okay
what's up
[Music]
okay
that sounds like us
all right
we have a
quorum apparently
so i will um
call the
june
2022 meeting of the bexley board of
zonian planning to order
and ask
the
clerk ms rose to call the roll please
mr marsh here
mr devine
mr schick
mr hall here
mr turner here miss mitchell here
chairman behold
i'm here as well so we have a quorum
and there's a
opportunity here at the beginning of
meetings for
members of the public to make comments
about the operation of the board of
zoning and planning
not about any specific case but just
about the general operation
and
policies
if anybody is here to make such comment
please raise your hand let me know
i see no indication of such
so we will move on to approval of the
minutes has everyone had a chance to
review the may
2022
uh
meeting minutes
and if so does anybody have any
comments
questions suggested alterations
or modifications
or deletions
or additions i guess all right if not i
would entertain a motion to
approve the minutes of the main meeting
thank you
thank you mr turner second ms mitchell
all in favor of approving the minutes of
the main meeting say aye aye
all opposed
the mat the minutes are approved by
unanimous approval
[Music]
and let's see
is there a staff report here that i'm
listening to them before each case yeah
let me refresh it because i just did
upload it so it might just not be fresh
i don't think we have any
old business
so on to the new business
and the first case
which
involves
a 2844 elm
the applicant and the owner are heather
morman
is someone here on behalf of
the applicant
well i'll tell you what it's since it's
right at
6.05 why don't we just go to the next
case and we'll see if
is anybody here
for or against that case let me ask that
first
okay thank you then let's go to
uh the second application which involves
261 south parkview the applicant is todd
parker and the owner is jane bodner
is
mr parker here yes sir thank you sir
the
cure of the existing structure and a
variance to the side yard setback
mr parker if you'd come forward and
raise your right hand
i'll swear you in
do you swear or affirm any testimony
you're about to give this panel this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth
thank you very much
yes yeah turned out thank you you're the
first speaker
ms rose can you give us a little report
on
this
application please sure this lot is
located in the r3 zoning district which
requires a 12 foot side yard setback the
lot in this section the lots in the
section of south parkview are of
irregular shape and size and the lot in
question is almost an l-shaped lot
ranging from 104 feet wide at the east
end which is at the parkview side and
expanding to
167 feet
is
from the south side property line but
inset from the south side of the
existing structure
as this is where the lot narrows it
appears that the addition was designed
wider as opposed to extending further
back to work around the existing large
trees and driveway
and i will defer to karen for comments
from arb regarding that design
this application was recommended in the
positive to
this board for architecture review and a
certificate of appropriateness under the
consent agenda item so there was no
critique of it people were happy to vote
as a group
okay
all right very good
mr parker tell us why why are we needing
a variance here and um
why should the
board grant one
on the north side we're extending the
garage back
and the existing garage as ms rose
stated is seven foot six inches off the
property line and six what seven foot
six inches off the property line where
so it's an existing non-conforming
structure right um you know
architecturally it made sense to simply
extend that piece back
um throughout the design process
you know we we decided to add this other
little
bump out down on the south end and you
know literally like a foot of that by
six feet is in the side yard on that
that interior corner um and does that
extend the current line as well
it's extending from an existing bump out
on the house okay so we're keeping all
those walls in the same plane um the
difference is as you get toward the
west you're getting closer to the lock
line
to the uh
uh boundary of the parcel correct yes
thank you and these
these lots were recently it was two
parcels they were combined
um so you know we
we've indicated the setback says you
know as if it's one lot so
um and that's that's why we're here um
[Music]
you know the the north one is the
the challenge just because the existing
structure is non-conforming so
any questions or myself
members of the
board do you have any questions or
comments about this application
it's it's a very irregular lot there's
no question about that yes and i drove
by teddy just to you know it helps to
eyeball it when it's
this unusual
yeah none of what we're doing you know
is visible from parkview and it's really
not visible from
the rear
just because the density of the trees
and whatnot and
on the entire north side there's an
existing fence i'm not sure if it's our
fence or the neighbor's fence but it's
like a six foot tall privacy fence so
yeah
i mean the only
question that i would have is what do
the neighbors to the
north and south think and so let me ask
if there's anybody in the audience that
is here
uh to comment on this particular case
i see no indication of such
all right
any
questions from members of the board
no
kathy you want to do this in two
pieces or one
um
i would say one
that's okay
so
the findings in fact the conclusions of
law
for application number bzap
22-23 for property located at 261 south
parkview upon consideration of the
application proposed variants
and evidence
and testimony before the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to grant an area of variance
did we ask board members if they had
questions
okay i'm sorry
it's okay pay attention next time will
you
arie okay
to grant an area of variance to bexy
code section 12 26 11 c have been met
and the variance a four point four foot
five inch variance
and 11 foot two inch variance from
mexico section
1252.09 r3 zoning
to allow an addition to be constructed
seven feet six inches from the north
property line and 10 feet 10 inches from
the south property line
be approved as submitted
the board further finds
a certificate of of appropriateness
