what that's about and we'll talk about
it more in depth later okay
so you basically would always need a
minimum of three
sounds good to me right yep it makes
sense really
you're live okay i will start the
webinar
we are live
all right is it six o'clock yet
oh just exactly six o'clock exactly
all right
i see we dropped the case that i had to
recuse myself from
but i still need to state something
regarding that
okay so do i wait for that case or do it
now
yeah let's wait till we open the meeting
uh officially here and um
so i'll call to order the
may 2021 meeting of the bexley board of
zoning and planning
um kathy will you call the role
of the board members that are present
please
ms mitchell
here mr turner
mr marsh
i think he said here we could read his
lips
mr oh mr powell here
and mr levine has he joined us yet yes
i'm here
thank you and chairman b hall
i'm here as well thank you very much uh
has everybody had a chance to review
the minutes of the april meeting
and if so uh are there any
uh suggested changes amendments
omissions modifications
uh that anybody would like to bring to
the board
hearing none i would entertain a motion
to
approve the minutes of the april 2021
meeting
so moved is there a second please
second thank you alicia uh
all in favor say aye
aye aye aye all opposed
please say nay or raise your right hand
so we can see you on the screen
the minutes are approved by by
acclimation
um does anybody is there anybody in the
audience outside of the board members
karen
yeah there are seven attendees in the
audience but
i don't see um they all look to me like
they
are representing projects but if anybody
has public comments
that don't pertain to any um
that's cool is anybody in the audience
have any comments about the operation of
the
of the bees app or any questions about
or i should say commentary about
uh the general nature of our enterprise
as opposed to
any particular case which uh is not this
is not the time to talk about any
particular case please raise your hand
on the on the website
i see no one okay thank you karen
um
the first case kathy is
a staff report on
is this the one you were discussing
earlier no
the the lot split is is the one i was
discussing
earlier okay
all right then uh should we go to old
business first
um
which is um involves 471
north view yes is that
the right order of operation here in
your opinion
yes okay thank you so the
first case
uh let's see here
trying to
uh is application b z
ap dash 20-22 involving 471
north view the applicant is nicholas
kinney
the owner is lydia katrsky
and this involves a request for a
privacy fence
along the northwest property line 15
feet
into the city's right of way uh
kathy do you have any uh comments on
this case karen i assume you don't have
a comment on this case
from the arb no but there are a lot of
um
images that are uploaded as you probably
all have had a chance to see
so kathy or nick do i
keep into the room um
just let me know what you need to be
brought up i think
the key plan is probably most helpful
when i'm giving my staff report
do you know the very first one yep sure
okay so those little boxes with the x's
on it
those represent my vehicle in their
driveway and it is city right-of-way
the red x the red x represents the
corner of the property line
so this case was before the board of
zoning and planning in august of 2020 at
that time the applicant was seeking a
one foot four inch variance from
bexicode section 1264.03 c
which limits a fence to four feet in the
height on the street side of a corner
lot it would need a special permit from
the board of zoning and planning
at the last meeting there was concerns
from the neighbor to the west of this
property
relating to fence creating a problem
viewing traffic on caroline avenue
when backing out of their driveway after
visiting the site it was found that this
22
feet of grass right-of-way there is 22
feet of grass right away
between the edge of caroline avenue and
the north property line
before 71 northview which provides
a little more than a card length to view
pedestrians in vehicular traffic
i found that the existing excuse me
vegetation within the right-of-way
to be more of a hindrance as shown in
photographs that
that i'll have karen share with you as
well and did not allow
did not allow for good visibility i
believe they have the fence extending
16 feet beyond the north wall of the
garage
may provide necessary screening along
the west
property line and still leaves 13 feet
of their yard before you get to the
north edge of the property where the 22
feet of the grassy portion of the
right-of-way begins
there was also discussion at that time
the fact that the right-of-way is so
large
and should there be improvements made
that that could also
play a part of what we we allow
would impact so the good thing is the
fact that this has waited so long is i
have a copy of the bexy roadway
improvements proposed on caroline avenue
for this year
and i spoke with the city engineer
and there's a dashed line that basically
shows the south edge of caroline avenue
may be extended to two feet
to make to basically make that road even
on both the north and south sides of the
street
so you still will have 20 feet of city
right-of-way grass
before you get to the property line so
if that
fence is proposed to be say 16 feet from
the north face of that garage
you're still going to have another 14
feet before you get to the property line
so so i don't see this as
hindering the view of pedestrians or
vehicular traffic
because what's really the problem is the
amount of vegetation that exists there
now
and there's photographs that i had taken
while sitting in the neighbor's driveway
looking both over my right shoulder and
my left shoulder
while in my driver's seat so karen if
you want to go to the pictures i'm happy
to
okay subscribe i'm just going to kind of
scroll through everything and tell me
when to stop
okay there okay so here's you're looking
from caroline at their garage
so you've got 49 feet once they make
that street improvement
of before you get to that house and the
fence is proposed along that right-hand
side let's go and that's the photo of
the type of fence that she would like to
do
right here let's do the next photo
this is looking from her driveway my
vehicle is
in the city right of way so that's
little white stake is the corner of her
property
and when you look to the west which we
are
you can see the vegetation there and
there's more vegetation even further
closer to the street
let's go to the next one
and then this is standing looking at
there's another stake at the that's on
drexel
so you're looking east
let me go to the next one
next okay and here's
here's looking from caroline how far
back before her corner of her property
begins
and and it's only going to be half the
distance from that garage to that state
so it really isn't an issue as far as
being able to see let's go to the next
one
this is me in the neighbor's driveway
and i'm looking to
over my left hand shoulder and and that
that stake is somewhere
that's big second bush in that stake is
kind of like in the middle of that or to
the right but that bush and the light
pole
and that's more where you're trying to
see pedestrians or vehicles
next photo and this is looking over my
right hand shoulder in the neighbor's
driveway that's in his yard so i don't
know how he sees backing out of there
but
that's the same tree
yes
so there you have it in a nutshell and i
believe nick will be here to represent
this case
yes i'm here thank you kathy that was
very thorough
nick um this is bob b hall uh would you
raise your right hand to be sworn please
thank you do you swear or affirm that
any testimony you're about to give this
evening will be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir i do thank you very much tell us
a little bit about
what you're planning and what what we
should be considering here
yeah so uh lydia has accepted or is
comfortable with the idea of extending a
fence 16 feet beyond
the front face of her garage which you
can see
uh in the photo here um
she just wants some added privacy the
neighbor has sort of removed a lot of
the
uh trees and bushes that are here and
she has some
less than desirable views into his
backyard
where he stores trash cans and recycling
bins and
um jet skis and all manner of things
so she's just wanting to protect that
view from her
from her driveway and she's comfortable
with the
the 16 foot extension at the full height
allowed
of the fence um out from the front of
her garage
so that's what we're looking to do okay
she said 24 feet would be better but
she'll accept 16.
