve the
findings of fact conclusions of law on
this matter so moved thank you Miss
Mitchell
Alicia
second second Sean Turner thank you John
Kathy please call the role Mr shik yes
Miss Mitchell yes Mr
Turner yes Miss Dorne yes Mr Levine
yes and chairman Beall I vote Yes as
matter as as well the variance is
granted and the arch tal review is
approved thank you thank you Mr Foster
appreciate thank you next the next case
is case bz
ap-20
d45 the applicant are the Ryan brothers
landscaping company the owner of the
property is Clifton Partners
LLC the address is 2121 Clifton Avenue
and the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review and a
recommendation for a certificate
appropriateness for a deck stair
addition connecting to a proposed open
Terrace
uh who is anybody here to present this
case from either the applicant or the
owner both being
companies if so please raise your hand
for Miss Boker to pull you
up we have a Pat Ryan all right moting
panelist all right and Mr Ryan are you
here on behalf of Ryan brothers
landscaping you're muted uh
Pat there you go cut me off there for a
little bit sorry about that Mr jamond
it's all right um while we've got you um
would you raise your right hand and be
sworn in please sure Kathy you somly
swear from the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth yes thank
you Kathy give us a little background on
this matter please um I think it would
be important to at least pull up the
rendering because that gives a great
perspective for this case um what we
have is a site that is has a very high
grade in the center in the rear yard and
the house
currently me find my
notes
there's steps coming out the back which
is a deck and some stairs and that leads
down to a Terrace while the the
combination of those additions exceed
both the building footprint
and the site development plus building
footprint combination in the
r three zoning District you're limited
to 25% of building footprint coverage
and 50% overall uh with what's proposed
I believe we're at
49.9 building footprint
coverage and the overall site plan
coverage which includes building
footprint and Hardscape is 91% is that
correct
Ryan believe so
yes okay I I've actually been to the
site and when you walk out the back door
it's like a plateau of grass and then it
just drops down
drastically so along with the proposal
there were some changes in landscape so
if the board finds what's proposed
appropriate I would further
uh condition that the landscape
consultant review those landscape
changes
okay Mr Ryan tell us a little bit about
why you've decided to do this in the way
you've decided to do it or your clients
I should say and uh why we should vote
in favor of the
application absolutely um the way the
the backyard sits right now is it's
virtually unusable they have about a 20
by 20 um pad of concrete that Kathy said
it just drops off into nothing it's
starting to crumble because of the grade
change um so what we propos is to do
what you guys are seeing to tear us it
down and to create a usable back um
backyard I believe Kathy correct me if
I'm wrong is that you know when the
architect Drew this up it Zone he
thought it was zoned at the
50% but in actuality it zoned
differently to only conclude the 25%
lock coverage we actually changed it
you're going to see in the middle of it
it says buff wash concrete one of the
things that we're cognizant of is
surface runoff on on that property so
we're actually going to put a series of
drains that are going to lead out to
capture that we're actually switch it
from concrete to a permeable Pap so it
won't just be you know an ice lick um
when it
rains
okay go ahead
sorry that's a good view of it there to
see what you've
done this is a narrow lot isn't it
correct it
is all right members of the panel uh do
you have any questions or comments or
about this request for
variance yeah just briefly what what's
the what's the height of the fireplace
unit and what's the distance to The Back
Fence I believe the house to the south
of there is really close to that fence
also correct it's 9 feet tall and it is
uh 14 feet away from the property
line okay and you don't happen to know
how far the house is on the other side
of the fence do you I know that's not it
necessary yeah I would guesstimate is
probably 8 feet away they have a series
of they have bushes on the other side of
the fence then a walkway and then the
house so I'm guessing three foot bed and
4 foot walkway so 7 feet and there's a
privacy fence between them correct we
we're be planning a series of um upright
European hornbeams along that side to
try to better screen between the
neighbors and I did share this plan with
that
neighbor okay and did you receive any
complaints I did not okay I I wanted to
let Karen um I also wanted to let
everybody know that um this was approved
as a consent agenda the item meaning
that the board had the architect review
board had no critique or comments on it
that they approved without any criticism
okay thank you and do you have any
comments
yourself no I think it looks great the
house is magnificent that's it's a
interesting looking house yeah exactly
that's great um
um is there anybody in the audience that
is for or against this application uh
Karen if so I'd ask that person or her
sons to uh raise their virtual hands on
this
screen I see no hands at this time okay
thank you very much once again any other
questions from board
members all right have a comment okay
Sor um I just wanted to say this is a a
fantastic rendering and um it's actually
one of my favorite houses with a modern
Des design so I wish the homeowners
luck
and this helps us make decisions when we
have nice renderings like this this is
very helpful great to imagine what it
looks like is hard for us to do
sometimes so thank you Pat absolutely um
Kathy can we have the findings of fact
and conclusions of law on this matter
please yes thank you the findings of
fact it concludes of law for application
number B
z-20 d45 the board accepts the positive
recommendation from the architecture
review board for a certificate of
appropriateness and based on the
testimony presented the board finds it
appropriate to Grant variance from bexy
code section
12529 R3 to allow the building foot
coverage to be 50% and to allow the
overall lot coverage to be 91% and in
accordance with the plan submitted on
128
2021 with the condition that the
landscape plan is further subject to
review and approval by the landscape
consultant all
right Mr Ryan do you have any problem
with that reading of the findings of
fact conclusions of law and the
conditions associated with our vote
tonight I do not thank you do I hear a
motion to approve the of fact
conclusions of
law move Sean Turner Sean thank you Z
second second Heidi Dorne thank you
Heidi uh Kathy please call the role on
this
application Mr Levine yes Miss Dorne yes
Mr Turner yes Miss Mitchell
yes Mr schik yes
and Sherman Beall I vote Yes as well the
variances are granted and the
architectural reviews
approved thank you Mr Ryan thank you
good luck with that project very much
have a good night all thank
you all right the next case in is case
bz ap-20
d46 located at 24 04 Fair Avenue the
applicant is Brenda Parker and the owner
of the lot and building is Tyler and
Alison
chamblin the applicant is seeking
Architectural Review and a
recommendation of a certificate of
appropriateness for a two a new
two-story Edition to the rear of the
principal
structure um Kathy uh please give us
some background on this matter
this application was before the
architecture review board and there were
some concerns the
uh let me
see uh the the fact that the addition
was proposed to be 3 feet 11 inches from
the detach garage and code requires a
10- foot separation between the
principal structure and the detached
garage so there were design discussions
and some members thought that this might
even look better attached to the garage
so I actually noted both variances
because once you attach that garage to
the principal structure It all becomes
principal structure and that existing
garage is 6 feet 11 inches from the rear
yard property line so they would then
need a variance to the rear yard
property line as opposed to the variance
to the separation of 10t required
between the principal structure addition
and the detached garage right and the
applicant did submit a modified plan
showing the connection so Karen will
probably show that to you as well you
know uh before Karen makes her comments
I'd like to see if who is going to be
presenting on behalf of this application
Brenda Parker or the
chamblin if you could please raise your
hand I can find you on the list that
would be really
helpful thank you sorry
Karen oh that's okay I just need the
applicant Brenda or the owners if
they're here to raise their hand so that
I can find you on the
list
please there is somebody on that's just
a phone number there but I can't tell
who it is well I still need a hand
raise um in order to tell okay is Brenda
Parker a a uh an
architect yeah
um you don't see
her well I'm I'm working my way through
it we have 72 people on the list right
now which
I I do not see Brenda on the list um is
are the chamblin on the
list I will
look all right we
will do we'll come back to that case uh
in case there people have either maybe
fallen asleep in their armchairs while
waiting for us to get to them
tonight uh so the next case is case bz
ap-20
d47 at located at 50 North
Drexel the uh applicant is Todd Parker
the owner is shilee Gman the applicant
is seeking Architectural Review and a
recommendation of a certificate of
appropriateness to allow a pool house in
the front side
yard whatever that means so okay let's
see if we have uh the presenter here on
that case if you would oh there's Todd
Parker I see I believe we already do and
I'm gonna
um also look to see if the owner is here
as well which I believe they are hold on
a
seconde or or Matt
Gman no this is Andrew Gman other
project this is this is Andrew Gman
right there's but two Gman on
this yes there are and now they are a
panelist okay
beautiful
um well while we've got them why don't
we go ahead and swear them in if if um
Todd and shye or or Andrew whoever's
there raise your right hand and be sworn
Please Mr chairman it's actually Andrew
on good okay
yeah I recognize your
voice do you saw Miss sar from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth I do I do okay
thank you gentlemen
um
uh K uh Kathy why don't you tell us what
you think from my from the staff's
perspective on this
matter uh to start you want to give
first go ahead it the the the applicant
is Seeking a variance to bexi code
section 12 52.1
15g which once again
allows accessory structures in the rear
yard this is a corner lot at the corner
of Clifton and Drexel the southeast
Corner the house faces Clifton the
address is Drexel it is platted to
Drexel
so the view you're looking at right now
you're looking from drexal and that
accessory structure is sitting a little
closer to the street than the principal
structure is granted this property is
surrounded by a
hedro uh that that still is an accessory
structure it's actually a front side
yard right being it sticks out further
from the street so this went to the
architecture review board there was a
lot of discussion about design and
suggestions so I will defer to Karen uh
what those two suggestions were and uh
they have made modifications to I
believe this is original plan
Karen that was submitted because they've
submitted revisions which might be
the is the original plan which is on
purpose I want to talk about it okay
Karen are you able to get
on am I on
yeah are you there can can everybody
hear me yes yes yeah um so I just wanted
to pull up the original plan first um
the the
recommendation um was made to have this
come before Bap um for the variance
under the condition that the design go
back to Architectural Review Board they
kind of D to sum it up the direction to
the designer and the owner was to please
redesign not so much the volume or the
placement that was understood but
redesigned the um the architecture
basically to match the original house so
that it's been a very rare and um
unusual circumstance that all bushes
should be torn down um that the face of
this P house would match the existing
house it would look as though it it
connected um and went together so I
wanted to show you first the original um
submission was this it was a very kind
of it's a very um popular contemporary
vocabulary uh we asked the architect and
the owner to go back and look at some
alternate designs and I think that
they're on their way to coming back
coming back to something that um would
really be acceptable it it ties um
materials into the original house so
that if if that side were ever um were
ever exposed it would clearly match the
original structure um having said that
it would still need to go back to
architect review board if approved for
the variance which is all we're looking
at here but I think it was very
important to show you that there's been
progress on the along the way on the
design also just um in case you didn't
get to walk this site it's a very
unusual site and there's not a lot of
options for a placement of a pool house
um I had taken some pictures that I can
pull up Tod if you need me to but I'm
going to hand it off to you um to be
sworn it you already were sworn in so go
ahead about the project Tod tell us uh
what you think and what where you're
headed with your design please so in and
really again as Karen mentioned ARB
pushed us um to modify the design to to
match the house as you can see on our
sheet labeled uh
a202 we have some contextual images of
the existing home as well as some of our
modified you know simple computer models
um for
this in what we've done from our
previous submission ARB with the
materials of the structure and you know
the the fenestration on the from Mostly
the West Wall as it faces Drexel is
we've modified that design we've added
stone that mimics the house on the
Drexel side which is picture number five
that is the the face that faces Drexel
Avenue right and then um our new version
kind of indicates a window there on the
west elevation that looks as a
door um but you know to note again this
is an odd site where the address is 50
North Drexel however the front of the
home faces Clifton um the front door and
you know
effectively because it's a corner lot
this structure is partially encroaching
into the platted um front yard
setback
and I think arb's point was if they were
to approve this they wanted it to have a
better presence onto Drexel Avenue and
so by doing what we're doing with the
architecture you know minus the thought
of the significantly tall very dense
arborite hedge that wraps most of the
wraps the entire drexal length of the
property and about 70% of the rear
property
line which is on the south U which will
screen this building but if in the event
that that hedge was to diminish then
this this building would have a presence
on drexal that would be
appropriate therefore you know our our
new material changes have done that um
you know my thought process or rationale
as I Revisited it when I went after the
ARB hearing is you know because the
existing home the west elevation that
faces Drexel has zero windows in it um
so we thought that perhaps this
structure might heaven forbid if that
hedge gets mowed down um that this
structure might almost appear like a
gate house from
Drexel
so yeah well that's an interesting situ
ation there there's no question about
that and uh the Hedge is beautiful but
you know Arbor can die too all of a
sudden and then you're stuck there but
and I
know pardon me Mr Gman pointed out to
the ARB that you know they have had some
uh the arbor V you know going into
Decline and they've instantly replaced
them because you know they put that
there themselves for the Privacy even
before they had the pool so again the
pool is existing which I think the board
approved approved a couple years ago for
them so we're adding the pool houses an
amenity for that already approved pool
so if if I may be heard Mr chairman
briefly certainly thank you very much
good evening everybody I know it's been
a long night I'll be brief uh I just
wanted to correct one thing that that
Todd had said the point is right but but
there actually had not been any arbites
in that hedge since we put them in that
went into decline on the drexal side we
did some construction especially when we
did the pool where we actually uh uh had
to or there was some damage that was
caused to uh the arbor vies it wasn't
that they were dying uh it was that they
were damaged and so what we did is uh we
you know we bought these arbores when
they were three feet tall and we've
loved them and watered them now they're
10 12 feet tall and and blocked
basically this entire structure but you
know we went out and bought fully grown
arbores put them back in and you'd be
hard pressed to stand on Drexel and tell
which ones got taken out and which ones
got put in uh this hedge is a
major uh uh part of our home and the
enjoyment and the peaceful and quiet
enjoyment of our home uh so certainly
anybody who remembers what it was like
before that hedge was there uh was quite
the ey sore uh everybody who walked by
Drexel could see into the backyard of of
this house and whatever people here
doing um and vice versa so now there's
you know total privacy both for the
street for the pedestrians for traffic
for the neighbors across the street um
you know total privacy by by this hedge
which uh we we fully intend to
maintain sure all right uh that's a a
good I mean I think the uh the design
change is very nicely done by the way
and and I think it's appropriate even
though it might prob cost you a little
bit more money possibly but I won't
comment on that
um um do we have uh anybody in the uh
audience that is for or against this
application please Karen no I don't
hands raised but I'll just give it a
couple seconds if somebody has any
objections or would like to make any
comments that have standing please raise
your virtual
hand I see none all right thank you very
much members of the board do you have
any questions of Mr Parker Mr gross
about the project and why they're
proceeding as they are or any questions
you might
have when you when they say this is a
front side yard I mean this is about the
only house that I know of that you
almost have to describe it that way
because that's exactly what this is this
is truly a side yard but the way it was
platted out it's the front yard
so all right I don't hear any comments
or questions so I would ask uh Kathy to
read findings of fact conclusions of law
on this matter please and do we want to
condition that the final design returned
back to the architecture review board or
does this board comfortable with the
modifications um Kathy or Karen rather
uh I think you said you thought it
should go back but uh are have you been
fully apprised of all these
materials yes but I think the best
judgment would be to um condition this
on the return for architecture review
board it is was their request and they
haven't seen this and it's only two
weeks and I I'm sure the applicant would
probably agree to that but um I I think
that it is the right thing to respect
their condition request yeah we we the
applicant has no objection to that it
was very clearly stated when we were
there the last time we want to respect
the
board thank you thank you I went on a
little blackout period there so so I
didn't hear any of what you said Karen
or what uh Andrew said so give me a two
second
recap we
will I'm
sorry go ahead
Ken we will return this to the AR you're
okay going
back yes absolutely you're okay with
that or you almost like to do that no I
mean rather freezing up 100 times here
it's driving me nuts
right can you hear me now Mr
[Laughter]
chairman would you like me to read the
findings
effect hey you know I mean I'm just I
just sit here and I just hear nothing
for 10 15 seconds at a time and it's
hard to do when you're the chairman you
know but it happens it's happened at
least 20 times tonight so it's getting
quite frustrating as you might imagine
go ahead Kathy and give us finding
conclusions law if you would be so kind
okay the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bz ap-20
d47 based on the testimony presented the
board finds it appropriate to Grant a
variance from bexy code section
122.5 g to allow a pool housee in the
South Side
yard and bexi code
section 122.0 n R3 zoning to allow the
pool housee to be 26 feet 9 in from the
front West property line with the
condition that the applicant return to
the architecture review board for final
design review and
approval all right and Mr Gman does that
uh reading of the findings of fact
conclusions law satisfy you for
submission to our panel for a vote it
does indeed Mr chairman thank you thank
you um do I hear
any um motion to approve the findings of
fact conclusions of law
please so moved thank you is there a
second second thank
you Kathy please call the
role Miss Dorne uh yes Miss
Mitchell
yes Mr
shik um yeah yes
uh Mr Turner
yes Mr LaVine yes and chairman
behk I vote Yes also even though I'm
blacking out
again thank you thank you very much I we
told you to stop the
Moonshine thank you to the board Mr
chairman everyone have a good night
thank you very much all right thank you
Andrew and uh Mr Parker appreciate it as
well your variances are granted and uh
uh good luck with your project thank you
thank you
sir all right it that I have is case bz
ap-20
-51 the property is at 231 North Drexel
uh the applicant is that what you all
have on your
docket um
yes yes we're still waiting on
Heidi friend depart so the uh the
applicant is uh christana panov
panovska how I do and the owners are
Matt and Abigail
Grossman the applicant is seeking
architectural review and a
recommendation of a certificate of
appropriateness to allow in addition to
the existing detached
garage
um and seeking a variance from Bexley
city code section 12 52.1 five which
limits an accessory structure to
35% of the building footprint of the
principal structure or 624 ft whichever
is
greater to allow a 440 square foot
addition to the the existing 560 SQ foot
detached
garage so let's see if we have
presenters here on this case do we have
um miss panovska or Mr Mrs
Gman um yes I see herisa here and I just
put her into the panelist room and if
the Grans are here and want to testify
could you please raise your hand so I
can find you in the
list I do not see
them
okay Rana are are you uh on the line
there I
am okay uh would you raise your right
hand to be sworn
please yes you Sally swear swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth I
do thank you and um
Kathy can you give us a a rendition of
why we are needing uh variances in this
uh case or why what they're asking for
in the way of variances I should
say the for some reason our drawings are
not online they have an existing garage
that they're adding on to
um I believe is this is this a
porch addition to this
Karen yes I mean I can describe it I
don't know um I have I pulled up the um
the city website and I'm showing
everything that is on there now um after