should be granted
in accordance with the
recommendation from the architecture
review board as submitted all right i
think you got it all
there mr uh parker are you okay with the
uh reading of the findings of fact
conclusions of law for us to vote upon i
believe so okay
do i hear a motion to approve the
fighting effect of conclusions of law
as read by ms rose
i'll summon
thank you miss mitchell i had it in my
mind did you yeah
you're in trouble you know
is there a second i second it thank you
sir
all right if you would please call the
roll kathy
who second did that mr marshall thank
you
all right uh
miss mitchell yes mr turner yes mr hall
yes schick yes mr levine yes mr marsh
yes chairman bihar i vote yes as well
the
both the certificate of appropriateness
and the variants are granted thank you
thank you very much
you like that back patio
very nice
all right um
you never said that would you join is
there anyone a lot of you're going to
get very jealous of your neighbors
[Music]
[Laughter]
do we have anybody here on 28 44 elm yet
yeah all right
let's go down to uh
922 chelsea the applicant is this is
case b z ap 22-24
applicant is
megan kleinman and the owners are megan
and randy kleinman
very good thank you
the applicant is requesting
architectural review and approval
a certificate of appropriateness and a
variance for a deck expansion ma'am if
you would come up
oh you can't call me now ma'am ms
kleinman
young for that ms kleinman that's right
as old as i am i understand you look
like my daughter so you know believe me
all right would you raise your right
hand though regardless of how i
address you do you still swear or affirm
that the testimony you're going to give
this evening will be the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth yes thank
you very much
all right
uh kathy can you please give us some uh
staff report on this application please
sure uh yeah so the owner has a deck
outside the rear entrance of the house
which is located in the r6 zoning
district and has a lot coverage limit
for building structures of 35 percent
they're looking to replace the existing
deck and extend it across the
south end
of the east side of the house which is
the rear and the lot coverage limit
will be exceeded by two percent
although small it still does not meet
code
i feel it's a nice improvement and the
variance would have very little impact
all right
and
uh
there was this did come before
architecture review board after much
clarification
ms kleinman
and um uh
understanding how they that that
everything that i questioned was
answered correctly how they're wrapping
the bottom what it's made of everything
the railing um and i relayed that to the
architecture report and they all passed
it as
recommended to this board as a consent
agenda item okay good if you want me to
clarify any of those items i'm happy to
or well if there's any questions that
arise with regard to them then you can
do so how's that
um
i'd say to say young lady i don't know
what to say
i didn't mean to make you feel
uncomfortable no you did not miss
climbing i'm i didn't mean to be
disrespectful either no i i i was just
joking i know you did
um
tell us why you're uh building this deck
and um
why we should um
give you a variance for the two percent
that you've exceeded your limits with
here two percent right so um the current
deck needs to be replaced it's rotting
um and
we're going to the what you're looking
at right now the the 15
uh
six inches by ten that's where what it
currently is right now
and we're looking to add the 10 by 12
behind where the house is um
there's a there's a living room area and
at some point we'd like to have sliding
doors to open to go onto the deck
but that's
that's really it just needs to be
replaced and while we're at it we
thought we'd add a little bit more okay
and since it's only two percent i
respectfully request variance
all right
and that's my dog
well
two percent is more than zero i guess
this is the problem like
um
is there anybody in the audience that is
for or against this case please
that wishes to speak
that has standing yeah all right
thank you members of the board uh
you
uh
see the pictures i think uh
and they give you a pretty good idea of
what they're doing and why
does anybody have any questions or
comments for
miss kleinman
okay
kathy these these long question and
answer pairs are not giving you a lot of
time to formulate your findings of fact
conclusions of law but if you're ready
to go can you give us the findings of
facts inclusion's law on this matter the
findings of the conclusions of the law
for application number bzap
22-24 property located at 922 chelsea
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven
that the criteria to grant an area of
variance to mexico section 12 26 11 c
have been met in a two percent variance
from mexico section 125209
r6 zoning to allow a new deck
at the rear of the property to be
replaced and expanded be granted as
submitted
the board further finds that a
certificate of appropriateness
should be granted
in accordance with the decision record
of actions from the architecture review
board's
june 9th 2022 meeting as submitted all
right
that sound
acceptable to you it is thank you all
right i do have one question uh-huh how
long is the permit good for from the
time that it is granted
typically a year as long as
construction's continuing if it expands
more than six months and there's no work
you could have to reapply but
okay because
um
we're not going to be able to start on
it until the spring because this has
pushed us back we were hoping to start
months earlier and we can't get on the
contractors
until the spring just got done two days
ago so you talk about next spring i'm
talking about next spring okay so that's
going to be
nine months from now right which is
before a year but it is do i need to
reapply again and we will have to go
through this process again
oh no this this approval is good for a
year
and i just can't wait a one year
extension
so you've got two years to get your
permit
great okay
without having to reapply and pay an
application
jazz perfect okay okay very good good
question
thank you said it that's well we have to
vote oh sorry i have a motion
you have to get uh a few a few yes votes
first also move