um is there are there any
questions first from members of the
board about this to make sure we all
understand what the facts are here or
what the what the application is
yeah so i i've got a question so i mean
i guess
you know when we look at you know zoning
code
i'm not sure i understand the purpose of
bringing the fence out i
i mean yeah it blocks the trash cans of
the neighbor's house
but that part of the house is a garage
so you're not really even looking out
windows at that portion of the
neighbor's house so
um i mean usually we deem zoning stuff
as
you know a hardship or a necessity and
i i mean really i guess the question i
have is what what's the purpose the only
purpose i see is that you bring it out
so that
when you pull in the driveway you don't
see the neighbors trash cans
um i guess definition of
why you want to bring it up yeah
thank you um so in between where the
proposed fence would go
and the right hand corner of her garage
is a walkway that goes back to her pool
and with the vegetation being removed
it's a very exposed walkway
um sometimes she has friends and guests
come over that are in
bathing suit attire and she feels like
there's not enough privacy there so
it's it's twofold to also you know
protect the view from her driveway
but also to provide privacy to her and
her guests
as they head back to utilize her pool
okay
i'm not sure i understand the vegetation
is a problem is the vegetation
appropriately
located it is in city right-of-way so i
guess that's something that
you know perhaps we could speak with
code enforcement about and if it's you
know
a hazardous situation because typically
along sidewalks you have to keep your
vegetation back right but in this case
it's a little different because you're
blocking view from the vehicular traffic
which was coincidentally what his major
objection to
our first proposal was the first time
was that
um that he felt that it would the fence
coming out to
where we have it drawn would impede um
his visual
and potentially put people using the
sidewalk in danger
right i remember that is there anyone in
the audience
here that is to wants to speak to this
application either
for or against raise your right hand
raise your hand on the
screen if you are i don't see anyone
with their okay
so who controls the vegetation in the
right of way the landowner or the city
well i mean we typically plant trees in
the right of way so
when there's vegetation that's a problem
i i think that's something that
code enforcement could technically you
know cite them for
or perhaps you know the parks department
they may want to
remove it yeah i mean i can certainly
bring it to their attention but i just
wanted to point out that i don't think
the fence is as much of an issue
as the existing vegetation okay kathy
i'm sorry
i misunderstood so the city planted the
the
no yeah no we we only typically plant
trees tall trees so these shrubs these
shrubs that are planted were planted by
someone else
yes and they've been there over the
years this is a
wide right of way and a lot of people
think that you know
they own to the street so you know
things happen and
if we're not there when this is
happening and nobody's complaining then
you know it can get to a point where
it's overgrown
so my thought and this is just my
thought
vegetation or fence there's still a a
um concern that
a line of sight is being blocked so
what you're proposing and i just want to
be clear on is that
this fence where it would end this fence
line would end
would eliminate the the line of sight
issue
now i just wanted to clarify that the
fence is not a
line of sight issue the existing
vegetation
is but with with a new fence where it
would stop would not
then replace the
it would not become a new line of sight
issue no that fence would be
20
it'll be 30 30
35 feet back from the street
so and typically we have you know
regulations on
corners where people plant in their
yards so that you can see
at intersections but this is just along
the streetway and it's been here for
quite a long time so i guess it's
just kind of out of sight out of mind
and you know no one's complained about
it until
we've actually had this case so kathy
the northern
end of the fence is within the property
line is that correct
it is so what is the what's the variance
that's necessary for you
you're allowed to put a four foot high
fence
anything taller than that requires
a variance anything four foot to six
foot
because it limits the height to four
feet oh anything within 20 feet of that
north side
property line so they don't want to come
all the way out to the end of their
property but they just want to provide
privacy and they wanted to go higher
than four feet they're proposing a five
foot four inch fence
and they also have the decorative
opening at the at the top
she was planning to modify this fence
because these panels come in six
missing feet
i mean she just put a four foot fence
all the way out to the corner of her
property
with no variance but because she wants
to make it five foot four inches
that requires a variance so that's what
we negotiated
only allowing it to come out 16 feet
from the face of that garage
they find that acceptable it certainly
isn't a visibility problem for
vehicular or pedestrian traffic okay
she did want to know i'm sorry to
interrupt uh if if she could come out
further than the 16 feet what would be
if if 16 feet was the maximum allowed
under the variance you guys are prepared
to give her
well i think at the 5 foot height that's
your question
nick correct yes sir five foot four inch
five foot four five foot four
well i'm getting the sense that at five
foot just because this case has been
before us before that at five foot four
inches 16 feet
is probably where we would be willing to
come to
to consider it but i'm i'm just making
that
wild guess so if anybody on the board
has a different
position or please let me know
or please associate on the record
kathy can they go from the end of the 16
feet out to the corner with four
they could extend their from there on
with a four feet so they could go from
here
they could because that would not
require a variance
okay
i do have a hand raised now
okay is there somebody in the audience
with standing that wishes to talk to
this
uh to this case it's actually an
applicant from
another case angela niemeyer okay
does she have standing let's let's ask
her angela
yes do you uh
the question is do you have standing to
comment on this case
so the question is where do you live and
i would be able to tell
if i had my i live one block over i can
if i'm looking out my front door i can
see jeffrey's home and then i can see
lydia's home
okay
okay so with that in mind would you
raise your right hand and be sworn
yes do you swear or affirm that any
testimony to give the board this evening
will be the truth and the whole truth
yes thank you so tell us what your
perspective is on this matter
my perspective is yes you can't first of
all
there is no sidewalk on that street
right
you're not worried about i mean people
are walking on that
street not on a sidewalk um
that vegetation has been there for years
and years i've lived in my home for over
16
that's always been there they use their
pool
in the summer all the time you see
people coming
and going in their swimsuits i believe
it would be
very beneficial to everybody to have
that barrier
um because they use it and they they
need it
and jeffrey has been working in the
backyard i think he's
you know developing something back there
and he's taken all that out so you can
see
and you can hear right through there
okay
well um so i don't know if that helps or
not but it would be beneficial for her
to have that barrier
i think with all right
and i don't know if she's going all the
way across the backyard
that part i don't know right she is not
she would just be going to the existing
edge of her fence
they use it all the time okay
angela thank you that's helpful for us
to hear
your perspective you're welcome thank
you
all right
are there any other questions or
comments from
the board
so kathy i think it would be good for us
to hear
the findings of fact bush's law in this
case at least so we hear what the
precise proposition is okay
the findings affecting conclusions of
law for application number bzap
20-22 for property located at 471
view upon consideration of the
application
proposed variants and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that
criteria grant an area of variance to
mexico section 1226.11
have met a
have been met in a variance six
wait a one foot four inch variants
from bexy code section 1264.03
c to allow a five foot four inch high
fence
to 16 feet from the north face of the
garage and along the west side
property line shall be granted
so you talked about the height did you
mention the length
yes 16 feet from the front north face of
the garage
okay thank you i'm sorry i miss i missed
that
all right uh any
uh discussion regarding the verbiage in
the findings of fact conclusions of law
or any further discussion for members of
the board
could i entertain a motion to approve
the findings of fact conclusions of law
please so moved thank you alicia
is there a second thank you jake jason
um all right kathy please call the role
mr levine yes
miss mitchell yes
mr turner yes mr marsh
yes mr powell yes
chairman b hall i vote yes
and the application is granted thank you
very much
ms kenny and uh
all the people who are well and there's
only one person near meyer but thank you
for
making comments on this case
all right thank you very much you're
welcome
the next uh case on the docket
i need to look at here is all right
that's all right my fault i should have
is printed out
application bzap-21-13
involving 187 south cassingham
uh the applicant is ryan brothers
landscaping
and the request is to change out
existing asphalt driveway to a pea
gravel
with limestone edging
is who's here to speak on behalf of the
applicant
if um you can raise your hand if you're
here for this case
that would be appreciated should be pat
ryan i
believe or the owner yeah i don't see i
don't know the owner
i don't see pat okay
is there anyone else not on this case
all right is there anybody in the
audience that is here to speak pro or
con on this matter please let me know
that
raise your hand on the computer screen
there is
nothing no hamstrings okay then let's go
to the next application and we'll
see if uh mr ryan or somebody else uh
appears on behalf of that
okay which brings us to the next case
which is case
number or application number b z ap dash
21-18 involving 481 north drexel
the applicant is angela nearmeyer the
owner is also angela niermeyer
and the request is to move and install a
new
91 foot long and six foot high
a wood privacy fence three feet north
to the property line
so with that uh angela
i i know you're here so uh you've
already been
sworn and you understand that uh you're
you're sworn with respect to this case
as as you were with respect to the prior
case
i just moved her into the panelist room
so okay thank you
takes a second angela
angelique can you hear me
angela niermeier she might be immuted
she is definitely in the room okay
[Music]
there she is angela
let me hear your voice so i know you're
hearing my voice
okay hello angela thank you
um you've already been sworn this
evening
so i just want you to understand that
your testimony that you're about to give
us regarding this matter
uh is under the same oath that you
previously took
yes uh
kathy uh i think this is another case
for you
is it not it is
tell me uh what tell the panel i should
say of
board members what the
pertinent issues are here okay this
applicant has
an existing six foot high wood fence
along the north
carolina avenue side of the property it
currently sits
three feet south of the north property
line the applicant would like to replace
the fence