I give staff report I'm happy to go look
at the um back on Viewpoint and pull up
the drawings but basically this uh
application is for an
addition to an existing detached garage
at the back of the property the
applicant is Seeking a variance from
Beckley code section 12521 15a which
limits an accessory structure to 35% of
the building footprint of the principal
structure or 624 square feet whichever
is greater to allow to flow a 440 SQ
foot addition to the attach existing 560
foot detached garage so the additional
space is not enclosed space it's a
covered porch um this application when
it was submitted had a few um a few
things that as as the staff for
architect review board um I suggested
some changes and the applicant agreed to
them so as a result the um The
Architects review board voted for this
as a consent agenda item noting that the
applicant has agreed to do um to comply
with all the um the changes that staff
and the architecture review board had
conditions the recommendation on some of
those include um The Columns didn't were
kind of um didn't match in language to
the front forch column so they're going
to change those and also the to simplify
some of the artch workor and just make
it adhere to the style of the home um
more consistently and more compatible um
the condition would just be that the
applicant does not need to go back to
our text review board but just review
all the um review the design changes
with me the
staff that's it okay so it was
recommended
unanimously okay very good
uh why don't you tell us from your
perspective uh what you're trying to
accomplish here and why we should Grant
a variance to allow uh this large uh uh
garage well our uh our clients are
seeking to a porch uh addition to the
back of their garage um to accommodate
um a future pool uh so this would be an
open porch that would Overlook a future
pool um uh unfortunately I'm not sure
why the the drawings aren't um being
able to be accessed but um the
addition I'm sorry interrup I'm the next
to the architect review board meeting
and pulling up the drawing so that
everybody can yes they are there I just
did that yes okay so um the porch um
currently has uh a small restroom and uh
you know just a covering um but we also
have a a decorative pergola so combined
these elements uh are
36% of
um of accessory structure to primary
structure so we are 1% over um the
allowable uh area um the area is very
private um there is no public
Alleyway behind and it's all flank by
and I just black
out mute your
computer do what M
that so the um the property is uh all
flanked by mature trees um which I have
some photos um I had uploaded um so much
so that you can't even see the project
from the um from the driveway this view
here is directly from the residence um
so as you can see um it would be uh a
great significance to the family they're
very excited for it um unfortunately
that
1% has kicked us into variant and so
we're hopeful um to have your approval
tonight and based on the fact that this
is an open structure you know
technically the footprint exceeds it but
it is an open structure and not just
increasing a big Mass uh you know 624
square feet is a limit for accessory
structures the existing structure is 5
60 and they're adding 440 open porch
addition
correct can you go back to the site
there you so you can see what it is
thank
you would you like me to scroll through
the rest of the drawings too yes
please or um Sean you still need the Mr
Turner do you still need to site plan or
is okay if I go through the dra you can
scroll I just you you can scroll you
were flipping through the other one so
fast I was having trouble figuring out
the layout this is good you're fine I'm
sorry um this picture is a good example
of the changes that I have requested um
I think lot some of it's just drawing
convention but some of it were that the
column seemed oversized and you know
just a a different style than was at the
house so um
the applicant will change that and to um
straighten out the The Arches which
don't also seem to match the the um
orthagonal nature of the eeve in the
existing
house if I'm going too fast anybody
please just let me know and I will slow
down or go
back
so what do you think is causing this
thing to black out I'm
getting says we have a we can hear you
Bob
mute okay
any any sorry any add drawings that
you'd like me to pull up the or the
photos again or
anything you know what if they're going
to talk about blacking out like once
again Mr please stay off the Moonshine
like it's a problem in
Bexley they're talking to you thanks
thanks I love Bob saying they're talking
to
you Kon these were really helpful thank
you for getting them up there so we
could look at
them it occured me that they would be on
last month it's odd how they show like
they're on there but they don't you
can't they won't appear
so is this is this a corner lot it's not
is it it's no it is in the middle of a
block don't
wor I think these photos are
particularly helpful because yes they
really
show um how isolated side is inside it I
think it's a beautiful plan I just
thought think it needed to match the
original structure a little bit more and
there was no issue at all with that as a
condition with from the applicant and so
looking at this photo Karen that porch
is beyond the front of that white car
correct
yes on the other side of that white car
yeah all
right this sounds weird but I really
like that
Gage no it's a the architect review
board felt the same way way that the
garage is beautiful and that anything
that you can do to lessen the porch as a
change to the architecture of the garage
is better to simplify
yeah
okay have we asked whether there's
anybody in the audience that is Pro or
con this case
yet no we have not but now we have if
anybody would like to testify this case
um please raise your virtual
hand I see
none
okay I mean this is a pretty well hidden
backyard is it not I mean it's when when
you drive by you cannot see any of this
from the
street correct and it looks like it's
even pretty well sheltered from a
surrounding properties is that
true that is correct
okay
um are there any additional questions or
comments from members of the
panel not for me uh I missed a lot of
that because the mayor was bothering me
here but uh if you uh do you think we're
ready to read findings of fact
conclusions of law on this matter so
move
okay uh
Kathy the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bz ap-20 d51 for property located
at 231 North Drexel the board accepts
the recommendation from the architecture
review board based on the testimony
presented the board finds it appropriate
to Grant a variance from bexy code
section 12 52.1 15 to allow a 44 40 squ
foot open addition with the condition
that minor architectural changes to the
columns and arches be subject to final
design review by the residential design
consultant okay do members of the board
have any problem with that rendition of
findings of fact and conclusions of
Law and uh Miss panova do you have any
problems with that from your client's
perspective no we're ready to move
forward all
right um Kathy or let me ask them board
do I have a motion to approve those
findings of fact and conclusions of
law Mr shik has moved is there a second
please okay um Kathy please call the
role uh Miss Mitchell
yes Mr
shik Mr
shik I'm sorry
yes uh Mr
Turner yes Miss Dorne yes Mr Levine yes
and chairman
Beal I vote Yes also the variances are
granted and the approval of the
Architectural Review Board
is
accepted uh good luck with your
project all right the next
case
is I did call the applicant for 20 404
fair and it went to
voicemail
okay
uh are we at
um 2300 East
Livingston yes I believe so hey Mr behal
this is uh the case that I'm GNA need to
recuse myself because of my professional
affiliation okay thank you for noting
that in advance uh Miss Mitchell and I
believe the following one um that's on
the agenda I will need to recuse also
okay um
but well I was just gonna um yeah if if
unless you would need me for something
else I can once someone can text me and
tell me when to come
back well let me ask a question
here uh the other
business um
Kathy
uh is has to do with light uh lighting
of the facade of a building at 26 2062
East Main it it's a facade Grant to
allow that facade Grant yes okay so
that's what you're we're seeking as a
recommendation from this board and
approval and approving this facade Grant
okay is is there can I move for un
unanimous
consent uh I I'd like to find out if
there's anybody Pro or con that case I I
don't think that case is g to take as
much time next two I hate to have
somebody as long as it might take these
next two cases to hear that
case Okay so if the if you don't mind
I'm make an executive move here to uh uh
call
uh it's not got a case number does
it well it's just it's an application
that's not in my building department
software it's uh through the mayor's
office
okay if I may Mr chair I can very
quickly address this okay it is not a uh
it's not a bza traditional bza approval
it's a facade Grant so the way that the
facade Grant ordinance is written it
just B to review it the money encumbered
for this grant already it has to do with
uplighting on the jeis building the
building the corner of U Drexel and
Maine certainly we could take a vote now
or after the other two hearings I know
there are a lot of people here to hear
those hearings okay let let me ask
members of the board um do you feel like
you have enough information to vote on
the Maine and
Drexel uh case right now or do you you
feel like it requires some additional
questions please let me hear from
anybody who wants to hear more testimony
or presentation on that facade
Grant I don't know if I'm comfortable
voting on it not knowing really what it
is I know it's an uplighting on just
sepis but if somebody can just give a
brief description it or something as to
lights what it's what it's shining on I
mean yeah it's it's
I hate to install it but but voting on
something I don't even really I mean I
looked at I've looked at the plans and
everything but still just a little brief
description or something Mi Mr chair I'm
I'm very comfortable waiting till the
end I know there are a lot of people
here these other two and and Miss
Mitchell um we should be fine with those
left at the meeting um yeah I think it's
it'll be totally fine and if if there's
any issue we can table it to the next
meeting as well so let's let's
prioritize the the hearing that folks
are here to to talk about if that's okay
all right should
at
least see if Kenny Brown is here and if
maybe he's okay with with what we're
suggesting I don't believe he is because
it's a it's going through a I could be
wrong but um because it's going through
a staff process I that I would be
presenting the application okay very
good then uh then let's move on to so
will you someone text me to come back to
listen to that or no I can if you if
you'd like but why don't you just get
some sleep I can do
that I'm sorry to be dipping out on you
guys thank you for all your hard work
though you're welcome thank you thank
you thank you Alyssa have a good night
good night good night good night so that
brings the case to a the next case uh to
b z
ap-2048 20 300 East Livingston Avenue
the applicant is Community Builders the
owner is Community Builders and the
request is for an application to seek
Architectural Review and a
recommendation to Bap to allow a
three-story structure with residential
use on the first second and third floors
if approved the existing building will
be demolished now my understanding of
this situation is that this has not been
before the Architectural Review Board is
that
correct no that's not correct not it has
been before riew board
yes okay
so uh but has the Architectural Review
Board made a
recommendation yes yes they have um this
this applicant applicant came before The
Architects review board for
recommendation to the board of zoning
and planning it was recommended to the
board of zoning and planning with the
condition that it reand back to the
architecture review board for for full
design
review okay so in other words we're not
really looking at design here we're
looking at the zoning and variance
issues and it's going to go back to ARB
for for
design correct I would not support this
recommendation unless it was conditioned
as the architecture review board wished
which is that all design review be
remanded back to them the the we'll hear
more from the applicant and also um
Jason suudi is here to do a staff report
I'm not going to say much I'm G to run
all the videos and whatever anybody
needs to put up on the screen but I
would just my my one staff comment is
that I would
absolutely um uh support the
recommendations only if the condition is
that it return to architect review
board okay
so
um let us um uh find who is going to
present this matter from Community
Builders who do we have uh uh chairman
if I could give the staff report first
that would be
great well I just want to make sure
there's somebody here to present this
case who's already had
one yes no there there are here okay and
are they up on the screen and do they
need to be sworn in I am putting them
into um the panelist room right now
that's jine and Nicole um Boyer and who
else is here
Meg
I okay everybody that I
know of that is on the design team or
the development team is now in the um
panelist room if everyone else could
just keep their hands lowered on the
attendees room until we ask for
Testimony I would really appreciate it
if there's anybody else that is here to
represent the project please raise your
hand at this time right I want
representatives of the applicant first
and then we'll get all the commentary
from citizens and all the uh uh folks
who have standing all
for we have that now thank you okay very
good all right Jason why don't you go
ahead and give us the staff report now
thank you okay great thanks a lot again
I'm Jason sui uh and for those on the
board who are not familiar with me I was
a a longtime planning consultant for the
city of Bexley and had been gone for a
while and am now back to help out uh
with with some cases uh so what I'm
going to do is just quickly run through
the major issues on this application and
then be happy to answer any questions
the um most important thing to note
about this application that it is in the
commercial service District the Cs
District um and that district is very
unique in our city in that it is
probably the most um the most Auto
oriented friendly District that we have
it is definitely the most Auto ented
friendly district and what I mean by
that is as you note the other businesses
that have installed themselves along
much of Livingston from the freeway to
this location over the years have tended
to be um pretty heavy
trafficked commercial businesses that
are uh either drive-thru Centric uh they
may be uh restaurants they could be Auto
Repair uses gas stations all those types
of things um and so I think the
important thing to uh con convey to both
the board and to all of the residents
that are listening today is there's a
very wide birth of allowed zoning um
permitted uses here many of which uh
would be things that um aren't always
considered by in my experience uh by
neighbors to be their most favorite
thing to live behind um and I I think
that this is a unique situation in that
we're seeing the very end of this
Commercial Services District where the
boundary is is pretty much where where
this application is and then it goes
into much more residential situation for
the rest of the street um mostly with
some some uh exceptions going all the
way down to the east um so what this
applicant's asking for are two things
one uh they need conditional use
approvals because as I mentioned this is
a district that was designated for these
more Auto oriented commercial uses and
recently we've started to apply some
more design standards on them to allow
this District to ideally have a more U
mixed use approach rather than that that
long-standing approach which was just
Auto oriented commercial um and so what
this applicant would need are
conditional use approvals to allow
residential both on the first floor and
on the upper floors those are both noted
in our code AS conditional uses that are
possible here if you choose to approve
them based on the criteria that I'll
cover in just a second uh the other
thing then is what you just mentioned
chairman Mr chairman um a certificate of
appropriateness and that is your typical
approval to allow this based on uh the
overall site design architecture and uh
other elements that would go into the
the um basically the layout and the way
the the applicant looks or the
application looks of course um as as the
architectural consultant recommended we
should be sending this back to the ARB
by their recommendation and also the
tree and public garden Commission in
order to look at the street frontages on
on both sides so with that just let me
touch on a couple key points I know it's
a long meeting already so I'm not going
to belabor this um the important thing
to is that in the Cs district there are
site development regulations as in
almost every one of our zoning districts
in this case those are lot size this
meets the lot size um there are setback
requirements uh 10 feet in the front uh
minimum of 25 feet in the back no sidey
setback requirements this application
does meet all of those there is also a
height limitation of three stories uh or
and 45 feet and again this is three
stories 34 feet 7 inches so it does in
fact meet those standards so the actual
basic site development standards are all
met by the application as proposed
however we also have a a higher set of
standards in many of our districts
including this one and we have design
standards and in our last code revision
uh we cified a lot of things to make
sure that what we felt were the most
important elements of design in our
different districts were picked up as
actual zoning uh requirements and what I
did is I looked through all of those and
there are quite a few of them so I won't
read every single one of them um if we
only had two cases on the agenda I might
but uh it's a it's a long uh section and
it's
125412 in our code so everybody is
welcome to take a look at those um the
overall uh takea away is that they have
met those standards um it goes you know
a through w and some of them are are are
quite long the only thing that um I
can't say for sure they've met are some
things that would be referred back to um
particularly to the to the tree and
public garden commission so things like
the nature of the final Landscaping um
the nature of the fencing um they have
committed they will do the fencing that
is required in the zoning but we will
need the final fencing details we'll
need details of the dumpster enclosure
so a lot of those smaller elements that
are commonly referred back to the
Architectural Review Board and the um
tree and public garden commission would
be referred back again in order for them
to meet those standards um which brings
us to the uh conditional use
criteria the oh I should note before
that one thing uh uh the parking
criteria parking here is a little bit um
uh takes a little bit of an explanation
to get to where our standard is here
since we have only Commercial Services
as permitted uses in this district and
we have residential as conditional uh we
don't have um a standard that is
specifically outlined for this district
for residential so the the closest
District that mirrors this type of
development in uh in our opinion is the
MU District which is the mixed use
commercial this is what we're trying to
achieve uh more on this Corridor now and
meets many of the same design criteria
and in that district there is one space
required per unit and uh this plan
provides 30 spaces for 27 units so by
that interpretation they would meet the
standard for parking that is required um
for the conditional use criteria there
is a set of use criteria that is in the
code and that is section 12 26.12 B and
in that section they have outlined we
have outlined in the code a through H as
those conditional use criteria
and um we as staff do think that they
have met these conditional use criteria
and I I will run through those just real
quickly um just to make sure that you
understand what our position is on those
um the first is that the use is
consistent with the goals and policies
of adopted plans of the city including
we not limited to Main Street guidelines
um as I mentioned earlier this is a a
pretty unique opportunity to transition
from residential into this more Auto
oriented commercial Corridor with a
multi-story uh residential use that
would in all likelihood be much less um
burdensome on neighboring areas than a
lot of the commercial uses that could be
put in place there so we think that very
much does meet what we would consider uh
the the goals and policies of adopted
plans um also the use will not have a
negative impact on the neighboring land
uses again this is um more similar to
the adjacent uses it's not identical
because this is a multif family where U
you know much of the adjacent use is are
single family that being said
residential does tend to function in
much more the same way uh on the same
hours with the same sort of movement
patterns and so uh typically considered
to be more compatible uh the next one is
that the use will not be hazardous or
have a negative impact on existing or
future surrounding uses um again this
seems like it is uh going to well it's
not hazardous it's just a regular old
building um uh the impact should be
equal or less intense than operating
businesses at this site as per many of
those permitted in the Cs District
um the next criteria is that property
proposed modifications meet satisfy all
the other stuff I already talked about
lot height um all the you know all all
the details that I I I outlined earlier
which it does uh that e it does not
create undue burden on existing public
facilities and services such as Street
utilities schools or refu disposal it
would not it's basically um this all of
those uh Services already consider that
this could be a uh a ful operating
commercial site which would have uh a
larger burden placed on those services
in most cases so that's that's not an
issue here and then finally the use is
consistent with or furthers the city
economic goals will not decrease
property oops that's not the last one
the third the last one is that it is
consistent with or furthers economic
goals will not increase property values
have a negative economic impact uh
should be a substantial investment in
this building um so again new brand new
construction on a commercial Corridor is
uh generally economic uh positive um
especially at a denser development uh
status G the use and character is keep
in keeping and compatible with adjacent
structures and uses um based on the way
that this has been um designed with the
building pulled up close to the street
and um trying to create that urbanized
Street Edge and it stays within the
height criteria that are already in
place on this Corridor we believe that
it does meet that and then finally any
proposed Construction will not result in