thank you there's a motion to approve
the findings of fact conclusions laws
there are a second please
second thank you rick
kathy please call the role
uh
mr hall
yes mr turner yes miss mitchell yes
mr marsh yes mr schick yes mr levine yes
chairman
i vote yes as well you have an approved
certificate of appropriateness and a
variance to go build a deck with thank
you congratulations
thanks very much you guys have a great
night thank you thank you
the next case involves 377 south
roosevelt
the applicant is dean burlon and the
owner is nathan green do we have those
folks here
one of those nights
all right is there anybody here that is
for or against that case
all right in that case we'll move to the
next
case which is
application number
one seven four four six involving 131
south hardmoor
the owner and the applicant
both are michael danczak and the
applicant is requesting a conditional
use permit for a home office
sir are you mr dam check i am would you
please raise your right hand do you
swear or affirm that the testimony you
give this board this evening will be the
truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i so swear thank you very much
kathy give us a little background on
this application for a
conditional use permit
so the home occupation is
requires a conditional use and there's
eight criteria to to meet that
conditional use
the applicant has provided an
application
as
he would like to have a home business
which is to practice law
and he has submitted
that he agrees to all the criteria if
you'd like me to read the criteria okay
okay
so no person other than members of the
family residing on the premises shall be
engaged in such occupation
yes the use of the dwelling unit for the
home occupation shall be clearly
incidental and subordinate to its use
for residential purposes but its
occupants and not more than 25 of the
floor of the area of the dwelling unit
shall be used in the conduct of the home
occupation he has he said yes
there shall be no change in the outside
appearance of the building or premises
or other visible or nuisance evidence
conduct of such home occupation
he's confirmed yes
there shall be no sales in connection
with the home occupation he has said yes
no traffic shall be generated by a home
occupation greater volume than would
normally be expected in a residential
neighborhood it says yes
any need for parking generated by the
contract from home occupation shall be
met off the street other than in the
required front yard and the off-street
parking spaces required for a home
occupation shall be maintained in
addition to the space or space is
required for residents itself which is
typically two
which is what i'm sorry two each home
should have two off street parking space
okay so one in addition to that he says
yes
so then it does ask to please provide a
narrative how you meet the criteria he
said i'm a sole employee of the michael
g
dantech company lpa i do not have
support staff i do not plan to meet
clients at my home
equipment used
in the business consists of the computer
file cabinets the floor area occupied by
the business will be well under the 25
of the floor area of the house there
will be no evidence visible from the
outside of the house of the
existence of the home occupation there
will be no sales in connection with the
home occupation the home occupation will
not generate traffic in greater volume
than expected in the residential
neighborhood and there is off the street
parking space sufficient for home
occupation
okay if he's meeting all these it's a
matter of procedures that it goes before
the board for confirmation if he didn't
meet all this criteria then the board
could certainly add conditions if they
wish to grant an approval
okay
all right mr dantran tell us what
what kind of law you practice and you're
going to be practicing in this location
perhaps that might be relevant and what
you what you intend to do with the home
office
um
basically i
intend to replace my office which was
downtown
uh from
1985 through
uh
end of april
uh i do mainly
uh real estate and some fifth floor
juvenile work
since
the covid pandemic
almost 100 percent of the hearings that
used to be
on the fifth floor in person are now by
zoom
so
i drive to court
maybe three times a month the rest of
the time
hearings are on zoom
i intend to continue doing that
you say the fifth floor the fifth floor
of which building 373 south high street
oh okay
okay gotcha all right
is there anybody in the audience that is
here
pro or con this request all right
a couple of people
check why don't we let them come up and
give us their point of view and then
we'll call you back up for uh additional
comments and rebuttal
sir if you don't mind if you'd be be
sworn in if 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
certainly thank you very much what's
your uh name steve piggett i would live
at 137 south ardmore and mike's
next-door neighbor okay i was just here
to mostly learn so i'm not for or
against um
most of my questions have been answered
we have a shared driveway so i was
concerned about people coming and
parking in the driveway that's been
answered okay the type of practice has
been answered i think i heard someone
say clients will not be on premise is
that correct
right um
no signage
correct
that's the last thing he needs is a sign
probably right
so your your concern would be if
somebody were to create a lot of traffic
or a lot of so i have young children
it's a neighborhood we have a lot of
young kids running all over the street
right my driveway in particular and
that's my primary concern yeah yeah yeah
so i i certainly think that's certainly
the concern of this board when we have
an issue like this uh arise so we're all
going to be on the same page in terms of
of uh having similar concerns very good
that's all i have thank you for coming
down here and telling us your
perspective on things thank you
mr morton please raise your right hand
you swear or affirm that the testimony
you give this evening will be the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the
truth i do thank you please state your
name uh robert h morton i live at 99
south hardmoor okay so you're right down
the street there yeah yeah
so what's your
perspective on this
request well i'm trying to learn what's