with a similar six foot high wood fence
but relocate the new fence on the north
property line
a fence of this height in its current
location may have received a variance
from a prior owner
when a fence is replaced that has
received a variance staff can approve
the replacement
subject subject to verifying that
landscaping is being maintained
the reason the fence is most like which
is the reason the
fence most likely exists three feet
south of the property line
to provide space to landscape on the
owner's property
if the board finds it appropriate to
allow a fence on the north property line
staff recommends that the landscaping
plan
is subject to review and approval by the
tree and public garden commission
being it will be located in the city
right of way
the applicant has submitted a landscape
plan however the landscaping
is shown on the interior and i think
there's some ivy
that exists on the exterior side also
in these typical cases the board looks
for fences that have a more transparent
portion upper portion of the fence
anywhere from 12 to 18 inches
but the applicant is proposing to
replace it with a similar
solid wood fence
okay thank you very much angela what can
you add to that
uh rendition to help us
understand your uh request um
just that if i put a lattice on the top
i don't want people being able to look
in
i'm gonna have a pool right on the other
side of that so i wanted it as private
as possible
um and you can see how it's falling down
now they had to take um
the sections out to get back in there um
but it would be solid like it is now and
then i
i'll let the iv grow back on it
and the and we have other vining um
plants on it now
okay
and we're redoing the grass so the grass
will be all new
and the fence would all be new but it's
i would
i'm proposing the same fence just three
feet out
members of the board do you have any
questions
or comments about this request
cathy are they widening this portion of
carolina as well
they've already done that they did that
last year
yeah that is complete
um kathy that was uh i was actually just
gonna ask the same question if it
had been widened um they added those new
curves you can see them glowing in this
yeah i see him so her coming three feet
over is not gonna be like encroaching
onto the
the street there correct but that what's
outside that would have to be reviewed
by the
tree commission as far as landscaping oh
so
where it's at now that's for private
property and so
it it's subject to a landscape plan
whether it's
you know approved by this board approved
by a consultant
but once they move that fence and they
have to screen it with landscaping
then that's city right away and it's
subject to tree and public garden
commission
and angela is the extra three feet and
designed to give you more room for the
pool yes
excuse me not for the pool per se just
um
so we have more room right around the
pool
the pool was approved last time
so you currently have the pool in no
that's scheduled to be put in next month
i see and so you want more like of a
walk space around the pool is what
you're
well it will just be if you see that in
that other place it would be just
plantings and grass really
and well and walking space yeah they'll
have
it's in that one picture where what we
have um
here it is see how the um and it see how
the
walking space and the the chairs the
lounge chairs there
so i i am just trying to clarify is
there
currently a hardship that exists
other than you just want more space for
your prep
i mean i just don't quite
understand um
the request to move three feet into the
city right away
if it's not no it's not in the city
right away it's on the property line not
trying to go in the city right away i'm
just going to the property line
oh i see so kathy um once she moves to
her
property line that's where you're saying
that the um
that i have to be see where those trees
are the five trees i would have to have
those trees approved by the city
to put those there i see um kathy
just i'm just trying to make for certain
can you go back to the one picture where
the curved lines are in there can you
show me where
her property line is and where her fence
is now going
okay the fence there is a stake i guess
on the
other if you go to another picture it's
hard to see the steak
on this view well one more
okay see on that see the tree
um the pine tree the the bigger tree in
the back
there's a little bit of post with a
little orange flag on it
so i'm moving it from from where it is
now
to that sort of that tree line
the actual pin is closer to the tree
than it is to that post
okay that's clear that's better that's
three feet
it doesn't look like three feet to me
here but that's three feet
so i'm just asking to move it over it's
not going to block any
i mean it's our our property's connected
to the schottenstein so
nobody's pulling out it's not going to
block any
line of sight and then on the other side
is an alley coming straight
to it so it's not
it's not gonna look any different than
it is now
thank you kathy for the pictures and
thank you miss nehemiah for just
clarifying
i just was trying to understand where
where things are hitting so
i appreciate it is kind of laying down
on this picture
that's sort of where it is right
um
with no sidewalk there
how much pedestrian traffic goes up and
down the
grassy area versus the street they walk
in the street
okay
and what's the height of the fence
that's there right now that we're
looking at
six feet okay
all right any other member of the board
have any question
or comment yeah kathy the
the the pool fence that we approved at
denver and cassidy
i don't really remember that before was
did we allow six foot with no
clearance at the top or did we do we're
because it's a similar situation i don't
know how we can require one
do it not the other right we we did have
there was
a uh more open portion of the fence
that was located there but that
applicant chose to
put a row of arborvitae outside the
fence to provide
their screening right okay
okay
do we have other situations like this uh
kathy in bexley you can think of where
we're
we're lined up on a street and we're
asking for
no lattice six foot high fence
i mean older fences since we did the
redid the zoning code
that's when we implemented the 12 to 18
inches at the top
and the board felt that that was you
know something worthwhile
excuse me if you do drive around i've
seen some brand new fences that are six
feet without lattice
okay but but also
in in this case as i said before if she
wished to replace
that same fence in that same location i
could
actually just you know approve a
landscape plan
it because my job is just to verify that
the landscaping was maintained so
that must have obtained a variance years
ago previous owners possibly
and evidently the landscaping has
you know died off and it's
so that's where we're at
okay
all right um
i think we're probably ready is it
we asked for the resume in the audience
did we not
uh i think we did but i can check again
check again let's
see if there's everybody in the audience
um while she's checking can i ask a just
a
a question um so
i understand that the zone change where
we would require a lattice top
it was it predated my time on visa so
can you clarify for me what the spirit
of that change was for
and kathy as a second
side question because i don't recall
since i've been on bizac approving a
fence
without a lattice top so i'm just
curious
since that change has occurred has this
board found instances where
we will approve a six-foot fence without
the lattice
kathy i think you could probably address
both those questions
better than i could well in the instance
as i said with old variances
when they want to replace same for same
i don't know how i can require a change
when in fact that was what was approved
with landscaping i have come across
fences i believe there was one on
gould uh perhaps golden fair it was a
modern style house
and at the time there was a white solid
dog-eared fence and there was no
landscaping and it had changed hands and
i'd reached out to the owners and
explain that
you know apparently the vegetation must
have died back so
they ended up you know they came back to
the board with a solid
offense but i believe it was before the
code change but
we did get the landscaping alongside
that as well
and um and that was replacing
an existing would this fence not be
considered
the same for same because it's moving if
is that the reason it's not considered
yes yes she wanted
yes she wanted to replace it same for
same in that same location same style
offense
all i would ask is that the the
landscape plan
be submitted for approval by our
landscape consultant
and it's basically landscaping is
proposed just to break up that wall
effect
yeah and i also wanted to say that the
history of it has been that
we've asked for the lattice work at the
top in order to break up the big extent
of the wall
but that just it's very site dependent
so i i don't want to see us put a
blanket rule
about that it depends where it's cited
how
far the setback is what landscaping is
going to be used to soften it instead of
the lattice
so i'll be honest
in my opinion i'm sorry to call you off
karen but in my opinion even if we did
say
if she did same for same and did
you know um the type vining
type uh vegetation
that particular location could easily
take on um
some sort of vegetation and not have
that big blink wall
effect without needing to require
the lattice top right that's my point
it's very dependent
i mean if you don't have a sidewalk that
people are walking right up against it
it's not
it doesn't well like there's other ways
to break it up other than just lattice
there could be a requirement to like
kathy said
to have a review by the our landscape
consultant
for some kind of a greenery to soften it
there's all kinds of solutions and i do
agree with you
miss mitchell that this particular
location architecturally
um there could be it's less
it's less wall-like without having a
concrete sidewalk or
right right do it so there are other
ways
to soften it um that could be that could
be
uh you know used yeah i think we we
agree
can we see the landscape plan that that
currently exists
and that's the landscape the smaller
vegetation is proposed on the interior
side of the fence and she's got a row of
five trees
row of what those five trees that that's
what's proposed in ivy
dude and then there's like dark there's
two other vines on there i just don't
know my vegetation names
so there's like three different things
on there and then some have been pulled
off since they've had to open up that
area to get through
kathy is the landscaping outside the
fence the city's responsibility since
she's come to the property line and
that'll be on city property
or is that well that's why i said i
would defer it to the tree and public
garden commission because that's what
they do
approve landscaping on city
right-of-ways
okay and does any of the
proposed trees outside the fence
impact visibility uh
as as caroline approaches the street
i don't believe it falls in that 30 foot
triangle
site training hill at the corner yeah
the the property goes almost another 100
feet
to the stop sign it's a 200 foot lot
okay so um
are there any other questions or
comments please i'm sorry yeah i do does
the tree and garden commission have the
jurisdiction to
require the trees within the city right
away i mean by the homeowner
they they are they are in charge of
approving whatever landscaping can go
outside that fence if in fact it's moved
to the
property line but they but if i'm
understanding you correctly they they
couldn't require it
they could require it but but i don't
know if this gets involved with
things such as like you know they have
street trees for different streets if
that would have anything to do with it
you know typically we've got you know
trees