the destruction loss or damage of
natural Scenic or historic features
there is a building on the site um there
is not felt that it has significant
historical value and there's nothing
else on the site there are no um
significant natural features that would
be destroyed so it's our position that
it does meet the criteria that are in
place in order to allow it to have
conditional use approval um and as as
was mentioned the airb has a few
recommendations that that uh we would
like you to place on those so if you do
decide to act on this tonight um or
whenever you decide to act on it if if
it tables if you table it we would like
you to uh remand it back to the Arab for
uh certificate of appropriateness
including a review of architecture
mechanical screening fence and enclosure
details also that it be reviewed and
approved by the PEX Bexley tree and
public garden commission um and then
finally just uh that all the plans
essentially the site modifications
design materials would be in substantial
conformance with the plans that you've
seen at tonight's meeting so with that I
will uh turn it over to you for any
questions and then be happy to answer
questions as we go through the
proceedings Mr
chairman I think he's
muted Jason I have a question are there
will there be any tax abatements
involved or tiffs or I can't answer that
one U I have to pass that one to the
mayor okay um any any other can you hear
me now yes yes sir yes sorry
um the I have one question will parking
be included with all charges for
development I'm I'm sorry could you
restate the question I didn't quite
understand it I I saw Jeff and Nicole sh
shaking their head yes I asked uh if
paring would be um included with all
development I want to I just want to
ensure that the no on street parking
whatsoever correct yeah there the
they've they've proposed these spaces
all the spaces that they proposed would
be offsite um that being said I think
it's a larger discussion that you're
welcome to have about you know whether
or not there should be additional on
street parking anywhere you met onsite
didn't
you I thought that's what I heard oh I
heard I heard off what the question is
here I mean they're going to present
present their their plan here I mean we
need to listen to the plan first don't
you
think I I don't know what your what your
question is R lost you is on site all of
the parking for this location is on site
yeah I'm sorry it's called off street
parking which means it's on the site
that's just the way the code refers to
it off
street right okay I understand the
question now better as well all right um
um going to be the uh Kathy you have
some uh additional uh information from
the staff I'm ready to swear people in
okay speak we have three hands up four
hands up okay please be raise your right
hand be sworn do you solemnly swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the
truth yes all right thank you very much
who who go
first that would be me Mr chair I am
Jeff
beam I'm with the Community Builders and
I'm joined by my colleague and our
architecture team um I will be as brief
as I possibly can noting the hour and um
this introduction will serve for both of
the next agenda items so I won't I won't
speak again unless I'm answering a
question okay thank you you know thank
you to the board thank you to the cic
for their partnership on this work um
and thanks to the ARB and City staff who
we have begun what we know is a really
healthy sort of iterative back and forth
to get these projects right um we've
been working with the cic for I'm just
going to give a little bit of background
and then turn it over to my colleagues
we've been working with the cic for two
years on the two projects you're about
to hear about and we're excited to move
them closer to Reality by beginning the
public process through ARB and um and
this body um and to the the the the side
meetings that will happen um one-on-one
and in small groups and with the
community to sort of talk through all
the issues that we want to get this
project as as good as we can because
there's a lot of um interest in the
project um I'm just giving this
background briefly on who we are the
Community Builders is a 501c3 nonprofit
um founded 50 years ago we work in 15
states in the District of Columbia um we
have an organizational mission to build
and sustain strong communities where all
people can Thrive and hopefully you'll
hear a little bit about this project and
and how it meets those
objectives um we professionally are our
our line of business um by which we or
meet that mission um is that we
professionally develop own and property
manag developments similar to the ones
being proposed tonight all over the the
eastern half of the country we also have
a division called community life that
works directly with residents and the
surrounding community on a variety of
sort of positive sort of community
outcomes around health and safety and
education those sorts of things um our
organizational philosophy our our way of
doing work is to join with local
Partners to implement sort of their
Vision um this is a vision that the cic
put forward that we are helping them
Advance um and then we stay invested in
the community as a long-term owner and
stakeholder um we work semi nationally
um but this work is being led here uh in
Columbus by our Columbus based
development team um represented byco and
myself tonight um we our office is here
in Columbus on the east side I happen
for what it's worth I happen to be a
proud Bexley resident all right tcb's
work on this effort um you know as I
said started two years ago um and it's
really about both enhancing and
diversifying the city's uh housing
opportunities um and their affordability
um while at the same time strengthening
walkability and vitality in important
city corridors we've actively pursued
development sites in consultation with
the city all over the place frankly in
the city um and we were looking for some
that were available you know publicly
for for use and for acquisition uh and
and these next to properties became
available uh and we what does that mean
it means uh we weren't interested in
using any kind of Public Power to or
leveraging the city to use any kind of
Public Power to secure sites we wanted
to find places where people were
voluntarily putting their properties up
for sale that we could
purchase so in other words the seller on
this property approached us about the
opportunity to buy in in regards to that
could you possibly um some since there's
a lot of people on and maybe it's
somebody else's answer but explain the
cic process and
explain you know how the cities and some
people don't know what the cic is and
don't know that the city's tied to the
cic and so an explanation of that for uh
the people listening
I'd be happy to we we actually have a
couple of members of the cic in the
audience who might come into the
panelist room to answer that question or
the mayor could could answer the cic's
role uh maybe better than than I
could
okay uh we we'll get an answer to that
why don't you continue and then we'll go
back and get to cic but we need to know
how that works I agree with you Sean
absolutely I I have one more point and
then I'll I'll seed the floor um so as I
said we we investigated a number sites
and these were the two um these two
became available in both locations we're
very pleased that we found a location
that is actually a transition point
between a commercial sort of Highly
intense use and the residential uses
Beyond this feels like an appropriate
transition um to my planner's eye um and
we we hope that the panel agrees um so
the TCB and the cic will partner on both
projects and we'll let um Nate or
another member of the cic to describe
that partnership
um the part both projects will have a
single
owner um but the land ownership will
function differently on this site TCB
would be the land purchaser land owner
and owner of the building improvements
on the top and then the the next project
will be slightly different in that
Arrangement which we can discuss when we
come to that and when you say TCB you
mean the Community Builders I do sir
yeah I will use that shorthand a lot so
I appreciate you pointing that out thank
um with that I am finished and would
love to introduce uh turn the floor over
if it if the chair approves to my
colleague Nicole who is the developer
leading this particular project I
actually think before we dive into the
project we have um two members of the
cic that have joined the panel so we had
intended to um have them speak about
their role because they are the
applicant of record for 420 North
Cassidy which is the next item on the
agenda but perhaps because there is a
partnership um they can do that now and
then that'll shorten up the agenda
hopefully for everyone well shorting up
the agenda is is a great one of my
urgent needs so go let's do that who is
uh here from cic that be best to speak
uh chair this is Nate green who I'm the
chair of the cic and also s gold uh who
is the secretary of the cic we're both
both in the panel panelist room if you
want us to talk about the CSC and what
we what we are and what we do all right
I where you in Nate oh absolutely
should I be sworn in as well yes at the
same time yes your name Sarah gold thank
you do you do you solemly swear or
affirm the testimony you're about to
give this evening is the truth yes yes
thank you all right Nate you wish to go
first yep I will uh so as I said my name
is Nate green uh I'm the chair of the
Bexley Community Improvement corporation
uh I have been on the cic since it begin
G I believe it was in
2011 uh saved for one year where I
stepped off for a little time uh I'm
also a resident of Bexley that's a uh
you have to be a resident to be on the
cic um I'm a resident of Bexley as well
I've been a resident for 18 years um the
cic uh is the economic development arm
of uh the city of Beckley all of the
members of the cic uh except for the
ones that are on city council are
appointed um by city council to serve uh
on the cic um as I said we're the
economic development arm for the city um
in that capacity one of the one of the
uh really one of the reasons we will
start we were started or the the impetus
for starting the cic uh was the the move
of Bexley City Hall uh and the uh Bexley
um and the Giant Eagle uh Market
District project that was a cic project
today uh because of that project we own
uh the Beckley Square uh we own and
manage that well we own and we uh we
manage that process we have a we have a
leasing company that helps us manage the
project but we own and manage that
project we also own sever several other
properties uh in Bexley that are uh kind
of strategic uh for the for the city to
move um development uh in in a certain
direction um I I'll talk a little bit
just about um why we're engaged in this
project and and how we how this came
about and then Sarah's going to talk a
little bit more just about how TCB uh
became engaged um so uh the city several
years ago in a strategic plan really uh
wanted to move to a um wanted to have
more mixed income housing in the city uh
wanted some more diversity in the city
uh it was part of the city's strategic
plan to do that uh and uh as the city's
Economic Development arm the cic was
charged with um how we could do that uh
we um you know part of that is we uh
have purchased several properties down
at F Ferndale Mayfield um and the reason
for for that is that uh you know that as
many of you probably know there's
environmental concerns there and we want
to make sure that those residents uh are
not um charged with uh or or have
problems with those environmental
concerns uh but because of that that
that frees up some mixed income housing
that we have in the city so uh we wanted
to get other opportunities for mixed
income housing these two projects that
we're talking about tonight uh the one
on Livingston which we're talking about
uh right now uh the cic is involved with
but we don't own any the project we um
are are Partners in it but not uh not
monetary Partners in the project the
other project at at 420 North Cassidy uh
we are involved with we will we are in
contract to buy that property we will
own that property uh and we are much
more engaged in that process as a matter
of fact we will uh be the entity that
you'll hear about will be the entity um
that operates the uh the commercial
space that's on the ground floor um so
uh I think with that um I'm going to
turn it over to Sarah Sarah's going to
talk about the process we went through
um to uh um partner with the with the
community BRS I will say as well that
both of these properties uh Jeff said
we've been working on these properties
for two years and he's not wrong we have
been working together for two years but
both of these properties came available
uh within the last couple months um and
and we looked at them and said these are
great great opportunities for mixed
income housing in the city uh and that
is a goal of the city and the cic so
that's why we um decided that we needed
to pursue these properties so with that
I'm going to turn it over to Sarah and
she's going to talk about how we how we
got the how we got to partner with the
uh Miss gold yes thank you um good
evening I'll keep it short um so we're
really happy to be partnering with TCB
the Community Builders um back in
2018 um cic put out an RFI request a
request for information for developers
um that could partner and work with us
throughout the city to try to find
Opportunities um specifically to work in
the uh fale Mayfield area and um you
know other opportunities exactly like
we're presenting tonight um so we went
through a rigorous public process um
we're excited to be partnering with TCB
they are nationally recognized nonprofit
mixed income housing developer um they
have a strong local presence um you know
as you heard from Jeff he is a a
resident of Beckley so um we know that
they care about um the work that they do
um especially here you know in the city
being his own backyard um and we're
happy to be partnering with them um so
we think we make a good team and um you
know they bring the expertise for the
Mixed income housing and as Nate was
saying the cic as the economic
development arm of the city is really
helping to bring the um commercial
component and expertise um which is you
know happening on the uh the Cassidy
site um so we have a great partnership
going thank you all right thank thank
you very much um is there anybody do we
want to go back to uh Nicole Nicole you
weren't done were you or were you no I I
appreciate the um chance to allow our
partners to introduce themselves and
kind of delve into the process that has
gotten us to where we are today I I hope
that background was helpful for the
board so um I want to just kind of give
an overview of what our project is and
then our Architects are going to dive
into really the the Sticks and Bricks
and and the items that Jason touched on
around um the zoning components but I
want to share just a little bit more
information about what we mean when we
say mix income housing so our households
that we um serve are a range of
demographics both both in form of
economics and household composition a
project like this in similar markets in
the midwest will have older adults that
um either are retiring or maybe moving
out of their homes but want to stay in
the community they will have young
professionals that want to live in the
neighborhoods that they work in but
maybe can't afford it or are looking for
an entry point into that neighborhood
they also serve um single mothers who
are looking for opportunities to get
access to better networks for their
children be it school systems as well as
the community
programming um the proximity of this
site to The JCC is an intentional
decision we know there's robust
programming there and our residents will
benefit from that um but these
households when I talk about household
composition we also think about
demographics and the way our world
thinks about it we think about it in
percentages but I want to put those in
numbers we are going to be serving
households that make anywhere from
17,000 to
$72,000 a year depending on household
size so we're going to have a mix of one
two and three bedroom units that will
serve a range of incomes and range of
demographics our average rent at this
site is going to serve somebody that's
making
$45,000 a year that's roughly in line
with the incomes and wages that a lot of
Bexley residents make the entry-level
teachers the Librarians a lot of the
people that are providing the support
services we
intentionally structured our rent to hit
that sweet spot because we know that
that can be a challenging income band to
find a place to live in the Bexley
market and in the adjacent areas so
again tonight we are respectfully asking
for the board to approve the permitted
conditional uses of the residential use
on the ground floor and the residential
upper floors um Jason really took the
wind out of my sale and and did a lot of
the the speaking so I tend to be very
verbose and I'm going to stop with that
I just want to um touch on that an
approval tonight from beap is the first
step in a very long Community engagement
process um this request is part of a
front-loaded process that um we are
required to do in order to apply for
funding in order to move forward this is
the first step of many to come um if we
are successful in securing this
competitive funding we won't even start
construction until late spring at the
earliest um people ask why we didn't
start our Outreach earlier and as you've
heard um both Jeff and Nate speak to
unfortunately we were not able to get
site control until December of last year
on both sites and so we didn't have
legal standing to be able to go and
really um solicit or share this
information so we recognize that ARB was
the first time that many people in the
community have seen this project but
it's not the only time that we're going
to be talking to people so while we've
had some small conversations we
anticipate that over the next um couple
of months we are going to be continuing
to work to refine um both the design and
just the way the building interacts with
the neighbors so that way when we come
back back to ARB in the summer of this
year if we are successful with our
funding we're going to have what we hope
is a project design that is more
reflective of what the neighbors expect
from good quality Bexley architecture
and design so with that I am going to
hand it over to our Architects um unless
oh Jeff sorry just one brief
clarification I apologize Nicole
mentioned that the soonest we would
start would be late spring um we're I
just want to clarify that she means 2022
oh did I say 2021 so we're a year and a
half away from the earliest moment we
would start construction okay thank you
that's a good piece of clarification I
wondered how she's going to get done
that fast I said wow she gonna move
along all right who is going to speak uh
on as an architect first please so so
this is M korus with RDL and I'm here
with Kevin dfus Wells from RDL and we
are going to review the site plan design
and just any of the design that's been
done to date so here and I saw you had
this site plan up if you don't mind
bringing that back up we'd appreciate it
um like Nicole said we are in the design
process it's gonna be a long process and
we are looking forward to working with
everyone um but why don't you stop and
tell us what RDL is first of all
because oh we're an architectural firm
we are located in Northeast Ohio we're
in Shaker Heights um we do work um all
over the state
um and we've actually been working with
TCB for several years um we did a
project together in Pittsburgh um so so
we're familiar working with each other
and um we we do have experience in the
Columbus area but I don't think we've
done any projects in Bexley so this is
our first Bexley project okay I just
wanted to get that name out there so
because not everybody knows what that is
sure sure thank you um so so Kevin and I
are here tonight to request to be able
to move forward with a multif family use
in the commercial Service District um
the proposed building includes 27 units
in three stories and there's units on
all three floors um you know honestly
when we originally looked at the site we
did look at a higher yield um but it
wasn't not it wasn't our goal to over
densify the site or to create um a large
massing that would be out of scale so we
intentionally scal the project to be
compatible with the commercial Service
District requirements and just like
Jason very nicely outlined in the
beginning of this presentation um the
project as proposed does uh comply with
the zoning requirements for height for
the three stories 45 feet um we comply
with parking with a one:1 ratio we
comply with setbacks and also with the
um landscape buffering and screening
requirements um you know the other thing
to consider too and I I think Jason
alluded to this was that you know when
you compare a multif family use to some
of the byright commercial Service
District uses the multif family is
really a less intensive use and so again
we feel like we're proposing a use as
compatible with the surrounding
area um in terms of the site layout
specifically the building's been
situated on the site to establish a
street wall along Livingston which
returns with a little leg on Francis um
so you can see when you're looking at
the site from the public right away
You're primarily looking at the building
facade we're tucking all the parking
behind the building so it's hidden we do
have a 10- foot at least a 10- foot
minimum landscape buffer between the
building and the public sidewalk which
will provide a consistent Street Front
um and really it will provide an
enhanced pedestrian experience for
people who are walking on the sidewalk
um and it also provides screening
between the public Realm of the sidewalk
and then the residential units within
our proposed
building um so I will also say that we
have looked at pulling the building all
the way up to Livingston at one point we
pushed it 20 feet away from Livingston
so we looked at it with several setbacks
and what we found is really that the 10-
foot setback allows for two things it
allows us to have a double loaded um
parking Bay at the rear of the site so
we can max parking out on the site for
the project and it also does allow us to
have a substantial you know 10- foot
wide buffer around the
building um I also just wanted to point
out why we're looking at the site plan
that we are proposing a design that does
eliminate two curb cups from um East
Livingston Avenue and we are maintaining
one curb cut on Francis either in
exactly the same location it is now or
fairly close to to
it um the other kind of you know high
level design um element that we've been
looking at is how we could potentially
add an outdoor Green Space or Tot Lot
area for residents um of the building it
was something that I think was brought
up during ARB you know two weeks ago and
some other residents have brought it up
to Jeff and Nicole you know when we
designed the site we were thinking well
people are close in walking distance to
shneer park or to The