what's going to happen in that house and
uh
of course i don't want clients coming in
and out of there and congesting
the neighborhood more than already is
and they're young kids and
i just wanted to find out about
whether a business is moving in into
sure a residential area sure and and uh
i'm against that and uh if he has an
office downtown i don't understand why
he has to have one in the house
well maybe that he's closing down the
office downtown is what i gathered so
okay because
now all these
zoom hearings it's almost like you know
yeah who needs to be downtown anymore
but yeah i hear i hear what you're
saying and you have the same concern i
think the board has with any application
of this nature so
and you certainly know a lot about the
practice of law
you certainly know a lot about the
practice oh no no i don't but you watch
your dad do it for a long time well
that's right but uh in any case i just
want the neighborhood to still be a
neighborhood and not not be a business
a street of businesses that's right so
that's that's my all right that's my
idea and my next-door neighbor uh also
uh feels the same way all right so
anyway that's i just want to express
that well we appreciate you coming down
here to do so thank you thank you okay
sir i think we're good i think that
kind of supports steven
concerned about a business in the
neighborhood okay there's not going to
be any signs there's going to be limited
to that now i've got to get you up here
under oath because this is a recorded
a recorded event
and let me ask you to raise your right
hand please state your name my name is
ed hess and
this mr hess do you swear or affirm the
testimony you're going to give this
panel will be the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do fine
now tell us a little bit about what we
were just here the same with the same
concerns that i believe
had that you know we didn't want a
business in the neighborhood there's a
lot of little kids there we don't want
additional traffic there
and we certainly didn't want to sign out
front but i think as i've heard from the
ordinance part of it that none of that
will occur so i think we're good with it
what's your address 142 south ardmore
okay so you're right across the street
yep caddycore to
corner okay right across from steve all
right
well i think your concerns are similar
and i think there your concerns are the
same that we uh consider when we
scrutinize these kinds of applications
so thank you for coming down here this
year appreciate you thank your wife for
coming as well
all right
i appreciate that any questions or
comments from members of the board mr
dantrack once you come back up and uh
let's make sure that we
have a question more for kathy
with coven i mean
i'm not supposed to
i might be setting myself up but i work
from home now like what what is this
what is the difference between this
what i do
i mean
i'm just curious from a legal standpoint
what's the difference between what i do
and what he does or is there one you
need to be here next month
maybe it's i mean a lot of us have
worked from home during covid and it's a
an exception
because of special circumstances but you
know he's being up front and honestly he
wants to do this regardless if there's
code going on or not
and the code if you meet the criteria
will allow it if he does meet the
criteria yeah but i i guess the question
is is just more so if people work from
home
not necessarily even have a technically
a home office but if you just work from
home you should be in here applying for
i mean i think bob has put that in
perspective in the past sorry chairman b
hall has
people do work from home and you know
whether it's on an offer on a permanent
basis
how would i know but you know it's a
code that's you can request so that's
why okay i just was on other
other cases i just didn't understand
asking for a friend right
that's
good and other cases that we've had in
the past involve
a
psychology practice
where
patients would be coming to the house
we had a music do we have a music
teacher right and there are like
limitations to
limitations on specific types we're like
you know
limiting to like five students if you're
in an art class or something so
so it does get detailed when you're
doing something that's not typical well
i think that was what mike um
of course the first thing i thought was
what kind of signage is gonna be out
there but you legally have to register
your address as an attorney right if
you're correct with the supreme court so
it makes sense to me that he would come
and apply for
um a legal permission to be able to
operate out of his business because
that's also his
registered business address um
and i think you know having young kids
myself just knowing that you know you're
not seeing
seeing clients out of your home
except by zoom yeah it makes makes um
makes it a lot easier because
to your point i'm i work from home 99
percent of the time really yeah wow
did you get her addressed
did you get it
get me out of work but but the criteria
is established in such a way that
the neighbors probably wouldn't even
realize there's a home occupation
because we don't want signage and we
don't want cars coming and going they
probably see me throwing my computer out
the window they know something
well in this case
uh so
you are
abandoning your office downtown is that
was that true or is that still you still
going to have an office downtown no i
will not have an office town so
so
i take it your business has to do with
uh rental real estate and uh evictions
is that what's on five i've been to five
in so long i can't remember what's there
but no five is juvenile court uh
evictions or munich community court oh
many courts so you're in next store
you're in common please court yes
so what occurs on five in common police
court i'm just
curious
uh five courtrooms of the juvenile
magistrates
okay so you do juvenile
yes
work
got you okay
and
do
the um
do you have to deal with the parents
and guardians of the juveniles
frequently sure okay but they don't come
to see you
or they in 11 years i have never had
anyone at my office okay on that okay
and um you can conduct all the necessary
interviews on phone and zoom team and
all those things or by driving i mean
frequently i need to look at their