up taller and shorter shrubs along
yeah that would be subject to tree
commissions what i'm wondering is
possibly
might we condition the variance on the
homeowner
installing the trees that are indicated
on this rendering
if the tree and landscape commission
deems it appropriate because it seems
odd to me that the tree and landscape
commission could require it
because it's not their land it's not
their property it's city right-of-way
but it's not the homeowner's property
correct
but that's the trade-off in in asking
for a variance
we are putting a sprinkler system on
that side
also so the lawn will be kept
like our front yard is
so you know whatever trees or whatever
it will be
um all that will have a sprinkler system
and that that's always a plus so along
what
rick is suggesting or i don't know if
he's suggesting but he's commenting on
certainly
it would seem to me that if we have a
six foot high fence with no lattice at
the top
that we could mandate
that there be some
vegetation to break up the fence
uh and just put it
on the the tree commission to just to
determine what
as opposed to us sitting here and saying
it needs to be arborvitae or
pear trees or whatever right
well the typical way i think and kathy
please correct me if i'm wrong would be
that
this board would condition it on they
could have a solid fence all the way
six feet providing a treat a
planting a planting plan
was presented to the tree commission not
not that tree commission dictates to
them but they have to be correct
she can propose what i'm suggesting yes
she can propose
whatever species of plants and how many
and the media
will review that could be having
something grown on
on the fence yeah i don't know what the
right answer is but
i like that solution i do too actually
uh angela what do you think about that
solution okay will you repeat it one
more time please
yeah i mean i said i think essentially
what we're saying is
if if we consider voting on the six foot
high fence with no lattice at the top
and moved out three feet that you would
agree
to go to the tree commission with a
proposed
plan of plantings that would
um rid us of the
flat wooden look from the street
sure yes and rick and brian have i
stated it
in a way that is acceptable
yes and i think it gives us credibility
the next time we face the issue of
lattice versus no lattice
sure
all right uh brian are you happy with
that uh
uh rendition of uh yeah yep conditions
okay uh other members of the board
are you uh comfortable with that uh
rendition i'm not telling you how you
have to vote of course you can vote no
or you can vote yes
but uh i'm just suggesting that with
that condition
there might be a better chance of
success here
uh passing this request
all right well then i think
kathy i think we're ready for finding
some fact conclusions of law
and then after you read them we'll have
uh ms nirmeier
approve them before we end the board as
well before we vote
okay so the findings of fact and
conclusions of law for application
number bzap dash 21-18
for property located at 41 north drexel
on consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to grant an area of variance in bexie
code section 1226
11c has been met and a
two two foot variants from mexico
section 1264.03
c to allow a six foot fence on the
north property line be granted with the
following condition
that the applicant submit a landscape
plan
to the tree and public garden commission
for
review and approval yes but it should be
three feet not two feet
no it's a three foot variance to the
height four foot's the height limit
and you're asking for a six foot fence
so it's a two foot variant
oh okay i see what you're saying okay
and i think it should also read that um
shall submit a plan to the tree
commission that
accomplishes the the goal of
breaking up the uh
appearance of the naked fence
i don't know if naked is the right word
to use but
appearance solid
solid i knew there would be an architect
that could help me with that
okay applicants submit a plan to
accomplish the goal
of breaking up the solid wall effect
to the to the commission to the train
public garden commission
yeah okay uh members of the board are
you okay with
that uh rendition of the findings of
fact conclusions of law
anybody opposed to that um ms near meyer
are you okay with that
yeah uh the way that condition is stated
yes okay then um
do i hear a motion to approve the
finding of fact and conclusions of law
as iterated by
ms rose yes mr turner
thank you mr turner is there a second
please
i'll second thank you alicia kathy
please call the roll
miss mitchell yes mr levine
yes mr powell yes
mr marsh yes
mr turner yes
chairman behold
i'll vote yes with those conditions but
i'm
on the edge with it but i think the
conditions make it acceptable
thank you thank you
all right the uh next uh
case uh
i'm sorry um pat ryan from the other
case is here now
oh okay uh then that's application
number bzap-21-13
involving 187 south cassingham
uh this is to request a change
out of the existing asphalt driveway to
a pea gravel
with limestone edging driveway
the applicant is
ryan brothers landscaping and is who's
the owner
on this one is that ryan brothers as
well
it wasn't on the application it wasn't
on the application okay
who's here on behalf of ryan um pat ryan
pat can you hear me
pat are you muted
again there you go
yeah we can hear you
this is bob b hall can you hear me i
apologize i can hear you can hear me
yes sir i apologize for being late
we had some uh internet issues at the
office on mobile now but i can i can
hear you and see you
okay thank you will you raise your right
hand to be sworn
yes you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give this
evening will be the truth
and nothing but the truth i do thank you
who's the owner of this property it is
kim marie martin
okay and are you here on on behalf of ms
martin tonight
yes okay uh kathy
why don't you give us the uh rundown i
think this is another uh
non-boker case isn't it right
she's good at controls here this whole
meeting yeah
yeah i'll give you my picture to put up
and i'll do it okay cool thank you
uh probably a site plan okay so the
applicant has a driveway
located in the front and north side yard
of this property
it appears to have been there for
several years but there is no record of
a variance
the owners purchased the home with the
driveway in its current location and
applied for a permit to replace it staff
cannot approve a non-conforming driveway
replacement
and has not found proof that a variance
was ever obtained therefore the
applicant
is seeking a variance from the following
codes mexico section 126201e
an access drive shall not be used for
temporary or permanent parking in the
r1r2 r3 r6 and r12 district
and mexico section 1262.04 b
no space or aisle shall be located in
the front yard and the r1 r2 r3 and r6
r12 or open space district the applicant
has proposed
a material change and has
provided paver drive a paper drive in
place of the existing
asphalt drive
okay there's a picture
uh pat ryan why don't you give us a
little run down on what you're proposing
here what your uh
client is proposing here sure basically
just a
facelift of the driveway it's starting
to show its age and crumble
uh they have a weird elevation change on
the right side where there's a curving
we were gonna shave that off with like a
bobcat to make it less of a gray change
and then we're gonna do limestone edging
and then a pea gravel driveway
um instead of the asphalt and we do we'd
go just up to the gate
uh that was that's already been there um
so you can't get a car
behind that i don't know if that matters
or not but basically just it's the same
driveway just uh just a facelift
will the p gravel be sealed or will it
be free
it will be free and so as it
degrades over time and gets packed
she'll need to continue to the applicant
will need to
refresh it on a regular basis correct
yeah i
kind of attribute it to the same thing
as getting like your driveway sealed
you just you know if you have a gravel
driveway there's some maintenance
involved in that just like a blacktop
driveway you need to refresh everything
gravel would be a upgrade to an asphalt
from an asphalt you know i try not to
get into
people's uh personal destroy if they
want the
the pea gravel some people love it we
have a
gravel driveway at my house because my
wife likes the sound of it yeah i
i'm you know i'd rather have an asphalt
driveway
but we have a gravel one so as far as
aesthetically appealing there's one down
the street um
on stanwood that's it's pretty
um against the older is it free it's
free
here's one on directxl
the very subjective subject yes
exactly i mean versus my opinion
it's it's not worth a darn i just it's
unusual to me so it's it's purely a
purely opinion gotcha
i'm curious what the homeowner's use of
the driveway is
that is a good question i mean they they
i've seen them
on it they they come and go now they
they moved in
and they the garage had a drive in the
back
or a garage in the back and it it just
kind of stopped right there
and there's a little set of steps behind
that um
that that gate that you're seeing so
it's
it's basically just it's strictly
aesthetics that we're doing this
so the the driveway stops at the gate it
doesn't go into the backyard at all
correct and there's no additional pavers
or anything
it's just gravel there's like step oh
are you talking about in the actual
driveway
yeah no it would just be just bp gravel
and then you'd have the limestone edging
to replace the curbing
so kathy uh are there any
statutes can can you have
a gravel
uh of any sort or aggregate of any sort
in a parking lot or driveway is there a
statute that relates to this issue
it's it's it's supposed to be a
dust free surface we do have
gravel driveways pea gravel such as what
pet
is proposing um and typically they
they're within a border of limestone
that really helps
keep it corralled in the driveway and
not spilling out onto the street
and i'm not familiar with issues that
we've had with
those that do exist and they usually go
with the
pea gravel because they can get it in
various colors
as opposed to just gravel that was
really the reason i was asking more or
less is just
i know that it can be a a product that
likes to
crawl all over the place but if you have
if we have a lot of them and i don't
think i've ever noticed but there's not
a lot
but they do are bordered and and you're
not getting complaints for any reason
about
it falling into the street i i'm not
aware
i have not so here's my question i have
less concern about the material i
i think that could look and good and be
perfectly functional it's more a matter
of form
i mean the variance here really is is
for a driveway which doesn't connect to
it to
a garage isn't it right i guess kathy
mike my question is is this considered
a like for like because it's a
pre-existing
detached driveway and they're just
changing the
uh the material for it
do we not have anything to say or or is
this actually something that needs a
variance for the driveway itself
it's a non-conforming driveway and due
to the fact that i'm not aware of a
variance
in the files that's ever been requested
i mean this could have been a weekend
warrior back prior to 1996 that maybe
took out that
section in the back where it continued
to the garage and maybe added access
off the alley so when they want to
replace it
i don't have the authority to approve it
because it's non-conforming they can
either make it conform
or they can seek a variance from the
board
and see if they'll consider allowing
them to replace it
didn't didn't we just i think it was on
the second
come true but wasn't there one in south
bexley that basically the
the woman wanted to terminate her
driveway next to the house because she
flipped her garage to the allies
yesterday first time it came he got