JCC but you know the more we thought
about it and the more residents were
telling us that there should be a green
space for for younger children on the
site we we agree so in the next
iteration of our design it's something
we're going to look to to incorporate as
part of our design at their
suggestion um Kevin I don't know if you
want to dive a little bit more into the
details of the design sure the building
thank you
Megan Kevin dra as well also from RDL
Architects and we'll talk about the
building but only in fairly broad terms
because as people have said this is a a
work in progress and there's you we're
certainly not set in stone it's going to
continue to involve um talk more about
what we think are the important
considerations in the
architecture which are uh you've heard
several times that this is a
transitional building from you know the
commercial buildings including the the
tire store next door it's uh to the
westcot College Avenue which is more of
a North South artery so we think that
you focusing some Mass not only on the
corner to hold that corner of Francis in
Livingston but also um at the Western
end of the building because that's going
to really be a highly visible portion of
the building that really makes that
transition from the commercial district
and you know the the very automobile
oriented uses that are to the west and
and making that transition to the
residential
uses um we we think it's important to
reflect both in some of the detailing of
materials the general scale and
proportion of
other um buildings on the street we've
looked maybe in particular at a couple
of the there are duplexes just a little
bit further to the east um on the south
side of the street around cassingham
that uh are have a two-story brick band
and that's a little bit where the two
stories of brick that we're
showing has has come from
uh we as we come around the corner on
Francis we're looking at ways to
transition even more into the single
family scale so we actually have three
units on that side that are twostory
units with tow houses that have the
ability to have their own individual
front doors so it's not quite just a a
single entrance to the building but
those units have their own entrance to
the street and can function a little bit
like a hybrid of both an apartment and a
a townhouse so they can have porches and
we we some good comments about the
character of those porches and the scale
of those things that we're going to keep
working on uh and then this is a
building that we'll have a street
entrance and we'll we'll continue to
develop what that Livingston Street
entrance looks like as well as an
entrance to the parking lot U actually
going back to that that previous slide
just looking at the
height uh we want to the the change in
what's actually there on the site now um
you can see it on this slide well a
little bit
the existing Funeral Home Building
including the the larger institutional
building and the the residents are right
around 30 feet so the height of our
building well it's certainly well under
that 45 foot zoning limit it's also not
much taller than really what's currently
in place and actually at the bottom of
the slide that's now up you can see on
that bottom slide we've dashed in the
approximate height of those existing
structures as they relate to the the
height and massing of of what's
proposed
um oh that's hard to see but I Mr
chairman may I ask a question one one
question
yes um Mr trius what is the miles per
hour facing your building on Livingston
Avenue sorry the speed limit on
Livingston yes sir at that
point Jeffrey Nicole if you might chime
in I I thought that was a 35 M hour
street it's 35 I'm not
positive it's you know within within a
half a block of the college street light
so the speed varies obviously as as the
sort of traffic flows but um I would
just like to to make my opinion you've
talked about uh 17 to 72,000 of income
um children within 35 m per hour traffic
is dis
insuring Ryan Le let's let's I mean if
you're gonna ask questions let's do that
now but in terms of making opinions now
I think we should wait to get the entire
uh sense of of the situation I mean
there are single family homes all the
way up and down living then where
children live too right I mean we're
gonna ban children from living there I
don't think that's going to happen so I
think I think one one thing that's
important to note is that there is an
upcoming Livingston study uh that's a
collaboration between the city of Bexley
and Columbus um and a lot of those
walkability issues will be Paramount in
understanding how that works uh so that
is certainly something that needs to be
better on a lot of our corridors and
this should get better in the future
hopefully near
future thank you all
right uh Kevin are you are you getting
uh
wrapped up or you need yep pretty pretty
close to the end here um just wanted to
to point out on on this slide that the
um the sight lines from the upper level
of again that existing house is a two
and a half story that has some sematic
space and there I know there were some
Cur concerns about privacy we wanted to
include this uh diagram to kind of show
how the the existing buildings and their
viewpoints to adjacent properties relate
to what what proposed we think those are
fairly similar um I think moving at the
beginning of this series of slide
there's a slide one out of
this PDF if we could turn just a few few
pages
earlier
that's well I gu talking a little bit
about parking I me Meg mentioned that we
are reducing the number of curb cuts on
Livingston which
uh helps
make going from two curb cuts on
Livingston down to zero which makes you
know certainly a safer sidewalk for
everyone that lives on the street you're
you're Crossing traffic movements much
less the amount of we going for much
smaller amount of pavement we're we're
cutting the amount of pavement by um
about 15,000 square feet to a little bit
over 9,000 square fet so we have I I
know that there are traffic studies
and will be a a later phase of
engineering that's that's very important
to the
project um but we're I
think going from about 35 cars parked on
the site to 30 with a funeral home use
we know that there were um it was
certainly a more intensive set of
traffic movements in in short burst with
a lot of cars these will be much more in
tune with the residential pace of of
traffic with people kind of coming and
going at at uh various times based on
their own
schedules all
right all right um let me U ask members
of the board might have some questions
of you folks and I and you can direct
your questions uh to respective members
of the panel there who might be the best
persons to answer and then
um I think we should now look to the
audience to see how many people are here
to discuss this case that and remember
you have to have standing you have to be
impacted by this
situation um
so um Karen I'm gonna ask the audience
to raise their virtual hands if they are
interested in speaking on this case on
Livingston Avenue at 2300 Livingston
Avenue and ask you to report to me how
many hands you're seeing roughly which I
can't see it so I have 10 hands raised
right now okay all right um with that in
mind members of the board uh do you have
any questions um for the
presenters all
right um let us then go to the audience
and uh
uh ask everybody to come up U and we'll
call your names one by one in no
particular order and then I'm going to
ask you a question or two um and we will
um proceed then and I remind everybody
we have a three minute limit
so keep your comments don't your
comments probably will be repeated by
others but that doesn't matter but keep
them limited three minutes we'll give
you a notification when we're when
you've got 30 seconds left and uh so
we'd appreciate that so we can get this
uh through this uh uh we're interested
in what the citizens have to say here as
well so Karen who's the first person on
your list there
please okay I'm gonna just um start with
the first person that's op it's in no
particular order when I call on you I'll
put your hand down that's how I'll know
that you've already been called I also
will be the timekeeper and I'll let you
know when there's 30 seconds left left
uh we'll start with we'll start with
Ellen Evans and if you could please um
State your address so that we can check
your standing as well which would be
anyone that was noticed within 300
feet hi I'm Ellen Evans I live at 965
Francis Avenue which is at the corner of
uh Francis and Pleasant
Ridge um I have so many issues that I I
really don't know where to start I think
it is a
misnomer to think that 20 that 30 cars
will feed 27
apartments and that there will not be on
street parking on Francis I I don't I I
know you have unless you can show me
studies and and that will prove that
that's not the case I'm I'm sorry I just
don't see it I've been around in areas
where there are other apartments I've
worked on projects where there are pro
and the parking has always been an issue
Francis the residents that live there a
good many of them in this short block
Park on
Francis Francis is also a major artery
to feed Capitol University in that we
get fire trucks we get semi trucks and
if you have parking on both sides of the
street there is no there's just no
possible way that that is a safe
function um I also
question that much traffic at the corner
of Francis and Livingston on a pre pre
pandemic time I could sit there three
times before I could make a right turn
on to Livingston because people will not
let you out and this is at 8:30 in the
morning um and you're going to add that
much
more cars trying to come in and out it
is also very difficult ult to make left
turns from Livingston onto Francis and
now you're going to have that many more
cars trying to make a turn at an
intersection that already gets backed up
I've almost been hit sitting there with
my traffic traffic with my turn signal
on waiting to get uh to make the turn
I'm sure someone's gonna just plow right
into the back of my car I question
whether being so close to the street the
the noise on Livingston is very
loud I am o 300 feet back and I can hear
it sitting in my living
room I have a hard time understanding
that people are going to want to live in
those apartments that are on the first
floor against Livingston in the morning
there are buses every 10
minutes uh the the traffic is very uh
packed and and I find that just uh very
difficult situation to feel that that
that's going to be truly
livable uh for anybody I I do want to
say I don't have a problem with the fact
that it's affordable living I I think
affordable living is important but it's
you 15 more seconds I'm
sorry a 15 more seconds okay I think
it's got to be something that blends in
better I I don't want a hotel on the
corner yeah and and right now that's
what it's looking
like Mrs Evans thank you very much I
very much appreciate your
comments uh and so does the
board who else is in line
there um I do have the first name of Peg
if you could State your full name and
your address for
standing um my name's Peg Horvath and I
live at 959 Francis
Avenue okay Miss corv tell us what you
think uh or uh any questions you have or
comments about this
proposal I've lived in apartments
before you're not going to find
in 27 units that there's only three
couples that have two
cars so as Mrs Evans said there is going
to be parking on the street she I am two
houses down from Pleasant Ridge
everything she said I have gone through
too it depends on what time of day you
want to get out that I have to go down
to Main Street to get out to go east and
then come back to Livingston to go to
whatever appointment I was going to off
of the
Livingston it's ridiculous to try to put
that many units there the only thing
you've said today that impressed me was
that you were going to have a little bit
of green space for children and it's
probably going to be just a little bit
of Green Space if you're going to put
that many units in
there that's really all I have to say I
think it's again the idea is good if you
were having bigger units less units even
21 units you're still going to have more
cars than 21 cars back there or the
families that just have how many
families do you all know that just have
what cars unless they're just very very
young and just getting started I don't
know anybody that just has one car two
or three is more likely thank you thank
you um thank you Miss horbath and in the
future here I I think from a procedural
standpoint we do need to swear everybody
into tell the truth and I'll quickly
swear everybody in once you give us your
name and so
uh Karen give me the next name and I'll
quickly run them through when once I get
them here okay the next name is Dustin
and I can't see the last name snow it
looks like that's that's correct uh
Dustin uh where where do you live 990
Francis okay and do you will you raise
your right hand do you swear or affirm
that everything you say tonight will be
nothing but the truth yes thank you
please tell us what you think about this
situation so like other other people
have mentioned I think parking for me is
a pretty large concern um one of the
things that both Jason and um MGK I'm
sorry I missed your first name or M
mjk mention was um that this is the
commercial service Zone and they kind of
diverted from the code for parking and
and went to mixed commercial use um and
they they said one parking space this
might be a question for Kathy um because
what I can find in the Bexley code um
under 12622 for the minimum spaces
required um there's three categories of
commercial uses if they don't fall under
that there's some residential but none
of them are for one unit per space so
before I move forward with what I have
to say Can somebody let me know what
code you are referring to with one space
per unit yeah I I can take that question
um in in this District the conditional
use all residential is conditional uses
and those conditional uses are for
single and upper stories of multistory
buildings that is most like the mixed
use district there is no specific
requirement for parking in this district
for residential um which again you can
say oh well why not and Zoning code are
like that it's as a legacy happens of
certain types of uses for a long time in
one area a lot of times a specific thing
won't be addressed so what we have to do
is use our our best judgment and look
for the most reasonable way to apply
that um in this particular District
other more dense residential type uses
are actually not either permitted or
conditional like an R12 for can I just
interrupt you real quick for the sake of
time for everybody's time I'm just
asking for the code that's being used if
it's mixed commercial use code that you
want to use what is that code that
allows for it yeah yeah mixed commercial
use yeah what what
code uh I can give you the exact
citation in a second it is uh there it
was the most recently updated mixed
commercial
use standard I got a lot of windows open
give me a second this has to be
available to public so I pulled the most
recent one for mixed commercial use
that's that's kind of why I referen this
to Kathy because I think she's the one
that's kind of been on the Cody yeah uh
Kathy if you remember what the specific
citation is I just got I have too I do
that was in the Amendments that were
actually approved by City Council on
March 10th of 2020 and it's 12620
2C so in the current version that's
online the the Amendments from this year
have not been incorporated into our
codified there's a service that provides
that so we are waiting for that to be
adjusted okay so this this project
though falls under commercial service
not mixed commercial you correct and
that codes for Mix commercial the zoning
District commercial service is correct
correct okay so go going back to parking
spaces so I don't see anything that you
didn't ask for a parking variant so I
don't see anything where you could
really apply that um so that would be my
my first thing um and then I would like
to also comment on the parking on the
street where you guys say that you do
not want or that you aren't going to
have any parking on the street um I
would say that we could enforce that if
if we were willing to change Francis
then to permit parking let's let's hold
you to your word on that instead of just
saying okay yeah let's we're going to
have all the parking we need because
Francis is really the only place to park
as far as street parking goes for those
people and I went out and I measured the
street all the way up to Pleasant Ridge
um since standing was only given pretty
pretty much to that intersection the the
one house is on the corner there there's
18 spaces there's eight houses so
legally based on the parking spaces uh
requirements there's only 18 spaces on
Francis between Livingston and Pleasant
Ridge that cars can even Park on so when
we start getting an overflow which which
we will um I I did research on the
average number of cars in Columbus and
Beckley you have here in Bexley that
from from top to bottom most people have
two three then one then four zero isn't
even in the the top four percentages
there in Columbus you got 2 one three
than four these are the number of cars
for family homes
so for Columbus and Bexley it's under 5%
of people who own zero cars so I'm not
really sure where this input came from
that there's adequate parking for 27
units by having 30 parking spaces and
claiming that you're not going to
use Francis for parking um so
my yeah 27 units and parking spaces
sorry about 30 about 30 seconds left
okay so my my recommendation would be if
if that's the case you guys feel there's
enough parking that one Francis and
Pleasant Ridge potentially become permit
Park paring to prevent that overflow and
the issues for the people who live on
the street um the other thing is I don't
see um the code that would apply
to allow the parking spaces that that
you're saying I know you guys said 12620
2 that is for mixed commercial use not
Commercial Services and there was no
variance as
for I mean just just to clarify that one
more time they're by the code they are
not needing a parking variance so
there's no reason we could ask for a
parking variance or they could ask for a
parking variance because it's not
required by code um as for where the if
you think there's going to be overflow
parking that's certainly something the
board can consider I will I would like
to um note that in earlier applications
at the other end of some of these
streets some years back particularly
when we were talking about uh issues
with um some of the things on campus at
Capital there was discussion about
permit parking any time permit parking
goes into place that should be I would
recommend that the board didn't make it
a requirement but make that a further
discussion because in my experience in
urban neighborhoods and Suburban
neighborhoods that are adjacent to Urban
corridors there's not always blanket
agreement amongst all the neighbors as
how that works so I think that that is
why while that's completely a reasonable
request to consider it I also think that
that's not something the board should
make a mandatory require
before they actually talk to all the
neighbors uh in a subsequent process to
see whether or not permit parking is the
best solution for all those neighbors
because they might not agree so that's
just a recommendation on my part based
on previous applications we've had in
the same area very
quickly time is up I know my time's up
but 12622 isn't available to public and
I think that if that's not available to
the public then we had no way to review
that so I think that's important for it
to be available to us if we're going to
have this discussion because I've never
seen that and it's not available to me I
tried to get that and I couldn't get it
yeah I I think it's definitely would be
better if it were made public and I
think we'll work hard to get that done
quickly here thank you though I
appreciate your comments Dustin thank
you
next real quick it's available it's
available at City Hall right if they go
to City Hall they can get it correct yes
yes if he sends me an email I can send
him ordinance we're the ordinance is on
the
website we in a pandemic it it is not on
the website I have the most recent one
pulled up on the website it is not on
there and it is in the code that a up to
date has to be available to the public
so if if it's not on there on your
guys's link then we don't have it send
me an email okay Ros Mr chairman Mr
chairman Miss Cunningham I I I honestly
if we did not if we did not provide them
with those questions of notice and now
we have questions of whether or not they
can review the actual statute uh the
code I think we should be very careful
like tread very carefully tonight I we
can throw it up on the screen if people
want to see it um but it's certainly
available publicly it goes I mean Jason
I I really
appreciate go ahead I I I want to move
this along because I I do want to let
everybody that wants to speak speak and
you got this on another
we're going to be here till 3:00 am if
we're not careful but I I I think I'd
rather be up to 4 AM and do it right I
don't intend to do it wrong but I just
you know we can't reach any
conclusions let's hear what the folks
have to say first and then that'll help
us reach conclusions as a board that's
all I mean I haven't heard that there's
been notice problems is there is there
something I don't know about yes meeting
for the ARB meeting we were not given a
14-day notice I did provide notice on
two occasions one two weeks prior to the
meeting and the other one
was seven days six days prior to the
meeting nobody received that but we have
a postmarked notice a day before so I'm
not real sure if you want I don't know
how you provided the notice but nobody
received that none of the neighbors that
I talked in the mail we sent it to the
mail and I can't speak for the Post
Office okay well we didn't receive it
and we got two other notices later
Dustin yeah we we'll talk about them
later Dustin you you can only tell us
whether you received it you can't tell
us whether anybody else received because
you don't really know when they received
it so I would suggest that all the
neighbors that are going to speak speak
up on that then well they can they can
all speak up for themselves exactly all
right who's next
Karen um fade Masson sorry if I
pronounced the name
wrong say that name again
please are you here yes uh
disappeared go
ahead ma'am
sir actually that person is now gone
okay Don
Hol
don
don hello
Don Karen I'm not hearing
anybody
I I'm not hearing her either is there a
Don
Holmes okay go to the next go about
Bridget
to
Bridget Bridget tupes I'm
here okay Bridget I see Don Holmes is
there too now so but I've got Bridget
now Bridget uh please tell me uh where
you uh reside
2316
Livingston okay and can you tell me
where that is inj the position to uh the
funeral home directly across Francis
Avenue okay very good thank you very
much Bridget would you raise your right
hand do you swear that the testimony
you're about to give this evening will
be the nothing but the truth yes thank
you very much please tell us what you
think about this proposed uh