their residence so i go there gotcha
gotcha so where was your office
previously if i come out might ask
in and olivet tower since 85 before that
it was the ibm building
okay
all right
i think the possible exception is not
parking from the front
of the house
well he's another example of the folks
with the highest moral standing in our
society or lawyers
why are you laughing at us
i think it's
he's a perfect example of that
counseling counselor i would anybody
i'd like to add caps i think that this
is an awesome i think this is both a
exercise of integrity and very very
healthy skepticism um zoning is
as they hear me say often nobody likes
zoning until their neighbor wants to
paint their house purple coming and
asking these questions and stuff i think
is great as well
i'm not going to forget this case i like
this one and ms rose the conditional
the conditional use
it runs just with him is that correct
yes and and then then what happens if
if he retires then it just it's gone
correct okay or if he sells the house
the same thing it would be gone then as
well yeah it doesn't
it does not run with the land
mr hess
okay thank you all right very good all
right is there any uh additional comment
or question from any member of the board
i mean he i think he's gonna
be reducing traffic
and not going to work coming back
yeah probably
right right
um
with that in mind i guess there's
findings of fact and conclusions law and
conditional use permits as well so
finding some effect in conclusions of
law for application number 17446
for property located at 131 south
ardmore upon consideration
of the application provided variance and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds the applicant has proven the
criteria to meet grant in area variance
effects codes that doesn't apply does it
in this case no
uh the board finds out a variance from
no the board lines
that in accordance with mexico's section
1266.102
right that it's appropriate to allow a
home office related to a legal practice
and that it be granted
as submitted in accordance with the
required criteria
okay
so in other words the the technical part
of that that's important is as
submitted so whatever you provide in the
way of information about the kind of
practice and and the number of
clients would be there etc will be a
condition essentially of
the permit
right
and that's for the board members as well
so
uh
did that reading of the
findings of fact conclusions of law uh
seem acceptable to you it did okay thank
you mr nature uh members of the board if
you have no additional comments or
questions about the findings in fact do
i hear a motion to approve the findings
of fact conclusions of law
thank you mr pine second second mr mr
turner thank you sir kathy please call
the roll
mr marsh yes
miss mitchell yes
mr levine yes mr turner yes mr sheikh
yes mr hall yes chairman b hall i vote
yes as well your conditional use permit
is granted thank you for being so honest
as to come forth here and bring this
application thank you and don't forget
this update
yes
[Laughter]
you guys are a step ahead there
all right
just
to make a comment on that i guess
because he's actually changing his
business address to his own
like i work from home but my company's
not right here so he'll have to the
auditor they'll notify them so that
effectively
before he pays taxes
you know
very few professions have books this
thick that tell you what you can and
can't do right mr schick
i mean sales people they don't have a
book this thick that tells them what
they're allowed to do and not do my god
all right let's go back up to hell elm
street we might have to make some
determinations here as to what to do i'd
like to comment on that okay i actually
have received a letter from the neighbor
that's immediately next door to this
property and they live on a corner lot
so this is basically the only
neighborhood
affected
yeah i mean i drove by this to see how
tight that was it's pretty tight
but i mean i'm happy to read the letter
if you'd like from the neighbor if you
want if we want to get into that case
well how can we
i don't know you know reading this
letter it's it's hearsay and here we go
it's notarized it's notarized okay
but if they're not here to reply
yeah i mean and it's yeah is it pro or
con let me ask you something support
it's in support interesting okay
i i tell you what just because uh
i went and looked at it i mean it's
tight and i think we ought to have a
hearing on it before we make any
movement so i would certainly
there might been some problem here
tonight maybe
i would certainly entertain a motion to
table this to the next meeting
this is elm
i'll move bzap
22-21
uh
the applicants have been
uh called to the podium and they're not
here table to july 28th okay and there's
a motion mr schick
dismissal seconded
all right
ritual second and that is to
a table this
this matter until the
july
28th meeting of the board of zoning and
playing
uh
all in favor of the motion to
to um
uh that's what i wanted
people thank you very much uh say aye hi
all opposed
the motion is table the matter is tabled
and then let's see
i'll make a motion to table 377 south
roosevelt let me call and make sure
there's nobody here that is watching on
on television or here present that's
uh
i'm appearing on behalf of the applicant
dean berlon or the owner nathan green
versus case bzap 22-26
mr um
does anybody know anything about this
kathy in terms of
who i think might not be here excuse me
i i was in touch with the applicant
because originally he had filled out a
minor architecture review application
and
we asked him to fill out his zoning
application because
of the fact that
most people build garages that are
standard square with the ridge this
one's a shed garage
and we've set an eve height when we
updated the accessory structure code
just to keep these eaves from being too
high on the standard because then it
pushes the roof to height absolutely
well the roof
the height of a garage is 18 feet that's
loud however the eaves are limited to
nine feet and this structure
one eave is at 12 feet which exceeds the
height limit by two feet and the other
eave
meets the nine foot height limit so it's
really a different shape garage and
maybe we hadn't really thought about
that but it's still technically a