denied and the second time it was a
split vote but she barely passed is that
right and and this location i guess it's
fairly close to the school
so a lot of times they'll argue that
they're trying to take
parking off the street with the
amount of pedestrian traffic
but what's the parking rule because
because you're not supposed to park
you have to work in the back parking has
to
a driveway is a drive aisle that has to
lead
to an approved parking location and
parking is approved in the backyard
like such as your garage which is
required to have a three foot setback
off the side and rear property line
well this driveway is probably bordering
the property line so ryan or
we'll need to verify that but because
it's not three feet from the property
line it's simply a dry vial leading to
the approved parking but in this case
it doesn't lead to the approved parking
it's just
alongside the house and it stops there
there's not he could make it go to the
backyard
and not have to be here we just don't
want to encourage
front yard parking that's typically what
these types of driveways do
right we could check to see if there's
anyone in the neighborhood that has any
concerns or
there's anybody in the audience for
against this case
good question um
[Music]
i don't see anybody and as as
long as we've been doing this this is
always a dilemma
because you know the the other option is
for people just to say okay then i'm not
going to do anything to it
and it's going to continue to but
then i think you need to maintain it
though when it gets to this
you know people can resurface but when
you have to replace it
we're back to we're back before you guys
i think this is a great solution i mean
i think architecture will look good
and the fact that it's not going to get
a lot of traffic
um you know it's probably not going to
be a maintenance issue and
um you know i think with storm water
issues we're facing i think you're going
to see more of this
uh you know impervious type uh
uses for parking i mean you're seeing
you're seeing it
everywhere in commercial uses and all
over i i think it's i think it's a nice
solution
we have some pretty high-end properties
that have done this too
yes gravel um i mean one in particular
was based off of like
a a house in france that they actually
imported from gravel 212 park very kind
of
old-school way of doing it and it can be
quite beautiful
right park hill drive has a nice example
over there
yes right yeah from broad street right
and and if if it becomes a problem as
far as you know the p
gravel getting out onto the street we
could certainly have the applicant
add another layer of buffer with the
limestone
i think since it's not getting the
traffic like a normal driveway
would um i don't think it's going to
have that
issue if you know they were coming and
going with their
their vehicles every day multiple times
a day that might
prove to be a problem but i don't think
since they're not using it for that
reason
there is a garage right kathy there is
and it does have rear entrance now
it does
okay well i think my biggest question
has to do with uh the same issue
uh raised
by jason and that is
by approving the the pea gravel are we
sort of a left-handed way of proving a
driveway that goes to nowhere
yes
i mean what's the alternative they pull
it out completely and plant grass
they consider that option to have more
um green space
[Music]
they they did do that they they honestly
they they like to sh
kim marie is very artistic and she likes
the the look of it
and my kind of thought was that it was
same for same i know it's non-conforming
um but is we're not adding square feet
footage
you know we're just we're just swapping
out material um
basically just and again i um
i obviously would like the work but it
would
what would happen if that thing crumbled
and you had to resurface it would we
have to go through a variance
for that also or i mean because we are
you know we are changing it in some form
um i guess that's my question is if it's
not
you know same for saying just a
different material
well based on the fact you're replacing
it right you have to request a variance
because you don't have a variance on
record
and in any driveway you know sometime or
another it it will
require replacement but if you
you know get a variance to allow it even
if there's conditions that there's
no overnight front yard parking yeah you
know they can add conditions
being that you are requesting a variance
to replace a non-conforming driveway got
it
okay so could we add those conditions to
this one
sir i mean i think that
it's
there though somebody removed the
pathway to the garage back there
what probably wasn't this landowner no
i think we need to say hey if
if we allow this to occur there can't be
any overnight parking in it
and uh uh
i mean does the board agree or disagree
with that
brian you have any thoughts on that so
on street parking would be preferable
or or beside the house and not in the
front yard portion of this drive
there there is i think there's like 17
feet you could get a car in between the
house and the
in that fence it's not it's not as close
up as it looks it sits back about
halfway
right okay it's already required that
they don't park in the
in the front yard right i mean
technically that's the case in every
every driveway they're drive aisles
they're not parking spaces
yeah i i don't feel like we need a
clarification i i think it's fine
okay um
since there's no other uh
folks in the audience commenting on this
how about reading a finding of fact
conclusion law kathy
the findings of fact and conclusions of
law for application number bzap dash
21-43 for property located at 187 north
cassingham
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it
the board finds the applicant has proven
that the criteria to grant an area of
variance in bexie code section 1226.11 c
has been met
the variance from bexley code section
1262.01 e
and 1262.04 b
to allow a driveway in the front and
side yard to be replaced
be granted as submitted
okay
or in accordance with the plan submitted
to the board
okay i think that's that's e-gravel and
limestone trim
yeah uh pat is that
uh reading uh acceptable to you and your
client
absolutely i greatly appreciate it okay
i'll make a motion to vote for approval
thank you mr marsh do i have a second
i'll second thank you alicia kathy
please call the roll
mr marsh yes mr levine
yes mr fout
i'm really torn um
i certainly don't mind the materials
we're not really voting on that i'm
afraid i'm going to have to vote now
miss mitchell yes
mr turner
um torn as well i
since it's although yes
chairman b hall
uh i'm also on the fence
um but there's already four positive
votes correct
correct i'll vote no because
uh i think it a 4-2 vote
uh is more indicative of the boards
being close to the edge on this matter
all right motion passes yes it does
motion passes thank you pat
ryan thank you all have a great evening
alrighty
all right the next case involves
as is bzap 21-19
involving 2455 east main street
uh the owner of the property is matlin
holdings llc
and the applicant is chris vallette
requesting a
patio canopy uh in the front
or the north side the main street side
of the building
once again is this a architectural
review
situation karen um i do
have some architectural comments but
they're
secondary to jason who i just um
added to the panelists
and kathy's comments so i'll reserve my
architectural comments
um for after the other staff
okay great thank you uh kathy you want
to go first or dab jason
i'll i'll start so cafe istanbul has
been before the main street
redevelopment commission in the past
with different versions of awnings
approved but never constructed there
have been using umbrellas instead
and they're now returning with the
structure that they would like to
propose
i believe it actually existed they're
doubling location so
and i will defer to jason on the
details as far as the main street
guidelines go
okay mr are you there yep i'm here
can you hear me
yes sir thank you okay great so first
tell us
your position what do you think about
this application
absolutely also i'd like to say that i
just moved so i'm not actually
broadcasting from inside a warehouse
it's just uh
a stack of junk behind me that has yet
to be put away so
i don't understand that uh anyway uh
yeah let's go through this real quickly
i'll keep it as brief as possible and
then please help me
uh with that any questions that you have
this is
a case that is as uh i'm sure you're
aware
on main street we have two zoning
districts that sort of overlap we have
the mixed use
district mixed use commercial and then
main street is essentially an overlay
so what we do is from a zoning
perspective we look at the issues on the
main street district because those
uh are more rigid and more strict than
those of the muc
district so that's what we've applied
here um one of the things that we're
gonna have to talk about today
and um is kind of instrumental to the
way this is reviewed
is how we consider this physical
structure
what we have done for the purposes of
today um
we've considered this to be uh an
auxiliary structure
on the property and not in addition and
the reason we've done that
is because it is not to
our understanding actually physically
connecting the slope of the roof
with uh the gutter system of this actual
separate building
is standing just a little bit away from
the actual structure
as far as we understand it and we'll
have the applicant clarify that a little
bit today
one of the things that's important to
note on this is this is
physically being moved the structure
that they're proposing
from a different location which is now
on dublin road uh 33 as it runs up
toward dublin
in here in central ohio
and we have photos of that that you can
take a look at to see what the actual
physical structure looks like
whether or not this is determined to be
in addition or whether it's determined
to be
a separate structure it still kind of
falls under that same set of guidelines
what we have done is come forward with
this today for
an important reason in that it requires
variances
in some form um and if it's considered a
separate structure
those variances as we've outlined them
today would be to allow that structure
to be in the front yard
and also for it to be a size that's in
excess of 35 percent of the original
building
the original building is in the 1400
square foot range and this is about 1
300 plus square feet
so it's almost the same size as the
original building that's there
we do consider this a fairly unusual
case in that
this is probably the largest patio that
is
outside of a building in front of a
building on main street which is a good
thing
because if you remember way back what
this was before
it was kind of a mangy parking lot and
uh sort of a strip center configuration
so this is a vast improvement and you
know i think we'd all agree that this
patio overall is a huge success and that
it has decorative pavement it has
fountain it has landscaping
so what we're really considering today
is is it appropriate to put a structure
on there and if so
is this the right structure and is this
uh the way that we want to go about
doing this
so just to kind of get through some of
the issues real quickly
um we reviewed this against the main
street district design standards which
is 1254-13
and found that it either met or didn't
apply
to the vast majority of those but there
were a few things that it did not mean
one of which is that the
there's sort of remnant light fixtures
on this building which
and i guess to use a professional term
are kind of bad or
awful i guess i would say uh and they
were just left over
they're left over from the previous use
and they
kind of just remained and stayed there
and weren't addressed when this was
rezoned back and i think it was 2011
kathy was that right or 2008
2006.