application um I also just would like to
mention that I can see that uh fed
Masson and Anna were not able to be
unmuted and are currently commenting so
I know that we're putting others in the
queue as well um who maybe have some
technical issues I I I already took care
of that so if you just go ahead I'll
start three minutes again thank you um
sorry um so while I agree with many of
the concerns addressed tonight in the
interest of brevity I want to speak to
two specific issues I have with this
property um the first is the setback
from Livingston um those of us who live
directly on Livingston Avenue live in
regular if not constant fear of the cars
that speed down Livingston have seen
numerous neighbor homes and garages hit
by cars over the last few years um I
understand that the main entrance to
this building is from the back parking
lot um but I do have serious concerns
that residents who may want to walk
along Livingston to stores or the park
which was brought up earlier um and also
to be honest while in their home should
they live on the first floor I feel that
it's worth noting that all of those
buildings which were struck were
considerably further back from the road
and still significant damage was done um
I think it's important that you consider
that as you determine the footprint of
this building um and then secondly I
would like to address the standards and
precedent that this committee uses to
evaluate these properties I think it's
worth noting a couple things to that
point first that Livingston Avenue is
different than Maine and Broad Street
because there's a significantly clearer
delineation between the commercial
properties and the residential ones and
no mixed use properties along the Bexley
stretch of Livingston while I understand
this property is currently zoned um I
would argue that this is a significant
departure from its current use and
should be treated as such uh not
necessarily as a purely Commercial
location with respect to what guidelines
are applied I would ask that the
committee consider this as they review
what this proposal and be aware that
this property will be directly on the
line between the commercial district and
the beginning of the residential
district and there should reflect not
only the commercial use um but the um
additional parking and other guidelines
which would be inclusive of those
residential ones um I would also mention
that um I did not receive notice until
actually the day of the ARB meeting um
it came in the mail that day um so to
the previous point about other neighbors
and their concerns I would I would Echo
the concerns of Mr snow and that
concludes my remarks Thank You Bridget
thank you very much very much appreciate
staying up with us this late to give us
this uh information so we have uh don
Holmes we I do see Don Holmes on the
screen now Don are you there yes I'm
here would you uh tell us where you live
I live at
9id
Avenue
Mr that's pretty close to Mr
chairman sorry it's
outside yes sir point of order yes sir I
do believe that we have
given reasonable insufficient notice to
numerous
individuals and that we must be very
careful how we proceed
tonight am I being
careless yes you are in what
regard there has been a provision that
was not available to the general public
tonight
and you have proceeded with this
proceeding and I think that we should
probably table this and move on why
don't you make a
motion I'm making a motion okay and the
motion
is to table this uh table this matter um
to provide proper notice to the public
and um to cure any deficiencies because
there seems to be
reasonable um
disagreement about whether or not notice
was properly provided all right thank
you very much is there a second to that
motion
please I'm not hearing a second I submit
thank
you thank you uh the next person Don
we've already talked to you I've sworn
you in that I not
Don okay I'm sorry for that go ahead
you'll you will start your three minutes
now okay um we understand and support
the need for additional housing but my
concern is that this project is very
large in relation to the surrounding
area so first the structure itself is
three stories the surrounding houses
most of them are story half maybe even
ranch style homes and so it's much
taller even though the building right
next to it and this curring building is
two
stories um the other is it just seems
like it's a very dramatic difference and
creating an imbalance in the
neighborhood the other is just the
number of units so 27 units two to three
people per unit that's an additional 50
to 80 people it would be the equivalent
of perhaps having an additional 27 homes
on the streets of Francis and Pleasant
Ridge and it just seems if we could
scale it down that it would fit better
with the neighborhood right I understand
what you're saying I'd like to chime in
for the record uh Miss homes if you did
not receive a notice according to the my
map you are not within the 300 foot
setback so unless you have standing that
is probably why you did not receive a
notice so if they're standing would you
like to State your standing
well I've already heard her testimony so
it's irrelevant in 9006 Pleasant Ridge
is close enough that she can uh be
impacted by this I don't think there's
any question about that so I'm gonna
have to determination about standing
which I'm trying to do quickly as I get
everybody's information here so uh Dawn
do you have any additional comments that
is it thank you so much thank you for
being uh cons
ice who do we have
next um next we
have uh let's see
AJ that's all I can see of the name
AJ do can you hear yes can you hear me
yes sir are you J garap
garapati AJ
garapati garapati okay thank you
and very common name in India yeah right
I I almost got it there yeah not like it
meant to be a joke but you know if we're
gonna talk about bringing diversity in
here I'm an Indian man living in Backle
so let's not laugh about the name let's
get that started right now yeah I'm not
laughing about it
I
smiling anyway very hold on it's in very
tiny letters and I'm trying to read and
it's hard for me to see the letter so
that was the reason that I was hoping I
got it right but let me ask you this
where do you reside sir 981
Francis all right and um would you raise
your right hand to be sworn please yes
would do you swear or affirm that all
the testimony you'll give this evening
will be the truth and nothing but truth
yes thank you sir please tell us what
you think about this proposal well thank
you for your time Robert um you're
welcome so looking into this proposal
you know my wife and I have looked in
this quite a bit and a lot of issues
that we see that we don't like um part
of this the parking um that's a huge
part of it obviously like DUS stated
earlier Dustin made some amazing points
in regard to that how not everything is
stated in the website which should be
made publicly clear um also once again I
my wife and I are within the 300 foot
range um we did not get notice of this
meeting until you know the day of the
meeting obviously so very very
bothersome obviously um I realized the
post office may have been late in uh
delivering stuff but given that time
period it should have been obvious that
you know that was the case um moving on
to the next Point um let's
see the actual structure of the Building
compared to where we live uh like
someone said earlier is completely
different than the rest of the buildings
looks a bit odd moving on then into the
traffic
where driving on Livingston is dangerous
no matter what way you look at it from
Francis you taking a left or right it is
not safe um moving on to the next Point
um with the bachle cic I would like to
have more information on the
relationship between TCB and the bachle
cic um what you can see in Ohio
Secretary State Articles of
Incorporation is obviously mayor Kessler
is a requisite Authority on that
document so I don't know if there's
other who else is on but I obviously
there's two people Nate and another
woman who I don't remember your name so
I apologize um so want to see what kind
of that Rel is there any kind of
financial relationship and a letter we
got from the TCB has said actually cic
could have a minority interest so want
to know more about that and my wife
would like to speak
also
certainly can can she give me her name
please hi my name is Melissa garapati
all right Melissa would you raise your
right hand to be sworn do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you'll give
this evening be the truth and nothing
but the truth yes thank you please let
us know what you think
here so my main concerns are is the
actual building um development itself I
spent quite some time doing some
research and looking through I picked
two states the state of Kentucky and the
state of Ohio and I would highly
recommend the council to do a little bit
more research on the actual Building
Development which is the TCB on their
website you can look at any property
whether it be in
Pittsburgh um and I think it was
mentioned today uh but the ones that I
looked at are uh Liberty green in
Louisville Kentucky City West
apartment and uh University Station so I
before I go into the
testimonials does TCB manage Liberty
green I just want to yes or no and that
one's in Louisville Kentucky does
anybody on our panel know I think Jeff
might know yeah if if I may chair Mr
chair we do not U manage Liberty green
um which was a co-development with the
Louisville Metropolitan Housing
Authority okay what about City West
departments we do not manage City West
which was a Cod development with the
Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing author
you say that you're TCB they are T TCB
buildings they were TCB developments
done in partnership with housing
authorities um in a you know a
substantially different kind of project
than this one but um yes developments in
our that we have done okay so the
majority of the TCB buildings on the
website which are all the properties
including Liberty green City West
department and then also University
Station which provides housing for
Xavier University students there were
multiple and I would recommend the
council because at the at this point
I mean you guys are representing us um
this is highly concerning if you go to
any of the TCB properties and you look
up these properties and you see the
testimonials of the tenants you can
Google there's review after review I'm
going to give you one um and I literally
just copied and pasted it um so some of
it's like bad grammar so I do apologize
for that um we have uh the one in
Liberty green out of control teens
unkempt Landscaping Apartment break-ins
drug dealers delay in fixing problems in
apartments constant loud car music trash
pile up fraud teenage kids are out of
that was from Mary uh teenagers teenage
kids are out of control they would
destroy the property the Landscaping sit
on your property and use the breezeways
to do drugs 30 there's 30 seconds left
please okay I'm going to go to the next
one um we have the apartments are nice
but it's very horrible place to live
teenagers are all night shooting dice
very loud and kids are always wanting to
fight the city west staff are full of it
sorry um poor maintenance terrible
terrible um I mean these I mean they're
really bad some of them mentioned and
this was something that was mentioned
and I'm a geriat geriatric occupational
therapist and I want to make this really
uh
brief as a person with uh experienced
with working with seniors you never want
to take a development and mix seniors
it's not a good idea especially if you
have teenage boys then you have older
adults the council look at these
testimonials thank you so much thank
thank you guys very much for your time
thank you very much both of you
appreciate it you're staying up this
late to give us this information we
we're glad to hear this information and
testimony who's next um on Robert single
ter Robert single ter Robert can you
hear me um wait hold on I have to give
him um
permission are you
there Robert you're
uh muted think you're
muted
yeah I also have Jason X
McKay Jason are you there I am here all
right Jason well can can you give me
your uh your address please can you hear
me yeah I've got Jason no that's not
Jason Bob this Bob Robert this is Robert
single ter I'm sorry I couldn't get I'll
be right with you Robert okay Jason yes
sir give me your address please 980
College all
right
um did did uh you I'm trying to think of
that so you're right around the corner
there on College my fence the uh fence
with the funeral home oh your backyard
is is touches the funeral home parking
lot yep okay uh would you uh raise your
right hand and be sworn yes sir do you
swear or affirm that you your testimony
you'll give this evening will be the
truth nothing but the
truth I do all right please you have
three minutes tell us what you think
okay I want for the record I as well did
not receive any notice the first notice
I received was postdated January 11th I
received it January 13th I found out
about this project via Facebook so that
left a pretty bad taste in my mouth I
walked my dog every day I did not see a
sign in the front lawn until the day of
the meeting so I just wanted that to be
on the record here and I'll get into my
Spiel now I think everyone sees 27 units
by I think we need to look at from a
different perspective that's 58 bedrooms
so when you look at 27 units you might
say okay 30 cars now you got 58 bedrooms
30 parking spots I don't really have a
dog in the parking spot fight so I will
speak up for my neighbors on Francis and
that way I think this project is a
little too dense architecturally I mean
just because it meets code doesn't mean
it needs to be up to the maximum code I
think the project is great in the tenant
mix but architecturally needs a ton of
work the setback is inappropriate for
the space 10 feet from Livingston as
others have mentioned people's houses
are 20 feet away from Livingston and
they end up have cars in the living
room Livingston's very dangerous I
personally drive to The JCC when I could
usually walk to go work out because I
don't want to walk across College in
Livingston I mean two people have died
in the last two years at that
intersection 35 may be the spe limit but
that's the suggest question on that
street yes there's kids that have I mean
there's kids that live there but other
houses have backyards
so there's that I have privacy issues
with this looking at those renderings
the current property looked to be about
28 feet 30 feet this one's going to be
35 feet it's going to be looking
directly into my backyard with
that they made mention that there could
be other things that go there I don't
have people staring at me on the roof of
a a muffler shop looking into my
backyard I have no issues with the
current muffler shop and the lighting is
another concern of mine right now
there's no issues with light pollution
so I hope that is taking into
consideration that there could be light
pollution and not only my yard but my
neighbors AR Francis as well and I think
just because this project has a timeline
for funding doesn't mean that we need to
push things through with conditional
approvals I have some issues with this
process I really think this could be
great for Exley I think just because a
timeline
crunch just because there's a timeline
crunch doesn't mean that we need to be
hitting these things we had a great
meeting with Jeff and Nicole yesterday I
really appreciate them taking the time
to speak to the neighbors I wish that
meeting could have been done before but
it wasn't because they weren't in the
contract which I understand I wish that
we were having this conversation in
January 22 we've already had these other
discussions instead of going to a
meeting now so thank you guys for your
time and your consideration
Jason thank you very much appreciate
your
comments Robert are you still there I'm
here can you hear me Robert I can hear
you um Robert give me your uh address if
you would yes 993 you
Clair
okay and
uh uh you will you raise your right hand
to be sworn yes I
will you or affirm that uh all the
testimony you give us this evening will
be the truth and nothing but the truth I
do all right uh you have 33 minutes
rather please tell us what you think
about this proposal thank you Robert um
so um our major concerns are very
similar to our neighbors on on Francis
on least on East Livingston Avenue
between college and James according to
morsy's website there have been over 200
accidents in the past 12 months with
over 50 accidents occurring between
college and cassingham on Livingston
according to Morp SE in addition uh less
than two months ago a Bexley high school
student was hit Crossing Livingston
Avenue between Francis and Eclair
fortunately he survived his injuries but
it was touch and go for quite a while um
anytime accidents occur on East
Livingston traffic is detoured on either
Francis ucair or cassingham three times
in the past six months had to called the
Beckley Police Department to complain
about cars going over 40 m an hour when
detoured off of Livingston the Begley
police dispatchers responded that a
Livingston is not Begley's problem B no
police are available to control the
traffic or C we will try to send an
officer and subsequently no officer was
sent twice in those six months I've had
my car hit twice when you clear after
cars have been he toured off of
Livingston in addition the intersection
at Livingston and Allen Creek was rated
the 14th worst intersection for
accidents in a recent morsy
survey um I was glad to hear the
comments about the Green Space being set
up for potential children in the
apartment project because the closest
parks to um the apartment complex would
be uh Schneider Park which is across
across College Avenue and about two
blocks away or Havenwood Park on eclair
both of those would would not be
accessible to young children without
parental uh um supervision and crossing
the intersection Livingston and College
is very problematic um also like to
point out I've got my um postmark letter
here from the city of Beckley it was
postmarked on January 11th I received
the January 13th like everybody else did
um couple more comments Jason suudi had
said that um that the project was not
hazardous I would argue that the project
is hazardous for young children and the
other thing that he had pointed out was
it will not decrease property values I
would argue that anybody that lives in
the 900 block of Francis the 900 block
of uair the 900 block of uh Pleasant
Ridge probably would have a great case
to go to the Franklin County Auditor's
office and be asking for a property
evaluation decrease I thank you for your
time thanks for your
cooperation Robert thank you for your
time and you're staying up late with us
and giving us your opinion we appreciate
it um Karen you have anybody else
audience yeah we still have um uh five
more um okay
hello who do we have
Julie no hi this is Anna massen um I'm
be coming up as fed massen he's my
husband okay okay go right ahead hi we
live um at 994 Francis Avenue okay um
and also before I begin my statement we
also received notice the day before the
arv meeting and the sign did not go up
at the building until the day before as
well um and I'll begin my statement now
so thank you very much please raise your
I'm
sorry do
you or affirm that that the be the truth
and nothing but the truth yes I do thank
you all right who's uh who
is uh requesting it's Mr shik um we have
numerous instances of potential improper
notice okay
sir all I suggest is that we exercise
caution I mean I I think that I would
like to put that on the record that's
it it's probably headed toward a
tabling I don't know whether it makes
sense to stop the process or whether
makes I think it makes sense for
everybody to stop the process excuse me
have waited for six hours and 20 minutes
to say my my speech so I would
appreciate just being able to say it as
as the other uh neighbors as well
Support
app they they had the floor before I did
I absolutely support
that up you're not gonna make a motion
at this point to
table oh not before the uh not before
those on the floor do thank you Mr thank
you can I clarify quickly this is Kathy
Rose yes that the first notice that went
out went out to those that live within
200 feet and that's per code the second
notice we sent out as a courtesy due to
some emails and calls we received we
sent out a notice to people within 300
feet just to be transparent but it
wasn't required per code okay I'm at 994
Francis Avenue I'm not sure of the
footage Mr Hall um let me just interject
this thing as it relates to notice to
this hearing the requirement for notice
for this hearing was 14 days before
today so I understand people are
frustrated with notice relating to ARB
but notice relating to Bap was timely
correct we haven't heard a a indication
of we're not timely yet I I think Mr
shik's Point has been uh that notice
need to be given at all levels of this
and and he's not happy that it's not and
I totally understand that um thank you
think that people who've been waiting
since 6m and I I also think notice of
the time of these meetings when we know
we've got a docket of this nature uh
needs to be separated out and I know
I've argued that before and I would like
to continue to argue that point because
I don't think this is appropriate for
people to wait for six hours to talk to
us thank you but go ahead would you
please I'm G to three minutes now thank
you very much um I would like to begin
by making myself clear I am not against
increasing housing density and I am not
against bringing some much-needed
Improvement and vibrancy to the
Livingston college
intersection however as the proposal
currently stands I do have concerns as a
resident and I thank the council and the
board for their willingness to listen to
and to consider what I'm about to say on
April 14th 2020 Bexley City Council
voted unanimously to approve ordinance
0920 which states in part that
properties and their residents must act
in quote the best interests of public
health and safety and in order to
restore and preserve the rights of
residents to quiet
enjoyment I am truly grateful to live in
a city where my right to enjoy my
property is so strongly protected and I
know that this type of thinking and
lawmaking is part of what makes Bexley
such a special place to live the South
Bexley neighborhood association has
recently come forward with the correct
assertation that Livingston Avenue is
quote a major area of concern due to
noise development and traffic impacts
end quote they go on to further detail
that the quote conflicts with
pedestrians are unacceptable and must be
solved end quote personally I cannot
think of any other area of Bexley where
residents are afraid to walk on part of
their block and in fact actively avoid
doing so there is a premium we all
happily pay to be able to quietly enjoy
this wonderful community and it must be
considered that this development as it
currently stands will only further
dampen and hinder our enjoyment of our
block and honestly the enjoyment of the
future residents of the development as
well Mr schik mentioned that having
children living right on top of a 35 m