variance required because of the eave
height okay yet it's still under the
height allowed for a garage and i think
it's appropriate uh that that mr
marsha's motion's appropriate
is there a second to the motion to table
this matter i'll say it thank you ms
mitchell
um
all in favor of tabling
this matter involving 377 south
roosevelt say aye
aye all opposed there's no opposition so
the matter is tabled
um to july 28th yes
now is that not that doesn't need to go
to architectural review for the
different design
because it's a
shed look okay
question but
it's
probably should
i always think that
it should
yeah
it didn't
it missed the deadline because it was
filed as an mma but yet if had he filed
the proper application he would have
fell on these agendas and by the time we
realized it needed a variance
architecture so we yeah we probably
would have had to recommend that final
design to them okay
then two things
first one is
ms mitchell
are you leaving us
yeah
what is the story on that
well um
you're on every board in central ohio i
don't know
that's kind of the what's leaning that
decision so my mother is
aging and ill and
a lot of my free time is
kind of divided up amongst these various
boards so as my time has come up i've
made the decision to to roll back and
take some time back so i can focus on
her so well listen
you have also got you're the chairman of
another board your your kids yes so you
got a few uh things but i think it would
be
we would be remiss not to say how much
fun and how how insightful you've been
as a member of the board and how much
we've appreciated having you because i
thought you i think you brought some
freshness
to it that you know in some cases
because you weren't as familiar with
zoning issues but
uh it made some it made some questions
arise that i think those of us that are
almost
numb to it uh wouldn't think to to ask
so i want to tell you that it's been a
lot of fun and
i appreciate all your involvement and i
think the board
all commend her for
everyone has always been very gracious
in
giving me some time to sort of learn and
understand
and ask those questions so
i sit on a lot of boards this is the one
that is directly related to kind of what
i do for a living right you guys were
always very um
warm and gracious with that so i
appreciate it
thank you
can we make a motion to double her
salary for this month yeah
two times zero you know
yeah
we also have before us
uh this ordinance 20-22 which i think
the mayor wanted to come but he probably
didn't have any expectation we could
possibly be done with all these cases by
this timeframe
chairman take it easy of course
what
of course we're not efficient
i'm
interested he appears out of the blue
on two i might add
is uh
is the councilman klinger going to join
us as well
he may he he i believe is a soft or
softball or baseball game with his kids
so he may not want to go
i don't know the guy behind the curtains
wait yeah that's right yeah
so actually mr klingo i believe is with
us hey matt are you there
hey guys
there you go
what's the score
uh two to two we're playing the gahanna
lions the bexley
uh girls fourth grade wreck
tournament game so high stakes tonight
beautiful
beautiful all right
uh the mayor passed this out last
meeting and uh to give us a little
chance to review it and to
ask any questions we had about it but
what we're looking for is either a
recommendation
of approval
uh for the city council
uh or not i guess is one of the
alternatives there's two alternatives
either we approve it or we don't or we
make some suggested changes to it i
guess is another possibility but
um
do does everybody on the board and and
mr hall i don't know how familiar you
are with this
idea that we're going to do some stuff
on livingston avenue and this is giving
the uh
plan adopting a plan for how we're going
to try to slow traffic down make it a
little safer make it more pedestrian
friendly etc yeah i studied the plan
since ben was in here last time and
presented it and i think it is pretty
awesome
um it's very ambitious
but uh
i think ultimately you know getting a
plan in place like this will provide
direction for the long haul and if we
can all work if this
if bexley and columbus can work together
collaboratively and pull it together i
think it's a win-win situation for
everybody
i agree we'll take awesome and ambitious
so that's that sounds good to us
right
you'd rather be overly rather than
underly ambitious
and just a mr chair if i could clarify
the
the plan itself has a has several
components but the the part that is
specifically under question tonight is
codifying the the design guidelines so
there's a design guidelines section
within the plan itself that would become
the reference for
arb and bzap and making decisions about
applications within the livingston
corridor
okay
and that would be under design standard
section 2
and
buildings
and landscaping and screening
yeah so that and i think hold on let me
pull it up uh and also streetscape
design guidelines section six
yep
okay
um and so the ordinance itself this
ordinance is it's unusual to bring these
app into it because typically council
approves
these ordinances they're about like
approving the plan itself
but it also codifies the design
guidelines portion of the plan
um currently
it's sort of a the zoning
refers to the main street design
guidelines which don't really work on
livingston so i think it's a
it's absolutely an improvement in a move
in the right direction
and of course if down the road we feel
that like there need to be updated
design guidelines for livingston we can
always do that but this is a really
excellent i think uh piece of progress
uh for the corridor
right
matt is there anything you wanted to add
to that
no uh i i agree with mr hall i think
it's um ambitious but that's that's the
way we do things um dream big and
go get it done so i'm
in fully support of the whole entire
plan i think a lot of really talented
people came together to put this
together and uh we're very excited to
have columbus on board with it too so
nothing further to add
i have one question
what is the term
road diet
mean
so a road diet is an urban planners
uh term to to refer to
infrastructure changes that calm traffic
basically
in this instance livingston is a four