six okay so even longer ago 15 years ago
so a long time ago
uh and so what we would like to see is
as you go through this consideration
there's a couple things that just don't
match the guidelines overall
so one is to fix those light fixtures to
make them cut off and
more in keeping with the overall intent
of the district
the other thing is that there is some
parking that is located on the side of
the building
and it is behind a small lawn but it's
also not screened from main street which
is required
so what we'd like to do is have some
kind of screening put in place there
and that could be done in conjunction
with the tree and public garden
commission
so they could figure out what it is that
would be most appropriate in that
location
the big issue though really for today
is the the issues of whether or not you
think it is appropriate
to have this in this location and if so
what are some of the larger
architectural questions
and you know i've spoken with the
applicant and uh karen's about to talk
to you about this a little more deep in
a little more detail
you know they understand that there is a
good likelihood that you
may remand this back to the the
architectural review board
for their guidance on those
architectural issues but we wanted to
bring it to you first
in order to think about the bigger
picture of you know do you think it's
appropriate to have
a structure like this covering a front
patio along main street
as staff we do think it's appropriate if
it is the right architectural solution
and we do think it does match the um the
philosophy
of what main street is trying to
accomplish at the same time we also know
that
there are some questions to be answered
specifically with regard to
how enclosed will the structure be how
you know what will it be throughout the
seasons is it the right size
and then also what are the impacts on
the signage that's currently on the side
of the building
uh from the pictures it shows that it
kind of extends pretty far down the
building
so will that need to be changed and will
it need to be moved in the future
you know they do have the option either
moving on on the wall or to create
a appropriate monument sign at this
location and all that can be deferred to
future application
but we still think that all needs to be
discussed as part of the larger
discussion here today our recommendation
is that we think this is in conformance
with the zoning in large part but
because of the unanswered questions and
the likelihood to remand this
to arb and certainly tree and public
garden commission it would probably make
sense at the end of a nice discussion
today
to consider tabling this to a future
meeting
uh that being said you have the right to
act on that if you do
we would recommend the conditions that
we place at the end of our staff report
so with that i will stop talking and
allow karen to
have her more insightful commentary on
the
architecture and then we're happy to
answer any questions thank you
karen
sorry i was preventing dog barking in
the background
i apologize um for not having a written
report but we
really just discussed this today and um
i was happy to hear that
um both jason and kathy thought that it
would be a wise idea to bring this
before you all to kind of get your
feel for the tolerance of the allowance
of this structure
having said that architecturally i
really don't think that these give us
any true idea
yet of um how it actually how it really
technically
mechanically aesthetically fits into the
sites
very specifically um conceptually
well i love cafe istanbul personally i
think it's a great patio i think it
could very much
benefit from some maybe partial cover
i would love to see the sign preserved i
think it's
very nice it's beautifully done it would
be great if
there was a way to cut the the structure
i very much worry about the way it's
being placed let me get the right
drawing um just kind of
plop down as it exists in dublin i
wonder how
much transformation they could do to it
this is um a worrisome detail right here
where it's not connected to the building
but
um has kind of a space you can imagine
on a rainy
um uh experience the
the wait staff at the very least was
going to get soaked
you know in between the two this is very
technical stuff
but i think it's it's just kind of
indicative of the
thought process being very much in its
preliminary stages and not
thought through i don't want to sound
like i'm beating them up or negative
because i think it would be
lovely to have um a partial enclosure
or cover to this the way um
it has been presented in in the dublin
which i can actually bring up a
google picture if you need me to i
didn't put it on the
website because i just found it today
but the context is completely different
so it's hard to compare it's really hard
to compare the two
the dublin site is right on the water it
has a
very vast parking lot it's attached to
the side not the front
um it has it's not near as kind of land
locked as this site is
so i mean i think i don't i don't want
to sound like i'm beating up the
design i just don't think it is a design
yet i think it's a concept
so i wanted to make sure that
architecturally we
are very sensitive to the beautiful
landscaping
that is already done there it has it's a
beautiful patio
um i think it currently uses a lot of
they use a lot of umbrellas
but i'll once again flip through these
pictures um
there's very nice landscaping a very
nice
low but a very nice wall um and
i would like to see it tie in much in
the way that they were sensitive to
um at first i thought there was a brick
but i guess it's just planters
but it does cover the metal posts and
and and help it
um blend into the structure better
so this is more of a concept drawing
this isn't the proposed
that's the way i look at it from an
architectural perspective it's a kind
it's a concept drawing i could not
um i couldn't support this as a as a
final drawing like jason said it is your
prerogative to take a vote on it if
you'd like
um i would highly condition that on a
remand back to architecture review board
i i personally think that the best move
is to table this application
still with the remain back to
architecture review board for design
review
and a recommendation to be zapp
has arb already ruled on this no i have
not
i actually think that was wise on
kathy's part because it was
it's good before further development
goes into this to get the feel of this
board
yeah in terms of its placement and site
coverage and all that kind of stuff
so karen and karen immediately my first
thought
um if it goes back to arb and they'll
probably catch it
is that gap between the um
the building to where it doesn't
physically butt to the building you are
you
you're going to have water damage right
it's a thing
and it's going to be yeah i will say it
i did get a
chance to ask the applicant about that
there is a gutter system but there's
still a concern with how that
the interface works so we should
probably have them give us a better
indication of what what is the applicant
on
the screen uh karen yeah it's dsa
architects
um i'm not sure who's representing them
because it just says dsa but i have
allowed them as in as
chris chris is here and chris if you
want to put your video on or
if you don't that's fine too but hello
chris
chris chris
chris can you hear me this is bob b hall
can you hear me
i sure i sure can all right can i have
you raise your right hand and be sworn
please you uh swear or affirm that any
testimony you give the
board this evening will be the truth and
nothing but the truth
i did okay thank you very much tell us
from the
uh your client's perspective what is uh
what is going on here and why certain
things
how you envision it working through the
winter
through the summer when it's raining
when it's sunny all that kind of good
stuff
well the awnings are retractable okay
i'm not sure if everybody understood
that but they are retractable
and there is it's an internal gutter
system at the end
of if if the shades were pulled over for
a storm or for rain there is a gutter
system that the water is then collected
inside the
columns themselves and then then it goes
out on the ground
okay yeah we we struggled with you know
turning it right turning
left and yes there is a gap that rain
would come through but it's not gonna be
pouring down from a shed roof
or from a pitched roof
as you know this location is applied for
a couple awnings and things like that
and then they ended up using the
umbrella
the the vex dumps are the dublin
location is decided they're gonna be
they're gonna change their patio around
and the and the audience won't fit
at the new with the new system
so they're gonna remove it and they're
trying to take advantage of it at this
other
location so that's how they come across
it
to answer one other question from karen
it can be
the size can be changed
so we can make it smaller uh right now
we're trying you know
it's first asked and so they want to try
to cover the patio
that's it is an outdoor patio that is
used very very much
but unfortunately they're taking
on a bad weather day in the summer when
it's too hot or
raining it reduces their it reduces what
they're seeing
this is a very small building they do
not plan on enclosing it
ever okay and as far as the signage
right now she's planning on keeping the
sign where it is as it is
um and in the future if they need to be
she could raise it but if we want to
reduce the
size of the canopy to expose so the size
of the awning to expose the
signage we can talk about it and
yeah we went back and forth on how
how to start this process we understand
to know there's probably
going to be a couple meetings this is
not a no
it's a simple no-brainer it's a very
large foot traffic area of actually
it's there at the gateway it's a nice
patio
everybody enjoys it she maintains it
very well
that's her hobby but
she'd like to keep getting beyond it to
be used so it can help with her
occupancy
okay okay there any member members of
the board have questions of either
uh kathy or jason or karen or chris
vallette
i do uh please okay okay
kathy um do you know i know previously
they were
how big was the awning that they were
approved for
because i thought they had an awning at
one point that basically covered the
whole patio that was approved
um previously and it was canvas
and it never was constructed
but size-wise it was similar to this no