per hour zone is dangerous and I agree
the push back to his comment was that
there are single family homes with
children along Livingston and this is
true as Bridget mentioned but these
homes have yards to provide a safe place
for those children to enjoy it's
difficult to imagine that the residents
of this building will walk to Schneider
Park I do not take my own children there
the tree lawn on Livingston is 3 feet
deep at best and I could never in good
conscious walk conscience walk my
children along that Corridor
additionally knowing that there is an
environmental issue in that area it's
almost shameful to ask those residents
of that building to on Schneider park
for their children's Green
Space in
addition well I had more to say keep
going but I I'll just make it short sure
I understand that not all families are
fortunate to have a vehicle or daily use
of a car but daily use of a car is more
or less the norm in central Ohio
according to data reported by Debbie
Holmes of wosu fewer than 3% of Columbus
sites regularly take public
transportation and nearly 90% commute in
a personal
vehicle I appreciate that TCB was
attracted to Livingston Avenue due to
its proximity to the number one bus line
but I have difficulty understanding how
compared to Riders this ridership data
this proximity will make a tangible
difference to the prospective car
ownership of the development's future
residents my final thing I appreciate
the time is I only asked for a shadow
study um this building will block our
late after afternoon and evening Sun
uh I believe that was provided if if if
needed what
was we'll send we'll we'll bring that
information to okay
yes what did we do there did we cut
somebody
off I did not you did yes um I just
wanted to say thank you for your time
hey thank you for staying up with us
this light I really appreciate it I'm a
school teacher so it's very late so
thank
you yeah
well thank you for the work you do too
and uh go get some sleep all right good
night everyone good night good night
who's there um
Phil yes Phil tell me your name my name
is Phil Mascari I live at 805 Pleasant
Ridge
Avenue 805 Pleasant Ridge how close are
you to
Francis
um very close Okay uh would you raise
your right hand to be sworn yes you
swear or affirm that all the testimony
you give this evening will be the truth
and nothing but the truth yes thank you
uh you have three minutes please tell us
what you think yes uh it'll be pretty
quick I just have two quick questions um
I I noticed in the very beginning Nicole
had mentioned that uh the demographics
will include people in you know teachers
and Librarians and my question to her
was would be would would and could that
also include felons and sex
offenders and then lastly I'd like to
know if the board members whomever
decide to vote Yes on this if they would
be willing to be personally and
financially financially responsible for
whatever crime may evolve from from
these new units that is all I have to
say and thank you very much all right
thank you Phil thanks for staying up so
late and uh can you Nicole can you give
him an answer to his first
question um I'm gonna pass it to Jeff
because he can speak a little bit more
about the process but short hand is no
they we there's limits and requirements
through our funding sources that
um prohibit certain offenses from being
eligible to live in this kind of housing
but Jeff can share more Jeff like any
multif family housing owner we abide by
fair housing but have rigorous tenant
screening to make sure that we have um
lawful tenants living in in our presence
if they have a legal right uh to rent a
unit and they they otherwise meet
criminal background check and other
sorts of standard background checks um
then by fair housing you can't
unlawfully discriminate against people
so so the answer the answer then and I
think Nicole had said no but I think the
answer would be yes then so technically
felons can live
there if someone is an ex offender and
is uh just yes or
no hey Phil hey Phil could somebody a
Fel live where you live right
now yes or no
okay thank you great commentary well I
appreciate it but I I guess I didn't get
my answer either and I can't I think you
got
it no no I
didn't for the record 805 Francis is
over 500 feet away from this proposed
location well I don't live on Francis
Jeff uh you didn't really get a chance
to finish your answer
there to be to be perfectly honest the
the amount of depth that I gave was
about um what I am sort of
professionally qualified to give I'm a
developer by training we have Property
Management folks and we'd be happy to
give a more specific answer but writing
by fair housing is is the letter of the
law yeah and if the the your answer not
aware of every single detail of the fair
housing law that's perfectly fine you
know that I mean that's Phil answer to
Phil's question I apologize for speaking
out of turn because there's a butt in
there there is there are fair housing
requirements that we do have to comply
with
sure um and Phil the answer to your
second question is no how about that I
did give you a quick answer on that one
anyway uh who's our next speaker but
thank you Phil appreciate it very much
for your staying with us here uh I've
got uh Leah
Turner Leah are you with us yes I am and
can you tell me where you live yes I
live at
993 Francis
Avenue okay and um would you raise your
right hand to be sworn please yes do you
swear or affirm that any testimony you
give this evening will be the truth and
nothing but the truth yes I do thank you
very much you have three minutes to tell
us what you think about this proposal
yes could someone please put up the site
map so you can know exactly where I
live yeah that' be good to know yeah yes
uh you'll have to give me a second I'm
balancing a whole bunch of things hold
on our property um shares 200
feet so the black line at the northern
part here uhhuh that our property goes
from the street all the way to the back
so we share the entire length of the
property and I'm going to say again and
then I'm going to go on with my point um
about what I think about this project
and no there was no no written notice
Kathy don't you ever say it because
there wasn't and you have to swear and
tell the truth too okay I'm done she's
lying all right I'm moving on we we
share over 200
fet and there is no nothing in this
diagram that mitigates people looking
over our property all day long there's
nothing that mitigates those cars with
their going straight into the fence that
we
share all day
long so we were going to have that
parking and the lights or not lights on
going straight into our property thank
you for making it bigger
so I don't see that there's any
substantial Landscaping back
there there's nothing substantial except
for maybe an8 foot fence that hasn't
been agreed upon I don't think you
thought about the Neighbors at
all where did you think about our
property that's my question where did
you think because I don't see it I'm
angry but I would like an answer where
is it that you thought about our over
200 foot property line that we
share well I'd have to have them answer
that question I will you'd like us to
respond Mr chair are uh Leah are you
done because I I want you to finish and
then I'll get them to give you an answer
um yeah my concerns are there's nothing
nothing there to mitigate the congestion
the traffic and the number of people
looking out over their
patios over onto our property that has
been very private for 18 years and
everyone else in this community for the
last six hours has expressed to you how
they like that
privacy so how is my privacy how is our
privacy going to be
protected um 30 seconds so my question
uh my uh statement is that um the
project is too big it doesn't fit make
it small reduce it and make it look like
it fits in the
neighborhood I'm done all right thank
you Miss Turner much appreciate your
comments I'm gonna turn it over to give
us a re review again of what's along
that North border of the proposed site
uh because I recall there being
something but I can't remember what it
was who could speak to that best
so the go ahead go ahead okay so the
current site conditions are that there's
a six- foot fence and the parking lot
buts directly to the six-foot fence and
then there's a garage um our current
proposal is to install an 8ft fence with
a small grass buffer barrier and then
the parking lot would be from there um
so the parking lot is actually pulled
off just slightly the the fence is
taller the building um facade as we um
shared earlier is at similar distances
to where the building facades currently
end um for the current buildings so um
we were thoughtful about trying to hold
certain conditions and even improve upon
them with that taller fence pulling
parking back thinking about fencing that
has um strong light blocking so that way
cars are not um putting headlights in so
we will put something that has very very
strong um you know OPAC is it OPAC
yes um it's late um so we those are the
conditions that we have proposed
currently and I see Jason's yeah Mr
chairman I just wanted to clarify that I
didn't go through all of the design
criteria because then it would be 45
minutes later right now um right an
eight foot tall fence is required in the
zoning and we have specific standards in
the um in the code for any of the c s
properties that back up under
residential and that goes for the entire
area so that they they actually have to
do it or they would have to apply for a
variance which obviously they're not
doing so that is one thing that's
absolutely it's not a negotiable issue
it's just that we don't have the actual
details of the specific fence because
there is some latitude based on our code
as to the materials and the height and
so that's certainly or not the height
the materials and theuh design so that's
certainly something that can get
discussed as we go through the process
if I may very briefly uh Mr chair I
would just say we recog ized there was a
brief time period between when we had
site control and could start a public
process and ARB um and so we
deliberately chose to not ask for any
ARB approval um and for them to sort of
put a conditional advancement of this
because these are the exact kinds of
questions and issues that we want to
address with residents we absolutely
will work to tweak and refine the
parking area the the buffer between the
the two properties the Landscaping all
of those items both with staff with the
tree commission and with neighbors
directly okay very good I appreciate the
answer uh I have I'm showing Todd Kilner
Todd did we get you
yet no sir all right Todd uh can you
tell me where you
reside yes sir I reside at 854 Francis
Avenue okay and uh would you raise your
right hand to be
sworn I will you swear confirm that any
testimony that you give this evening
will be the truth and nothing but the
truth I do thank you you have three
minutes please try to tell us what you
think and and uh about this
proposal sure well first and foremost
thank you very much
um I will fully disclose that I am
outside of
standing um I feel a project of this
impact truly needs to be widened to the
scope of all residents on Francis Avenue
I feel that we've really got one
opportunity to redevelop this site
correctly and all voices should be heard
and it's really
discouraging what we've heard tonight on
the lack of
transparency and disclosure that has
happened to our Bexley
residents so first and foremost I want
to say that um I Heard tonight something
that I hadn't heard before at the
Architectural Review Board and that was
lack of ownership from the cic in this
site that opens a lot of concerns that I
would like to hear answers to
specifically
uh as it relates to the rental
terms uh obviously short-term rentals
and any of those types of terms would be
of huge concern uh for the residents
presumably along Francis Avenue
certainly for myself and my
family um I think it's important to
reiterate this is a 58 bedroom unit and
if we're trying to attract families
families do have vehicles I'm not going
to
uh say anything new that hasn't been
already said about the vehicles on the
site but 58 units on a four parcel
property where each parcel is smaller
than the average parcel on Francis
Avenue that alone says all you need to
know about the density that's been
proposed on the site I'm absolutely a
proponent of the Redevelopment of the
site I'm absolutely a component of home
ownership I think we are missing the
boat in this particular
project again one opportunity to get
this right and more voices need to be
heard and that's really everything I
have to say on it tonight well I
appreciate your comments I appreciate
your staying with us this
long thank you thank
you all right let's see
um I
see
Gruen Mr President Mr chairman we've
heard a lot of testimony tonight we've
heard a
lot yes we have two more
people
remove let's take let's take the two
more that are left but like let's take
the reasonable doubt it has nothing to
do with
Kathy there could have been a very
reasonable error on the United States
Postal Service but let's just give
people the opportunity to come back and
that the city does not face a notice
claim let's be wise about
this what do you want me to do next uh
Mr shik I would like to table this okay
make a motion I like the people that are
left oh yes
yes well all I'm doing is getting to
those people as fast as I possibly can
and other than we understand that you
would like to table the thing you either
want to table it now or you want to wait
till later to table it but I can't keep
having you tell me the same thing over
and over again because you're wasting my
time here I'm not wasting your time
sir but like you're delaying me and
getting to where we're going which is
ultimately we're going to hear some
motions on this on this proposition and
you're going to be one of the person's
making a motion perhaps and then we're
going to deal with it I don't feel like
keeping the who've been waiting now
almost seven hours to talk uh and
shutting them out is is the right thing
to do that's my
opinion we have two more people that
have their hands raised Okay so
let's move ahead unless you are going to
make a
motion no sir go ahead okay thank you uh
Mr
Gruen correct can you hear
me I I can I can't read your name it's
too small to print so I apologize tell
me your name please Henry name I got my
right hand up okay do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you're about
to give will be the truth of nothing but
the truth yes thank you very much I live
you 984 Francis Avenue okay thank you
very much can you you have three tell us
what you think please not not to pick on
you but the notice I did get the day
before like everybody else so the ARB
meeting yeah I was kind of surprised
about that I've only gotten one notice
so I'm good on that one I got the
handout the other day also from
uh from the developers um
I talked to everybody last night Jeff
nickcole and uh I can't remember Kevin
and they know my concerns but um first
off I don't want to be offensive but it
sounds like a money grab for the city
and a developer um I know it's going to
bring in more money or Revenue but um
that's part of the community that's part
of Bexley it's uh it's single family
homes it's families that get along it's
all that good stuff but my biggest
concern and this is really something I
got to deal with is like everybody else
is the parking um I know it's a public
Street I know they've tiptoed all around
all the code requirements for how to you
know how big it's got to be how many
spots they need but typically the code
is two parking spots per unit and even
if they used one and a half parking
spots per unit that would be
that would be good but 58 bedrooms you
can think there's going to be 58 cars um
I mean
potential the next concern is um the
city of Bexley had mentioned that this
was going to be replacement housing for
Ferndale and Mayfield um I've lived in
Bexley well over 60 years in Ferndale
Mayfield have been a thorn in the
community side
forever ask any beex policemen how many
calls they make over there and it'll be
disproportionately High um
bexley's track record with affordable
housing in
particular Sheridan and other places
like that has not been good and I'm just
scared that what's on Ferndale is just
going to work its way down Livingston
and I feel like a a bison surrounded by
a bunch of wolves and they're just
biting in my ankles just waiting to take
us down um not to be not to be bad but
that's just the way Mayfield and
Ferndale always been I'm just scared
it's going to work its way down the
street
here that's what I got to say I thank
you I agree with just about everything
everybody else had to say I'm not
against an apartment building but the
density is uh just just seems way too
high all right hey thank you very much I
appreciate your
com
all right let's see we have a couple
more
hands
uh Karen I'm not seeing another name on
my screen we just have one more Julie
and I don't have the whole last name
Julie with an M Julie mosa yes I'll keep
Julie yes I'm sorry what what's your
address Julie 987 Francis I am if you're
looking at the screen I'm the one one
story house okay just one I've got you
Julie would you raise your right
hand and do you swear or affirm that the
the testimony you'll give this evening
will be the truth and nothing but the
truth uh yes I do thank you very much
please tell us what you think sure and I
I had a statement but everyone pretty
much said what I was going to say so I'm
not going to reiterate it um for the
sake of time and we're all tired I'll
start off by saying saying as well that
I received notification the day before
on the 13th of January U about the ARB
meeting postmark the 11th and according
to my um USPS informed delivery there
was no envelope ever scanned before that
there was also no yard sign in front of
the property until Wednesday so the day
before the ARB
meeting um so that being said again I'm
not going to reiterate um the points
that all of my fellow neighbors made
tonight but um just want to uh touch on
uh just one aspect that we the green
space I think was a really great thing
to bring up tonight I was excited to
hear about it and like uh Anna mass and
advention
um the like children need a space and I
know um I've never walked my son on
Livingston Avenue um we've gone to
Schneider Park once and it was kind of
having to loop around go up Francis and
down Mound and it wasn't really
convenient we haven't been back um and I
I had heard uh I believe Nicole
mentioned the JCC which um we have had
the privilege of enjoying um but it's
also an investment it's it's not cheap
so I think that's a consideration if um
We're touting The JCC as wonderful as it
is to our community um and if you're
having income restrictions how is that
how are you are you going to work with
the JCC are they going to offer
subsidized memberships I think that's
something to note because it is again
not exactly the most affordable
membership to have um which again it's
it's a wonderful wonderful place and we
enjoy it um but it's it's just something
to think about when we're thinking about
families going into the building um and
that's really all I have to say I also
have concerns about privacy and parking
but I'm I'm just too tired to say
anymore so um thank you to the board and
have a good night thank you very much
Julie we appreciate you staying with us
us this
late all
right well um I don't there aren't any
other names on my board
uh
Karen yep I see no more hands okay at
this time I think that we should uh
consider whether the the best way to
handle this situation uh based upon what
we've heard from all of the presenters
and from all of the citizens who live uh
nearby tonight um
Mr schik might you have a motion for
us yes sir I do have a motion
delay please excuse me table pardon
sorry motion to table and would make a
motion to table
it uh for one
month yes sir I would um if if the
neighbors would agree to that I would be
satisfactory but I think one month would
be good Fe February
25th is there a second to the motion or
or any discussion about the motion let
let's perhaps have a little discussion
about
it the only thing I would would say is
you know we heard a lot of feedback here
and if anybody on the board has anything
to give feedback to the applicants that
they things that we may be looking for
in a month so that so that everyone's
time wasn't wasted tonight we come back
exactly where we are now in a month I
mean i' would rather at least have some
discussion to give them some feedback as
to you know things we may be looking for
but I but as to tabling after everyone
has gotten to speak I I would agree with
that but I also feel that we should um
you know respect the applicants time and
give them some sort of feedback to come
back
with Mr Turner I would start with
parking
I'm sorry I couldn't hear you I I said
to Mr Turner that I would start uh with
parking yeah I I mean I I'll give my
feedback on it I I think it's obvious
the parking is an issue there's a lot of
there's a lot of beds there um I'm very
i i b basically at one point lived about
250 fet away from this for about 10
years so I'm very familiar with
Livingston I'm very familiar with
College Avenue and the traffic down
there and there's there there's a lot of
tra traffic and there's a lot of cars
and and parking on Francis is limited
and and there will be people parking on
the street and I believe that's the
majority of what the questions were I
mean there were some questions about the
overall density um I'd have to see what
that came back with but um but but I do
have some concerns about the parking as
well I know that technically I mean our
what's proposed before us is whether
they can have first floor and third
floor residential units but obviously
that you know the consideration of that
to me is also whe whether the parking
able to handle those units and that's
one of the reasons we would vote yes or
no on those on whether those there'd be
apartments on those floors so that's Pro
parking is probably my biggest concern
so Mr chair I I have no interest in
belaboring or extending this meeting
Beyond so we'll take your direction but
we actually did bring data um about our
parking um from our other properties
that we could inform the conversation
um if it would well let me ask you
this it seems to me that the right forum
for this kind of
situation is
not the Bap
taking
27 citizens at three minutes per person
and listening to them I I think it
sounds like maybe it would be good to
have an open public discussion where you
Jeff could explain exactly what you're
going to tell us here in the next few
minutes and and you could have your your
entire staff of presenters there and you
could answer people's questions and talk
about Alternatives and and things of
that nature before we get to a point
where we absolutely have to have a vote
one way or the other I'm sure many of
the members of the board of of zoning
and planning would be glad to come to
such a meeting to so that we could hear
and and maybe ask our own questions
about it uh certainly parking and
density is an issue whether it's the
only issue I I I I don't know but I I