lane road with no center turn lane so
the road diet
in the short term would take it down to
three lanes with a center turn lane
and
while that might seem like a decrease in
volume capacity it really isn't because
what happens is currently
people are turning left in the left-hand
turn lane makes the left lane unusable
and it actually results in a lot of the
accidents that we see is when that left
lane becomes unusable people are veering
around really quickly
so the road diet it's a calming
narrowing
um mechanism to slow traffic and sort of
return it to the residential corridor
that it started out as
over time it has creeped into this
transit corridor
it is both and so this
this is aimed to help restore the
balance to provide a safer environment
for both the residents on the street and
also the pedestrians
using it
do you anticipate that
the traffic volume
at the peak hours now mostly what we're
interested in will decrease
i mean it could the
the the solution that has
been recommended here
according to our traffic engineers and
their good traffic engineers
is
uh capable of handling the current level
of the current volume of traffic so the
volume could decrease over time because
it's a little bit slower
the other thing we could see is we could
see a little bit more traffic on you
know main street and some of our other
east-west corridors
um and again i think we're pretty
confident that putting the right
solution in place for the right corridor
is the right thing
for our residents in our neighborhoods
and what's really exciting about this
plan
is that columbus
truly legitimately 100 percent came to
the table i mean they really are
behind it we are going to see this
change in lanes happen this year later
this year
at least that's what they tell us it's
in their budget
uh long-term plans we're already part of
a joint application uh to some federal
funding for those
so we're we're moving forward um the
zoning piece is really important i think
like i said in the last meeting a couple
months ago we had a zoning case on
livingston and the the design guidelines
in this plan already came into came into
being in terms of like the impact that
they had on that decision and the way
that we talked about it
right
then what would happen if columbus
somehow backed out or let us
status down
that
so there are still zoning pieces on our
side which is exactly what we're
considering today
um
that would
still i mean still kind of steer us in
the right direction the other piece of
it is
providing a better safer pedestrian
experience in the bexley side
and down the road that will require a
little bit of right-of-way acquisition
in the residential portions
which again doesn't have to do with your
decision tonight but it is a piece of
the plan
in order to provide sidewalks that are
set further back from the curb
we'll still pursue that even if columbus
somehow
backs off of the plan
but the trivial funding that we're
seeking together is the whole thing so i
think
you know columbus
has staked
this as their first vision zero program
and vision zero is a
has to do with pedestrian safety and
corridors
and and it's
it's uh there's a lot of weight and
effort behind this so i feel really good
about it
but at the same time i think it's a good
question
another piece to this is we're um
we are seeking to and it's part of it's
in the plan it's mentioned
get dedication of right-of-way from the
curb to the north because currently the
right-of-way all of the right-of-way
links to include in the sidewalk
is in the city of columbus so we're
asking the city of columbus for
right-of-way north of the curb they've
agreed to that
so even if they back out of some of the
infrastructure changes down the road
we'll have more self-determination
in the future than we have today so i
think
even even if it becomes a diluted
version of itself it will be positive
so
what about bus traffic
damn livingston now so if
the bus stops
all the traffic stops
that's right
um that is correct if the bus if the bus
stops and there aren't i mean there are
bus stops on livingston it's a great
corridor for coda if the bus stops there
is a backup
and there's not a way to legally get
around those buses um
we know from
seeing columbus put this in others
um similar circumstances that it works
so while there are some concerns like
in practice it has worked out but yeah
there will be a little bit of a backup
of the bus stop and we see that on main
street sometimes
um
and it main street continues to function
uh even with that
temporary stoppage condition
eventually will the
distance curb the curb get narrower
the
the long-term plan that the curb to curb
would stay the same
but the median itself would widen so the
short term plan has a wider curve i
think or not a curved shoulder i think
is you're kind of alluding to
long term the median widens into a
landscaped
you know actual
improved median
um and so that would bring the lane on
the right and left those north you know
the east and west lanes into like a
standard lane with
so the way this the short-term striping
works the there's a central lane
and then there's
the travel lanes and then there's i
think a three or four foot shoulder
um
that's striped
uh not enough to go around traffic but
enough that there's additional
distance between vehicles and
pedestrians on the sidewalk
and then one other question
this is just more curiosity beyond
bexley's city limits
how much farther each direction down
livingston are they doing this is this
basically gonna stop at nelson and stop
it
i don't know roosevelt
james
yeah james james is the east portion
nelson is the west portion but they're
they're they've already started a plan
that's planning process similarly in uh
in the driving park area so the area of
nelson
between basically nelson and children's
hospital
is going through a similar process right
now
thanks
to desperately
through the commercial sector that is
west of college
so the lane reconfiguration will not
occur west of college because there's
too much traffic volume for it
um the long-term plan and and this is
you know this is an important
consideration it's not energy this
portion would not be in our zoning code
but it's in the plan itself and council
adopted it this is important
um does call for trying to figure ways