it was more a low profile
so you could actually see the top of the
existing building and the signage
it was much lower but
coverage-wise so it covered the majority
of the patio the same way this does
because i thought it covered the whole
patio which is basically what this does
yes but there may have been a there was
a cut out for the door
okay that that's okay one was close
right
okay any other is there is there anybody
in the audience
karen that you can see that it's for or
against this matter just so we
can entertain their thoughts
no i do not okay um
let me ask the board do you feel
like uh we are
at a point where we should probably say
uh chris let go
back to the architectural review board
or not go back to them but go to them
with a more with with a little bit more
uh
design work uh and and uh
get their take on things
uh and and therefore table this case
for this evening what's the thought
on that if i could hear some various
opinions
of board members i like the idea of
tabling it to give
the um give them an opportunity to sort
of
flush out some
areas that would pose to be a challenge
because
overall i think it would be such an
incredible addition
to the district into the area
and certainly would increase their
ability to service more customers
[Music]
i know i don't know i think it would be
a great a great addition
so i would want to see what they could
come back with
uh brian or rick jason uh
any thoughts i agree i'd like i'd like
to see
see what ab says and um again
it's it's a great patio and you know
having covered
you know something covered there on main
street would be a great addition
um i mean when i first saw this i just
thought it was just
you know too massive yeah and
you know it's like taking just you know
taking it from one location to another
doesn't mean it's gonna
it's gonna work and and then and when
you see that
you know that elevation it just looks it
looks massive
to me so uh i i really think we need
arb's
uh opinion and i always covered the
points though
i'm so sorry go ahead jason i'm sorry
just briefly brian's covered the points
that i would have made
um i love the idea i think the execution
needs to be
correct for for this context and i i
think the proposal on the table that we
table this and it go to arb is the
wisest way
sorry kieran thank you no i apologize
any more board members
i'll say something um
the only thing i would say is um
i i love the idea again i think the site
the size we really need to see
a better rendering of it of how it's
going to be in front of there
um but but the patio is i do think is
a major asset to actually i think two
weeks ago when the weather turned and i
turned the corner from cassidy onto
maine
and just saw all those people out there
it was kind of like you know i knew
summer was here
i i thought it was great so i love that
patio and and i think this would be a
great addition some sort of
some sort of cover would be a great
addition for that yeah
and and we can talk this we can talk
about this offline because but um
i just want to say it on the record that
i do um strongly suggest that this
is much further developed before taking
it to arb to get the most out of
that review so let me ask you jason or
chris of olette rather i'm sorry uh
could how much time do you need
to get something that
when you're hearing some concern about
mass
uh size etc
before you can get something to arb
because arb submissions have to be in by
when
uh karen i actually sent out notices
today for the june 10th meeting
[Music]
which is that they would be really
looking at the july 10th meeting
right unless we can get a notice out
and he can implement to what's been
submitted but i'd like to see what chris
has to say
chris what do you think about timing
because if we're going to table it
there's no sense tabling to the june
meeting
it would make more sense to table it to
the july meeting of the of the bees app
yeah now i understand um i guess the
sizes come
off but i mean how much of a reduction
are we talking i mean if that's
something i can meet with somebody or
talk on the phone with i can have a
rendering done in two days
okay give it a little bit better
representation of it but
i'm more than happy to speak with you
offline okay
all right perfect thank you because i i
can give you you know my input
based on my 22 years of experience with
the architecture review board so
i can't guarantee you but i think i can
probably give you some very good
directions
that would be very very helpful no
problem
okay it would probably i don't know if
we could make the deadline if it's
already if you guys have already i think
we're more online for july
and i i they probably would like to use
this uh
because it's going to take a while to
erect it as well i would assume
um it actually is it's all a kit system
it gets it gets installed very quickly
okay
it's very it's pretty amazing are your
clients
okay with uh a uh roughly 60 day
tabling she really is not going to be
happy about it
honestly but i don't think there's much
of a choice
i mean
well i can send a notice out and if you
can turn around a design in a week so
that we can at least get it to the air
beef so they have a week to
to review it okay i can do that and then
we can still make more changes before
you come to be there
in the process right exactly yeah
we thought it would be best to go to you
guys first to make sure you're not
totally opposed to it yeah then okay
i think we all uh love it the restaurant
in our midst here
in in the middle of bexley we all love
the food there and the people there are
great folks we all know them of course
uh so i think we would like to
see if we could move this along could i
entertain
a motion to table this matter for until
the
june meeting under the circumstances to
a certain date
june 24th yes june uh
24th thank you yes so moved
is there a second second thank you
uh kathy please call the role in the
motion to uh
table this for one month miss mitchell
yes mr levine yes
mr powell yes mr marsh
yes mr turner
yes chairman bihar i vote yes as well
this matter is table
till the june b zap meeting and chris
i just um sent you in a private chat my
cell phone number
okay all right very good
thank you chris of olette
uh kathy uh or uh karen can you uh
give me a next look at the agenda yep
sorry please i'm sorry
155 south roosevelt i believe
uh right that would be application
number b
z ap 21-23
one involving 155 south roosevelt
the applicant is uh brian marsich
and the owner of the property is david
ornstein
uh the proposal here is a
one-story addition to the northwest
corner
of the structure to provide a larger
kitchen
kitchen mudroom and covered rear porch
um is there someone here on behalf of
the applicant
yes um brian marsich is here and i'm
going to
promote him to panelists
okay he should be joining us brian can
you hear me
i believe the owner's here as well so i
will okay
brian or mr ornstein either one of you
can you hear me let me know
okay we're good they're in the room okay
they're in the room
all right so uh brian and mr ornstein
can you hear me this is bob b
hull we can hear you thank you david and
michelle here
all right david michelle all right uh
i'm brian i was on mute i apologize
okay and brian in case the three of you
would like to
discuss this matter would you all three
raise your right hands and be sworn
please
do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give the board
this evening will be the truth and
nothing but the truth
yes yes yes we do okay thank you very
much
uh cathy
or karen why don't you decide who goes
first and give us the staff perspective
on this
application i'll provide the
zoning information and then i'll kick it
over to karen okay beautiful
this was initially submitted under
arb-2120
for design review due to the fact that
the fence on site did not represent the
property line
it was determined that the addition
would actually encroach two feet into
the required eight foot side yard
setback
on the north side of the property the
applicant additionally filed a
beads app application and a two-week
notice was provided to the neighbors
within 200 feet of this property
portions of the existing structure vary
and set back
along that north side property line
ranging from seven feet to twelve feet
the addition proposed will allow for a
kitchen expansion
and would change the setback
and along a portion of the 12 foot
setback to six feet
along that north wall lot coverage is
adequate and the setback between the
house and the garage
meets the required 10 foot separation i
will defer to karen with regards to
architectural details
thank you karen i will show you right
um here in front of you we have uh the
record of action from the architecture
review board which was
to approve this as a consent agenda item
oh actually i don't think it was a
consent but it was approved it was
approved
sorry we only had discussion because of
the confusion with the zoning
but the architectural review was
unanimously approved in favor
and recommended to the sport okay
and do you have any comments on it for
our benefit
no i mean i think it's a very nice
design i have the updated
drawings here um it's it's actually very
creative design
brian can speak to it if you'd like to
hear kind of the process it was an
interesting one
but i believe i don't want to speak for
he and the owners but i believe that
it was a porsche that became more of a
kitchen renovation too if i remember
correctly um okay
ryan yeah would you want to go first
uh and give us uh some perspective on
what
the why the application is the way it is
and what
your perspective is on it yeah
absolutely
i was uh brought on board uh initially
to kind of look at the house the owners
are really interested in doing something
their kitchen which is really narrow
right now and it's basically like a
galley
kitchen and then gain some mud room
space
and then add a covered
[Music]
deck area off to the back you know
we kind of came in i think kathy
mentioned
with the assumption that the the fence
to the north was
near the property line but as it turns
out it was very much
on the neighbor's property by foot and a
half to two feet
uh so we were hoped
you know we were kind of using that as
as a rough guideline but as a result we
designed this great kitchen
and outdoor eating
space and hangout space that's covered
and then
you know some some a bit of a bump out