think that uh you have to look at
alternatives for this site eventually
into the Future something is going to
happen at this site and uh uh it it
needs to be something that makes sense
this is the one we're looking at right
now now uh how about other members of
the board do you have any before I go
back to you Jeff and I appreciate the
fact that you have information for us
about parking um this is Heidi Dorne I
just have sorry my voice is kind of
going at this hour um but I um just have
a couple thing I agree with the parking
um I I do have concerns about the
density but I also have concerns and I
don't think too many people raised it
maybe a couple did but of the safety
issues too with the first floor units on
Livingston I you know I think you know
looking at I I don't live by Livingston
but I read the news just as anyone else
does and if you go on the Bexley Buzz or
whatever there are cars in people's
living rooms on what seems to be sadly a
regular basis and I mean they're much
farther away so I mean thinking of some
alternative perhaps or or a different
setback or something would would be of
concern safety-wise especially if
they're children in those units I mean
that just it it's that's
really um a safety issue I think that
that concerns me um as well as the
density of it you know I mean this could
be college kids living in here with you
know I mean that's a very real
possibility instead of living on you
know and capitals right there um you
know so it it could be you know where
college kids end up living which I guess
is fine but I mean these are just things
to think about in in the area where it's
located so perhaps making them you know
the units a little bigger or making it
just two stories and you know having the
first floor be you know some other you
know maybe retail or some other mixed
juice um something else that may may
make it a little more um I don't know
something that that's more compatible
with the neighborhood I think and I
think that's what's been constantly
reiterated by all the people who have
spoken is the compatibility with the
neighborhood I think that's going to be
really important so that's all I have to
say but thank you every I mean everyone
did a really nice job
presenting thank you
um other members of the board I mean I
think
you know I don't know what kind of
feedback you need to give at this point
I think we heard the iterations of all
the people there they were somewhat
repetitive and it doesn't take you don't
need an advocus to figure out what's not
what the problems are and need to be
addressed but uh I would at this time
ask if there is a second to the motion
to
table I second Heidi Dorne there is a
second um
is there any more discussion necessary
on that issue if not I'd like to call
the question and have a
vote not this uh it is not it to impact
the vote but may I offer just one bit of
clarification um to a point made earlier
um it's not on the merits it's really
about the the notice issue we um we did
flyer on our own and provide uh
frequently asked questions about the
project to provide more information to
to people in the sort of standing Zone
we offered and uh hosted a uh public
meeting um for anybody who wanted to
take us up on that and offered Nicole
and my direct contact information we
frankly were surprised by how few people
took us up on that we did have a very
productive discussion with the the five
households that showed up for this one
um but we are more than willing to
continue to do that as the project
advances
okay thank you
Jeff
um and for the record those that
received notice the second notice I
guess on the 13th technically they still
receive two weeks notice for this
meeting yeah I
mean I I think that what the one
gentleman said is if you live on Francis
anywhere within a two blocks of the
place you you ought to be involved in
the this in the public process here and
so uh whether you complied to the
centimeter with giving notices or not I
I don't think is really all that
relevant frankly but I'd like to hear
what the what the vote on the motion for
table is just to see where we stand if
it if it passes it passes if it doesn't
then we're going to have to deal with
what we do next so uh Kathy will you
please call the role on the motion to
table sure Mr shik yes Miss Mitchell oh
she's not on I'm sorry Mr Turner yes
Miss Dorne yes Mr LaVine yes and
chairman Vall my vote doesn't matter but
I vote Yes also so this matter is tabled
until the next meeting and we'll have to
sort of huddle up as to how we're going
to handle it be from now until then yes
ma'am this is Catherine thank you um I
want to remind the board
and um any any of those who are here
this is a quasi judicial hearing which
means that um there are standards of the
code that you're supposed to be hearing
evidence on and applying you are also
supposed to only consider what you hear
at the administrative hearing I know
that you made some comments about going
to board members going to commission
members or board board of zoning appeals
going to Neighborhood meetings you
should not be doing that um your job is
to conduct a hearing the applicant has
rights to to come forward and present
their case they should have a right to
rebuttal for the things that they heard
residents have the right to participate
to the extent that they have standing
and that's why standing is important so
I caution members of the board that you
should not be generally discussing this
project or your opinions about it as as
in in public or having discourse outside
of these hearings and I say that to
members of the public who are still on
board members cannot be talked to or
should not be directly talking to you
about what's going on in the hearing
process not because they're not
concerned about what you have to say but
you need to say it as part of the formal
process I also just wanted to say as it
relates to notice a couple of things one
as I mentioned I think notice was timely
for this meeting two I know there's a
lot of discussions about caution but the
law is very clear if you appeared you
waved any notice issues so anybody who
appeared you know
we I I just just don't want to get o
over concern I know there's been a lot
of discussion about it today uh as it
relates to the ARB there were no merits
decisions made everything's going to go
back to them again and there's going to
be a lot more discourse so I just don't
want everybody to get so hung up on
notice because it was properly provided
for this meeting it's being tabled it's
being tabled to a date certain uh ARB uh
the the recommendation and request was
that everything come back so um this
commission and this board and ARB are
trying to give everybody a full and
adequate way to come to these meetings
uh with the table you'll have the right
again and um typically it is not R
noticed when you table to a date certain
it's published on the website and made
available as part of the minutes um but
certainly we can talk to um staff about
and the mayor about whether or not um
additional notice would go out so I just
want to just make that make that clear
and the ground rules very clear for all
participants uh I appreciate everybody's
time and effort in this and um Wanted to
make that very clear yep we need to move
onward here because how many more people
are uh in the
audience
Karen Karen probably fell asleep on me
there's there's right now there's 19 in
the room and there's 67 total on Zoom so
we got probably 40 right here okay so
let's call the next case I mean I think
I just don't think this case is right
for voting yet I think that's what the
board felt like so um I agree with you I
I I will retract my misstatement about
going to any kind of of a public forum
but it may be the public forum is a good
thing for the applicants to go
through thank Mr chair all right the
next case invol involves 420 North
Cassidy that's bz ap-20 d52 the
applicants once again uh the Bexley
cic uh and uh also the owner in this
case and they're seeking Architectural
Review and recommendation of the board
of zoning and planning to allow a
three-story structure with commercial on
the first
floor
and uh residential on the second and
third
floors uh the and it would involve the
demolishing of the demolishment of the
current
structure uh let's
see and there has been
a
uh rendition of this matter at the U
ARB and they voted in favor of approval
so members of the who's going to be a
presenter on this particular
matter uh this is Nate green chair of
the cic all right theb didn't didn't
vote to approve but um and and before
that I do have a staff report for this
yeah no I I I before you get into that
Jason um Sarah and I were just
conferring um I I'm just curious you
know with the discussion we had before
if uh you know we should just if this
should be tabled as well um you know
this is probably gonna have a lot of
they're gonna have a lot of discussion
um you know I just want to throw that
out there I don't know if we can do that
I don't know if uh that's the correct
thing to do or not I just wanted to just
want to ask if that's something we
should do it's certainly a consideration
and
uh the applicant can always make a
motion to
table that is just factual um the board
still has to vote on it uh and we have
probably numerous people who have waited
now seven hours to speak but uh we'll be
doing this into uh two or three in the
morning here and I think everybody is
getting a little weary at this stage but
um okay well then let's just let's just
have them speak uh don't I resend that
let's just have them speak then then so
Jason go
ahead well uh I'm not suggesting that
you shouldn't make a motion no no chair
chair I I agree with you we'll just have
everybody speak and and uh they've been
waiting a long time so let's uh have
them speak and you know uh get out their
concerns and I think that that makes a
lot of sense for the residents to be
able to do that so let's uh let's move
on with that
okay um Jak I can be very I'll be very
brief um sorry many there many of the
same issues or many of the same
circumstances here except that the base
uh underlying Zoning for this project um
that is at 420 uh Cassidy is Mu which is
mixed use commercial uh that district
has a different set of criteria based on
design standards but relatively similar
with a few additional elements um the
other item here is that there is there's
a kind of a flip in items they both need
a certificate of appropriateness as the
other project in this case there is no
conditional use approval that is
required but what is required is a
parking variant that's being requested
based on the um request for 16 res 16
residential units and 3,130 square feet
of commercial space um on the first
floor uh I won't go through all the the
Gory details but the the summary of it
is based on the fact that they um you
know doing the calculations one space
per unit 16 spaces a high in intensive
commercial use get you another 13 spaces
and um they can get credit for on street
parking which again we have to um go
through a little bit more uh work to
verify where those adjacent spots can be
they've eliminated numerous curb cuts
which frees up additional curb area uh
but there's still our site distance
intersection considerations that that
have to be taken into account uh but
that can be up to 25% of on street
parking eliminating seven spaces so it's
a total of 20 two spaces required and
they are providing 14 off Street spaces
so their variance would be requesting a
reduction uh so that's the difference in
this application other than that they
have met all of the design standards um
or the development regulations rather in
the muc and again substantially met the
design standards with some things that
are yet to be deferred to uh TR and
public garden Commission in AR so with
that I will wrap it up considering the
lateness of the hour and happily answer
any questions all right thank you very
much uh let's
um hear whether the the applicants you
want to um Nate you want to give us a
quick um once over on what the the
general gist of the of the plan is here
um you know I think uh chair I'm gonna
turn it over to the to the TCB to talk
about it I I'll briefly talk about just
the cic's involvement this project is
different than the last one we've heard
the cic is actually in contract to
purchase this property um we have done
we in we have done a phase one and a
phase to environmental study um because
this was a gas station um uh up until
probably the the mid 2000s um so we have
done that um we will this is there's
going this is actual a mixed use
facility um there will be commercial on
the on the ground floor um and then
apartments on the on thep top two floors
um but I but I don't want to get into
all the all the other details because
that's really uh TCB and rdl's um okay
purpose so um I'll I'll turn over to
them to to go into those things but
thank you chair thank you and I think
from our perspective um you know we
would like to ask um the board how much
detail they would like for us to get
into versus um potentially opening the
floor for residents to give feedback
just being mindful of time and of um of
everything uh do you think there's
anything that we haven't heard that uh
is is essential to understanding the
general gist of it uh
what
3,130 ft of commercial space how many
retail uh operations does that entail
roughly one or two or what is that
businesses yeah I mean that hasn't that
hasn't been determined yet uh there
could be um a restaurant there there
could be you know another um kind of
shop like that there could be other
other retailers that hasn't been
determined it hasn't been laid out yet
so um you know can't really at this
point chair I'd say we can't speak to
that okay all right and I notic the
buildings are up against Cassidy and the
parking is in the rear on the Alley
that's that's
east of Cassidy is that a correct
statement yes that's correct okay all
right um can I ask them to address um
the parking because I have a feeling
that'll be an
issue addressing it I mean the fact who
who's uh speak have Nicole address or
whoever is speaking to the parking
because I just have a feeling that I see
there's they're trying to have people
Park on Cassidy and and the surrounding
neighborhood so I have a feeling that
might be an issue again if they could
address that now
okay I'm gon to give a a little bit of
information so we we do have data around
comparable um project
compositions um both in terms of
household makeup so number of single
house uh single occupant households
number of households that have maybe a
single parent living in a two or a
three-bedroom unit and then we also have
data around
um parking both is the um the number of
units that are being provided for units
so these projects are all of comparable
size in terms of total composition um
and so on average um our parking
provides across three projects that are
of comparable size within the Midwest
Market 60% parking compared to the total
number of units um and of those parking
lots are operations team has um done
some initial research but we're going to
continue to monitor this and get some
some better data but just based on what
they've seen the parking lots are about
80% full um and that's in current time
but we're going to come back and we're
going to give better data we're g to
we're going to collect some stuff over
the next couple of weeks so that way we
have even more but just wanted to give a
snapshot that we do have some
information around what we see in
projects that are similar both in terms
of um residential over commercial um
those are also projects that have um
similar unit types they
are similar comp composition in terms of
the household demographics that we're
targeting so I just wanted to share a
snapshot if we have that information but
we want to honor the requests for us to
come back at Livingston and and we want
to make sure that we bring um a robust
snapshot of our experience um at that
time so I wanted to speak to that of we
our experience has been roughly a 60% %
um parking capacity and um that was what
kind of drove when we were looking at
the on-site parking
sizing Jeff I think you want to add to
it I think that's
helpful yeah only to describe what
you're seeing on the screen um but maybe
I would maybe the very quickly so there
are 12 um off permanent off Street
spaces there are two Tim limited spaces
that would help accommodate retail or
employees or visitors um and then
because this partial one difference
between this and Livingston is that both
Cassidy and Columbus have on street
parking spaces that do not go in front
of other people's homes um so they are
available and not you know quote unquote
claimed um by by existing folks and for
anyone who travels up Cassidy that they
know that people even though you can
park on Cassidy now people don't so we
plan to take take advantage of that to
so that there is more on street there's
more street parking that supplements the
off street parking that can be provided
on the site and I just want to clarify
so per code um 23 spaces are
required um we are providing with the
on-site parking and the additional um
street parking 24 spaces um in total so
it it's a variance request um for the 23
spaces and we are providing as you see
on the site plan uh 14 with two
additional that um can be used for
employee parking or limited to different
times so that's really 16 parking spaces
um and then because of the um removal of
some curb cuts um Etc we are able to
also accommodate 10 additional on street
parking spots um to be utilized for this
development so I just wanted to make
what the variant request was um clear
okay all right
um why don't we see how many people in
the audience are here and wish to speak
to this uh issue so if you do wish to
speak please raise your virtual
hand at this
time
Karen are you seeing hands
go call you just wait a second just just
wait a minute we
are uh I see
J is that that
this is Jeremy
Jeremy yes somebody needs to
M mute their phone
but can you hear me yes I can
Jeremy I'm sorry you're breaking up my
address is 421 North C Avenue Jeremy I
can't hear you very well I out your
words can you hear me better now a
little bit
yeah
okay I'm in a different room um my
address is 421 North CER
Avenue live right across the street from
art with okay
property will you raise your right hand
and be sworn in yep do you swear or
affirm testimony will be the truth
truth yes I do
okay talk more loudly
please picking you
up
okay um so we have three minutes you
hear
me I said you have three minutes to tell
us
think okay so I got a lot of concerns I
try to get this in a three minutes I'll
do the best I can um first off that
parking that you just talked about is
terrible terrible thing I don't know
where you even come off but that being
enough parking you're you're sh at least
one retail if not two retail places
could be a restaurant you said could be
a shop could be a bookstore could be an
ice cream shop we don't know what's
going to be there you know what's going
to be there but I guarantee if it's
retail it's going to have customers and
it's going to have employees you have 24
spot and most of them are Street par and
the ones in the back you have 11 box you
have one handicap spot and you have two
that are at different times not going to
be able to be used for parking because
they're gonna have a dump there so
there's the address the parking issue
you're gonna have to fix
haard is the main Corridor on the north
side of Becky that Services all of Becky
for their fire me in the north and
Central sections of beex you're going to
add parking to C it's not wide enough to
have that much parking right there you
have cars are going to be passing you
have to have trucks unloading Goods to
your retail
shop and we're going to have we already
have the Train F that have issues anyway
fire we just had a fire in North Tex
we've had fire on Drex we've had a fire
on dawon these Cs and these ambulan
service this area they're always up and
down CI they're up and down CI three
four five six seven times and just a
small per of T they're always up and
down so I think you need to address the
fact you're not gonna be able to have
street parking and if you do you're not
going to have enough parking to service
this area we have three crosswalks
that's it and one traffic light at
Maryland and people are going to have to
cross the street to get to a stop these
people are gonna have to cross the
street to get things where are they
going to cross and what is Bey prepared
to do to put in something safe for the
kids to cross for people to cross to go
to these businesses that you're going to
put in here it's three stories
tall I can't address everything I have
in three minutes and I'm not going to
try to I'm sure you have a bunch of
people on here the last thing I just
want to say is after seven and a half
hours or whatever we're on
now that the respon from a few of you
not not most of you but a few of you
have been tonally different and I'm kind
of tired of seeing eyes Ru I don't know
if you're not taking it seriously what
people are saying you are
rushing this is clear in my eyes you may
have had a twoyear plan to put this
together but you're rushing this through
these properties available that's that's
minutes it's a money ground for the city
and that's
it you guys really being
rough not just this
one Jeremy your times appreciate you're
staying up this late to tell us what you
think thank
you all right all
right uh do I have a
Susan
Susan I'm not seeing Susan how
about Taylor
Stewart yes I'm an I'm here
um I'm I'm a single mother and I really
like
is
Taylor yes can you tell me your add
first
please
270 Columbus Avenue I went to the Zone
meeting and I asked if I had standing
and they told me it wasn't a question
asking place I should come here and ask
you so that's why I've been waiting
around um to hear if I have standing or
not so I don't know if you'll let me
comment or not but that's why I'm here
uh number one I suppose how close do you
live to
Cassidy I live on
27 Columbus Avenue okay and Columbus
intersects with Cassidy correct correct
correct so how close to Cassidy do you
live I don't know I don't have a
measuring tape that goes that long okay
is it two miles you can probably look it
up on Google Maps I've got a kid right
here and I'm trying to take notes and
like deal with him at the same time so
you can probably Google it I went to the
other meeting and asked that and nobody
answered my question so I don't know
look it up all right Kathy you're on
mute U why don't you U raise your right
hand and be sworn and we'll take your
testimony we'll go from there okay you
swear or affirm that all of the
testimony you're about to give will be
the truth and nothing but the
truth I do thank you so tell us in three
minutes if you would we're trying set
each speaker to three what you think
about this
situation well first of all I think that
it's really inappropriate that you make
people wait more than S hours to have
their chance to speak I think that
that's a really effective way to silence
people especially people who might be
single moms and somebody said earlier
that they think parents or families who