to have like a a circulation route
behind property so that we could start
to close some of those curb cuts on
livingston avenue
the columbus side has that circulation
the bexley side does not so we it does
say that council should consider down
the road
the potential rezoning of portions north
of the current commercial district in
order to provide for some circulation
so they can close curb cuts in order to
accommodate what keith
sorry mr hall called ambitious and
awesome
um
but that that again that's a down the
road scenario um but it would basically
to achieve similar traffic coming in the
commercial district we're going to have
to see some of those left-hand turns
into commercial businesses close and
that would require a little bit more of
a dramatic change down the road
hey ben could i ask a quick question
if for any reason um columbus were to
negate which i don't believe that they
would but if that were to happen would
we be eligible to apply for those
federal funds as a city ourselves to do
the work that we'd want to
complete no
i mean not today because it's not our
right of way
so we could we could um
you know assuming the right-of-way
transfer occurs north of the curb we can
impact where our sidewalk
is relative to the curb but that
and and we can you know we can formulate
our zoning and we can work on
curb cuts and that sort of thing on our
side but we wouldn't be able to make any
changes within the street right of way
south of the curb
thank you
then what department have you been
working with primarily at the city
columbus
like all of them but mostly the the
service department service yeah
hey ben um
is there any discussion about that has
been going on maybe with developers
about doing maybe a private public
partnership to help redevelop this this
whole
i think the key to this is really the
this little business district is there's
no doubt about if we if there's a way to
implement this through the residential
area that's that's going to beautify
that street beyond anything
but the number of curb cuts the types of
businesses they're drive through
restaurants they're auto stores
um a gas station car wash
those sort of things
you know
those you look at these beautiful
renderings and those those aren't what
you're seeing here
and i think the only way to get there is
to encourage you know development or
redevelopment actually
um you know towards something like this
and i'm just wondering if there's any
um efforts um going with that right now
or is that something that's in the
future or is it on the table at all well
it's been it's great question it's been
going on for a while
and we might we might not see the fruits
of it
first off the car wash is like the best
use we have today because because i have
to i have to give it out to moomoo they
the way that they maintain their
property and take care of that property
is exceptional so there's that i'm a
frequent throw the car wash i know what
you're saying so i think um i think that
so first off our the i think the biggest
most important stakeholder between
college and the creek is the jcc in
wexner heritage village
and
we've been having these conversations
with them for years and they've been at
the table as part of this plan and we
are all on the same page that we believe
that you know that public-private
partnership and changing land use
in
infusing you know additional outside
capital into redevelopment is going to
be an essential component to realizing
the the long-term vision it it goes way
beyond regulatory or zoning changes i
agree with that
well so there is
do we need to uh
i think we need to have a motion
uh if everybody feels like they've been
able to review this and they've had
their questions answered uh we we need a
motion
uh to approve or to yeah to recommend
approval
of the ordinance as a set forth here
uh for city council
is there such a motion
thank you mr turner second
second
thank you mr marsh
any further discussion
any modifications or suggestions that
anybody like to make change the word
diet there's just a formatting error on
um
page four but that's it above uh little
w parking in circulation that's it newly
noted page four format and error
all right
with that what is the ordinance number
that i can connect uh 22
20 20-22 thank you correct yep
and i'll read it there's an ordinance
adopting the 2022 joint livingston
avenue plan and amending
section 1254.12
bexley city code commercial service
district design standards to incorporate
the design standards provided for
in the joint livingston avenue plan
so with that
all in favor of recommending approval of
the plan say aye
aye
all opposed nay
i i will abstain just because i think
that's appropriate ms mitchell is
abstaining she's a resident of
livingston avenue and she also she also
i want to call out alicia because she
was she was part of the steering
committee and thank you alicia so much
for your time and your energy with that
yes it's super exciting
she's quitting your committee too if
she's going to quit ours so well they're
done with me we've asked a lot we've
asked a lot of alicia and i just want to
i i heard i heard your uh your
acknowledgement of her before mr chair
and i also wanted to echo that thank you
all thank you alicia for all your work
very appreciated
all right is there any other meeting
before the the
board this evening if not
sorry mr chair one more quick thing as a
matter of update if i could
sure please so there's a solar ordnance
if you'll recall
uh we we brought that language to the
architectural review board and asked for
some feedback we're getting we have an
amended version
to them we're asking them for some more
feedback on that so we'll be bringing
that back to you as a proposed amended
uh but it's not ready yet for that so i
just want to make sure you guys were
aware of that
thank you and i i was going to comment
i've never seen a aerial picture of city
hall but i didn't realize are all those
solar panels on top of city hall
you guys are currently
yeah it's sunny outside you're currently
being powered by the sun
so good work well done
i never realized that that's pretty cool
it's a good perfect place for them it is
every month
sure
with that
i would entertain a motion to adjourn
so much
meetings adjourned thank you
thank you everyone