are just starting out have two or three
cars that's ludicrous I don't know what
world some of these people are living in
but parking is not going to be an issue
I that there's so much parking like I
people who are saying there's not enough
parking I don't know what world they're
living in but I'm super excited about
these projects number one because mixed
use is going to increase my property
value um I've personally benefited from
affordable housing programs and that's
what enabled me to be where I am today
um and I think that this is going to
increase my property value as well as
provide a needed service and I'm super
excited about that people that are
talking about you know crime um
actually police officers come out in
threes over noise complaints over this
way so I don't know why they're not
going to look at the Speeders on
Livingston but crime is not going to be
a problem here I can assure you that and
there's plenty of
parking okay thank you very much for
staying up this late you're welcome and
I take your comment seriously about
making it go this late I agree with you
thank you thank you all right um all
right I got
Katie J it
says yes I'm here Katie tell me your
full name please my name is Katie J my
last name is Jay okay I couldn't tell
could it could have been a middle name
Katie where do you live I live at 421
North Cassidy Avenue directly across
from the property okay would you would
you raise your right hand and be sworn
yes would you testify this evening do
you swear or confirm that the testimony
you give will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes all
right tell us in three minutes or or
less what you
think okay so I'm gonna skip about the
emergency vehicles because my husband
touched on that but this is a cut
through from Fifth Avenue to Broad and
back people fly through here they're not
looking to see who's around they don't
care this uh crosswalk right here at
rule my daugh about gotten hit many
times trying to walk to school and when
we called the city about it they told us
it wasn't supposed to be
there that everybody was supposed to
walk to Maryland so when people come
there is going to be a parking issue
because if you have people at their
homes in these apartments parking
there's not going to be places for the
people visiting the businesses to park
where are they going to cross the street
safely second of all on our side of the
street with the exception of our house
there are a lot of own single driveways
so people Park their cars on the street
because they fill their driveways are
they going to have priority parking I
know before you guys said something
about you don't want to necessarily go
to permit parking but is it fair to make
the citizens that have been living here
park a mile down the road and carry
their groceries so we can accomm
this uhuh um also there's no other
three-story building in the area except
for the apartment complex they're
getting ready to remodel it will stick
out like a sore thumb not only
because the architecture doesn't fit in
but it's three stories and it will be
the only one sitting on the
street this area is designed more for
residential
people move to North Bexley to not be on
top of
commercial we are Bexley we are
unique why can't we come up with a
solution that is unique to Bexley that
when people come and drive in they don't
go I wonder if I'm in Columbus or New
York something different something
unique we have a slew of creative people
in this town that can come up with
something
better all right we appreciate
it thank you for staying up this late to
tell us what you think about the
situation thank you all
right I got Aaron
abar Aaron are you there yes I'm here
can you hear me I can aarin uh where do
you live I live at
2661 Columbus
Avenue okay and how close to uh Cassidy
is that well um you can see it on screen
there it's the existing building to the
right of the proposed property okay
beautiful uh will you raise your right
hand yes sir you swear or affirm that
any testimony you give this evening will
be the truth of nothing but the truth I
do all right you have three minutes
because we're trying to limit speakers a
little bit get to get through to more
people to tell us what
project um my major concern is my garage
and getting in and out of my garage um
I'm just afraid with the increase in
traffic and
congestion that it's going to be
difficult for me to pull in and out of
my garage safely which is problematic be
because I have an electric vehicle which
I have to plug in um there's a lot of
traffic in the alley currently um I will
attest I've lived here for 13 years
parking on Cassidy has been a problem in
the past in the past year year and a
half for some reason it's gotten a
little better but in years past it's
been really difficult and sometimes I
would have to park all the way down the
street if I was going to park on the
street so it is definitely going to add
a lot of
congestion
um there's just really not enough
parking I mean on average there's 1.88
cars per household that gets us to about
30 cars for this building and that's not
including the retail customers the staff
of the retail stores or any family and
friends that would uh visit the property
um another major concern for me is loss
of privacy my kitchen and my living room
face that
building um so I don't know if I'm going
to you know want to have my blinds open
if if people are you know staring into
my house also my backyard and porch I'm
going to lose all privacy there so
that's a major concern of mine and
really lastly um I'm concerned about the
trash you know especially if there's
going to be a restaurant uh trash is
going to be an issue um you know I I
walk past the convenience store down the
street and there's the the trash
dumpster is continually
overflowing um so yeah I'm very
concerned with that so I just hope that
uh the Community Builders work with the
residents um to mitigate some of these
issues you know I think the idea is good
everyone's heart is in the right place
here but it is impacting the adjacent
properties and in my case pretty
severely okay I just want that to be
considered and I thank you for your
guys' time well thank you and and it's
good to hear from somebody who's
contiguous there to the property as well
thank you very
much all right how about uh Sabrina
Reynolds
Wing Sabrina are you there yep I'm here
all right where do you live Sabrina um
2671 Columbus Avenue okay uh would you
raise your right hand to be sworn
yep do you swear or affirm that any
testimony you give us this evening will
be the truth and the whole truth yes
thank you tell us what your view of this
project is if you would and we have
three minutes okay um you know
I oh my gosh it's so late I'm so sorry
you know it's so I live Three Doors Down
East on Columbus Avenue and you know
it's definitely going to be something
that we you can see from our backyard I
have three children there's a lot of
children right here um within that first
block of Columbus Avenue always playing
so I'm a little bit worried about the
extra movement in the surrounding
area um with this I'm also concerned
about green space for the children that
could possibly live there where they're
going to go um you know I always have
the neighbor kids playing at our house
and I welcome all neighbor kids to play
but um I just feel like that it's a very
large proposal for the space it doesn't
um I I I just feel like it's it's it
might be too much especially considering
the mix use um with the retail and the
apartments on top I think it really
should probably be an either or
situation I would like to ask Mr Green
um if I will be able to um access the
phase one and the phase two um
assessments and just have a look at them
that is one thing that I'm also super
concerned about as the Demolition and
the construction move forward um any
contaminants because my children are
always sorry I think she's muted now but
uh I I believe that we can make those
available to you when they're when
they're
complete okay
good um yeah so the reason why I would
like to access that information is just
because you know when you have
Demolition and construction of these
contaminated sites um you know things
become airborne and um I want to be
super conscious about that for the
members of our community especially the
ones that we're asking to invite and um
thank you guys for your time thank you
we appreciate your staying H up with us
this late with a baby there and
everything thank you all right do I have
Matthew
Brown yes sir Matthew can you tell me
where you live I reside at 2596
Stanberry
Drive Stanberry Drive I've got to think
of where is that in just the position
Stanberry dve Deads in right into the
new into where you're planning on uh
building this place oh okay thank you
we're we're across the street of Cassidy
got it got it okay um would you raise
your right hand and be sworn in please
yes sir do you swear or affirm the
testimony you're going to give this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth yes sir
thank you very much we're trying to
limit everybody to three minutes so
please tell us what you think as
concisely as you can um I do know about
Columbus and bwood and alagan I've lived
on the North side here since
1994 okay um this most of the homes on
those streets do not have driveways and
it's at all street
parking I know that they have poos
proposed spes on Cassidy and Columbus
but if you're putting a retail in with
residential it's not going to work those
alleys are tight um I actually drive for
the high school band through those
alleys uh when they do the street
concerts and there's barely enough room
to bring a truck through there without
touching either side so I don't see how
you're going to have two-way traffic
going through the alleys and handling
all the
traffic um I I agree with Mr Jay about
the Fire Equipment um I constantly hear
Fire Equipment I actually work for the
city of Columbus we deal with Fire
Equipment all the time the um it's it's
a matter of
safety um this is the north Corridor
unfortunately people do 40 and 50 miles
per hour down Cassidy a lot um I do not
I do not like to do more than 25 but
I've seen it 40 and 50 on that little
sign that they have posted up
there the traffic is gonna bleed our
side of the street we know it because
there's not gonna be enough parking on
Columbus there's not gonna be enough
parking on rule so they're gonna come to
our side street and cross um our street
there's a lot of homes I know that I I'm
a family of uh three kids and a wife we
have four cars because I have two Drive
teenage
drivers I don't see where you're going
to tell me a family of four is going to
have less than two cars um I don't think
there's enough parking honestly and I
don't think I don't like the ideal of
the building being placed on Cassidy
directly against Cassidy only so many
feet off um most of those buildings are
so far back that there's not there's a
large gap between there so you're going
to place this building all the way
against the street and then you're going
to allow parking in the rear so it's
going to look out of place on this
street
completely drive up and down North Cassy
you'll see every yard has back the yoga
station is back there's a parking lot in
front of of every business all the way
up going through there so it's gonna
look different that's what I have to say
about it all right hey thanks for
staying up this late telling us this
stuff we appreciate it problem thank you
sir have a good day all righty thank
you uh I have uh let's
see Adam
Lee yes hi how you doing Adam where do
you live Adam I live at uh
2654 rule Avenue I'm directly behind uh
Aaron okay uh so the other adjacent
property there
gotcha
uh do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're going to give us
tonight will be the truth and the whole
truth I do thank you please tell me what
you think about this
proposal uh yeah I mean I I guess I
would just have to to kind of piggy back
on what has already been said about both
this building and the the building on
Livingston uh you know my my main
concern is is the parking uh my house we
we only have
one little off street parking spot we
don't have a garage or anything and a
lot of the houses around here are small
single family 1500 or less square foot
houses that don't have garages so we all
park on the street and the yoga studio
coming in which also is is not just a
yoga studio it's also an event space
uh doesn't seem like it with the
pandemic and all but there are events
that will be happening there in the
future uh so they will be requiring much
more parking than they use currently uh
when they first open that first year I
mean I had people parking all up and
down in front of my house to where I had
to park couple you know a few houses
down the street pretty much every night
for a while there and it kind of cooled
off but you know that was frustrating
but so to have less parking spots than
you have units in the in the in the
buildings just seems a
little you know like it's not going to
work and that's and that's my you know I
I we moved here from the short North
specifically
because of variances like this getting
past left and right there so every you
know every time you turn around a new
apartment complex was going
up and there weren't providing any
parking for it so and our rent kept
going up so we bought a house in
Bexley
uh I don't think that's gonna happen
here necessarily but I I definitely
don't want to start that
process very and that's all that's all I
got it very much and thanks for staying
up so late to give us your information
here yeah no problem thank
you Karen I'm not seeing anybody else on
my board uh do
you uh no but I'll give anybody if
there's anybody else that has wishes to
speak to this please raise your virtual
hand and then if not we will call it a
close to the public
testimony okay no hands okay no K Karen
for the record I have never um meant
this as a compliment but uh your voice
has scared people
away okay ay um I think people gone to
bed gone to sleep probably be my guest
all right I'll take however you want me
to take
it the the
uh uh and that would be you know uh
probably
J I would
think U now that everybody has been able
to tell us what they think do you feel
like this is a situation that the applic
would like to make a motion to to table
or
not I'm on mute that doesn't happen very
often I want zoom all the time and I'm
never on mute um yeah I think we would
like to uh we would like to ask for a a
a motion to to table so that we can
bring it back and address clearly
parking is an issue uh TCB I think has
has uh been talking about that but I
think we need to um think through that a
little more because obviously that's
what we need for the site is a variance
on parking so yes we would like to ask
for a motion to table this um for a
month okay um do do I hear Mr chairman
can I make one one thing for uh to note
uh Mr
Green I really
sorry go ahead oh um couldn't hear you
breaking up um for Mr Green I really do
like the idea of like a very soft like
multi-level property like mixed use at
the space and I really do just want to
throw the record that like it'd be
awesome to like get something over there
I think it's a good use to the property
but like just I think UA like Upper
Arlington may have some like overhead
design that like we may be able to do to
like to hide some parking and maybe even
able to find some more floor space so um
I look forward to
this great thanks do I have anybody on
the board who would be interested in
making a motion to table this
matter I'll Sean will make a moot turn
will make a motion to table until the
meeting on when did you say Kathy the
25th of February February
25th yeah yes okay do I have a second to
that
motion I second that Heidi Dorne thank
you
Heidi um Kathy please call the role on
the motion to
table Mr Shake
yes uh Mr
Turner yes Miss Dorne yes
Mr Levine
yes and chairman behal I vote Yes also
so this matter would be tabled uh
pursuant request of the applicant and uh
and the motion from the board
member uh wow folks that's a lot of
information that you threw at us tonight
and a lot of information that you threw
at the general public and
uh it it was very very helpful and very
good to hear it but I think it might
have been a lot a lot of food to eat for
one one night so I appreciate you're
tabling it because I think it makes
sense or requesting the table um because
I think it'll make for a better
consumption of the all the details we
need to to think about to to vote
properly on this matter so with that uh
mayor do you want to go ahead and kick
the last uh hearing for the facade
Grant or is he still with us I'm always
with you Bob so
by do I want to test my volunteer board
to see if you guys like have enough
stamina to handle five more minutes I
don't know it's up to
you I think we can do that look at look
at all those uh those applicants like
fleeing as quickly as possible like
it we're out of here oh sorry was that
broadcast I apologize
you're Mr
chair you can you can censor
me you know that we have five I mean I I
don't think U I think we can listen to
five more
minutes I
can yeah we've already come this
far
we have uh funding for facade grants on
Main Street and Cassidy actually um in
situations where Property Owners want to
make improvements to their buildings the
program works like this it provides 35%
up to 35% of the cost of an improvement
up to $110,000 based upon the
availability funds Gay Street realy has
applied for a facade Grant they've
applied for
$7,350 out of a $21,000
project I have told them based upon
available ability funding we can provide
$561
38 that money that money was
appropriated in our 2020 budget and
carried over for this Express purpose uh
the bap's role in this is to Simply look
at the project and it's just a checks
and balance to see if if you deem it to
be an improvement uh to the facade um
considering all other aspects of the
code the the Cod not the the ordinance
requirements for this have been met this
instance uh they're looking at putting
up Lighting on the front of the building
it has been an improvement that has been
approved already by staff as an
allowable Improvement to the property
they're looking at a combination of wall
Min mounted down lights some Hardscape
lights um and inground well lights to
provide a wash of soft white light along
the facade of the building at the
northwest corner of Drexel and Maine on
both the North no sorry the South facade
facing Main Street as well as the East
facade facing Drexel Avenue so um these
are all sideways so you can either turn
your head sideways like kathern
Cunningham's doing which is cracking me
up in packet is uh a little bit more
like salesmanship uh with um you know
where the lights will go you can kind of
see what that looks like
so it's a uh a k sort of to what we see
at the gate the Gateway building when
you drive into beex you see that wash of
light against the brick that's kind of
what they're
going so uh you know I I'm bringing it
before you because I think it's a
appropriate use of facade funds as I
said I have set those aside for this
project assuming Bap
is uh okay with that use uh so again
this is not a zoning approval it's not a
design review it's a uh it's kind of a
funding check and balances so for
example if I brought you like a facade
Grant where they wanted to do an
inflatable Snoopy that kind of waved
back and forth you know in the front
yard you might not think that that was
an appropriate use of facade
funds I think this perfect location for
a facad lighting it's sort of the center
of the uh Bexley trade and and
Commercial area I think it's a nice
looking building has good visibility
from both Drexel and Maine in both
directions and uh and it's right across
the street from the capital portal there
I think it's a very good
idea um you also should know that a this
doesn't disqualify this but a there was
a a minor amount of facade grant funding
provided for the window boxes as well
that went in so you've noticed the the
plantings that happened now the FL the
past year or two that was a facade Grant
uh program as well hey Ben further down
the Pres further down the presentation
it looks like it's linked to the
apartment building also on the north
side of the alley is that correct it is
the very first
unit keep keep going down that's yeah
that this building right here yeah
um yeah it shows a p there you go and
next one shows the lighting on
it yeah so there's a little up lighting
right here above those that's a nice
patio I didn't even know that was there
um and then landscape lighting
throughout so that's a great Point Sean
sorry for not pointing that
out that's okay no I think I think that
that that's I think that'll be
nice is this just a up or down vote like
a yes or no yeah yeah yeah I I think so
uh mayor I think if we uh call the
question here and take a roll call we'll
see if we if you get positive
votes sounds good if you guys are ready
for it all right
uh folks do anybody have any more
questions or comments if not Kathy why
don't you call the role please I just
I'm sorry to interrupt is is this a
situation I was gonna say we're not
allowed to veto
like I'm asking for excuse me are we
asking for any testimony or is this not
appropriate for this I just want to make
sure that anybody's waiting for this is
addressed that's at the pleasure of the
chair I don't it's is there anybody that
is for Recon
this car is there anybody I don't see
anybody okay well if there's not anybody
in the AUD I should have asked but there
since there there's not I think we could
give it an up or down
vote Kathy go ahead and call the RO
we'll see Mr okay all those in favor of
approving the facade Grant um I I I I
I'll
not in favor say
nay all right okay you have unanimous
approval all right very good now
Catherine would like to go through our
rules and rags and see if you guys want
to make any
changes we got I'll pull up the drop no
problem guys all right hey I'm gonna
entertain a motion to
adjourn how's that uh I second there it
is there's a in a second and uh if
anybody got a little rough than anybody
else tonight I apologize because it was
probably me but I get a little tired and
uh you know how it goes I am on Medicare
so you know I
got chairman I think it was I think I
think it went as well as it could go I
mean I think I think there were a lot of
people talking and um I actually got got
more sidetracked by the first I didn't
realize that the second one was going to
be what it was so that one threw me I
was ready for the I was ready for the
later ones I wasn't ready for that early
one so at least
I I I radio you have a career in ch
radio if anyone for Callin radio I think
you handled all the calls very well
thank you he did I appreciate that
before before Rick leaves I want to say
Miss olivan there was a moment tonight
that I was like I would not want to be
like Sylvester Salone in like over the
top like arm wrestling you like you
looked so dead set at one point tonight
like I it was just very funny to me I
thought it was
funny no idea what you're talking about
but
uh oh sorry sorry this meeting is
officially
Jed good night night good night
everybody thank you