in the rear of the house also
from for a mud room and the result
is and in this plan you can it's not
very heavy but the actual
the setback line is you can see it kind
of getting dashed
through the counter top on the north
wall and
um yeah the screen or the back
yeah so that represents our overage
uh or our encroachment uh and and then
to let just quickly to the left of this
you know
the dashes on my demo plan
show the existing conditions of the kid
of the kitchen
uh and it's it's very um very condensed
and and not
appropriate really for the house uh and
despite
sort of story and a half appearance of
this house it's it's pretty pretty
sizable
uh with with room a lot a lot of
bedrooms and and it accommodates
a fairly large family even though this
family is not particularly large
but so the scale of the kitchen kind of
matches the house
now and then obviously you gain the
other spaces as well
okay actually all the yeah
architecturally all the details are
pulled right off of the existing
uh there's and to speak more to the
existing house there is
actually a portion of the house if you
could zoom into the site plan
that's already non-compliant
[Music]
it's a little bump out in the front of
the house and for whatever
for what it's worth you know it's it's
already into the setback a few inches
seven foot eight
versus the eight inches uh
and then this shows up we're two foot
one is our
is our proposal proposed encouragement
there
okay thank you very much um
i think i'd be curious to hear if
there's anybody else in the audience
that is here
before or against this a proposal
karen do you see anybody in our audience
if you're in the audience please raise
your hand on the
screen i do not believe we have anyone
left for this case
okay uh is there any
has there been any communication with
the homeowner
to the i guess that would be the north
huh
we can't get him to stop coming over he
loves us
and he's looking forward to the new
space and coming over for cocktails all
the time
all right fair enough fair enough
um
members of the board do you have any
questions or comments
about the design for uh either the
ornstein's or
mr marsich
what time is this cocktail hour
as soon as we're done we'll be at the
top
good question good question um
if if you didn't go into the side yard
what alternatives are
are uh vitiated how's that for a word
ruined well
obviously the the graciousness of the
new kitchen
would be abbreviated uh
and then you know even if we were to
kind of pull all that back
uh it would you know essentially pull
the whole program down a bit and then it
would
it would really start to affect one good
thing
that we've done here is we've actually
added backyard space as well there's an
existing pergola that's going to come
out
and things like that but if we were to
try to kind of crunch this down a bit
then we'd be taking some
garage we'd be encroaching into the
usability of
their existing garage back there um
wow not while maintaining the depth in
the backyard
uh
so that that's okay you know all these
things are kind of driving this
i mean the only the only reason i say is
of course every single homeowner in
bexley would like to get into their side
yard
if they could to expand their homes but
there's a reason for side yard setbacks
and that's to keep everybody
out of everybody else's hair
i guess so i always
am a little skeptical about granting
side yard
uh reductions
unless there's some unusual situation or
or something that is uh
makes it different than others other
cases or situations
but as we start handing out side yard
variances
and we've got to be careful that
everybody who comes just doesn't
automatically get one
right and we might as well not have side
yard
setbacks but i mean obviously the design
is very nice
looks it looks great i think it's a
quite a nice addition to the home
i think the question for us here is
do we set a precedent here
that we will uh rue
in the future i invite comments from
other
members of the board i will say
by going with this plan we're gonna take
down and i don't know if we have a
picture of it but we'll be taking down
a not so attractive uh gazebo
that is already encroaching on the
neighbor's property or on that line
i guess on that line so i think it will
be
making everything look significantly
better
um and and really we're going to be much
further away from the neighbors overall
than we currently are yeah that picture
that
has the two rear windows there that
bottom left
you're kind of standing in the gazebo to
take that picture
uh it shows up on site plan but there is
no uh
visual support for that
okay it's pretty bad
it is pretty bad um i have a picture on
my phone i could hold up and show you
but actually i think that picture was in
the packet for arb
um and i i just want to say that um
not that this is a reason to approve it
but um
there was pretty unanimous consent that
this was a great
design and then the confusion and the
reason it's here came in because of the
placement of the fence
um you know i'm not saying that that's a
reason oh they should
be granted the variance but it was an
unfortunate
misun understanding of where the
property line is and in fact the gazebo
is
much further toward the property line
and
not very welcoming to the neighboring
property
this this tightens it all up and gets
rid of those two white windows
four of correct brian have the two cents
that don't match
don't know when that's approved and uh
then the neighbor would be willing to
take down his fence not that that
doesn't change the property line but i'm
just saying
if aesthetically he's just so on board
with whatever we want to do
i just don't want you guys to know that
okay so is that an attached arbor in
that bottom left picture that
extends to the left of the main
structure
no it's not attached it's not attached
and it'll be gone
those trees will be yeah
the house is really quite beautiful
except for this corner
so that actually i'm not you know
i just want to be careful that when we
say we set a precedent
um you know every one of these cases and
looked extremely individually so
it's a really unique situation and that
the fence
was placed on the neighboring property
and it actually pulls the house tighter
away
from from its neighbor
and packages the house around that
corner really beautifully compared to
how it is now
so from an architectural standpoint
that's why there was so much support
and and a positive recommendation
unanimously unanimously
to this board yeah
i understand i understand what you're
saying i mean i think the
the difference in the roles of the two
boards
is they're interested in aesthetics
to some extent more than we are and
words worsted in zoning a little bit
more than they are so
uh well
uh are there any other members of the
board that have any questions or
comments
if not i would suggest that we have
kathy read the findings of fact
conclusions of law
i hear none kathy the findings of fact
and conclusions of law for application
number b z ap
21-23 for property located at 155
south roosevelt upon consideration of
the application
proposed variants and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds
the applicant has proven that the
criteria to grant an area of variance in
mexico section 1226.11 c
have been met and a two foot variance
from vexy code section
1252.09 r6 zoning to allow
a two to allow one story edition
should be granted as submitted
okay any uh uh
requested changes to the findings by
members of the board
hearing none uh
ryan or uh the ornsteins do you have any
uh are you willing to accept the
findings of fact as
as read by uh ms rose
yes okay thank you
all right do i hear a motion to approve
the findings of fact conclusions of law
is there a second thank you sean
thank you alicia thank you all right
kathy please call the roll
uh miss mitchell yes
mr levine yes mr fout
yes mr marsh
yes mr turner yes
and chairman b hall i vote no
but the matter passes uh can i give the
findings in fact for a certificate of
appropriateness
yes please all right findings in fact
the conclusions of law for application
number
easy ap 21-23 for property located
at 155 south roosevelt the board finds
that a
certificate should be granted in
accordance with the decision and record
of action from the architecture review
board
at its june 7th i'm sorry may
27th 27th
well i was looking at the arb meeting
but oh 13th
may 13th thank you as submitted
okay um any um
suggested changes members of the board
hearing none mr mart marzic and the
ornstein's any are you willing to accept
the wording as written
absolutely thank you um
do i hear a motion to approve the
findings um a fact
and conclusions of law as to the
architectural appropriateness here so
move sean
so move mr turner sir a second
second thank you jason kathy please call
the roll
uh mr pout yes
mr levine yes miss mitchell
yes mr marsh yes mr turner
yes chairman b hall i vote yes also
the certificate of brokenness is granted
thank you folks it looks like a very
good project
and uh good luck with it thank you
yeah thanks so much everybody good night
good night take care all right
did we have the last item this 361 north
turkey
can i comment i have 361 is that
amy's no that's that's the lot split
that was on the agenda
oh okay okay yeah so so this was a lot
split that was on the agenda and there
was additional
a couple items that i needed legal
descriptions for because this is
something that
the board can vote on but it also
requires council action
so being we didn't have those legal
descriptions for the board
uh i had a conversation with the
applicant and he sent an email
requesting that
this case for 361 north parkview
be tabled to a certain date on june 24th
uh 2021 bza meeting
okay um do i hear a motion
to table this matter uh as suggested
till the
june meeting
so moved thank you mr levine a second
thank you alicia please call the roll
miss mitchell yes mr levine
yes mr turner yes
mr fout yes
mr marsh yes chairman behold
yes the matter is tabled
did you have some other business that
you wanted to mention
uh with regard to this now we're into
other business
um you wanted me to bring up that one
well
no i had a conversation and being i
didn't receive a
board of zoning appeals application it's
still required and
in order to take action on it it wasn't
advertised and there was not a notice
sent and there's issues with an easement
that i believe
we've worked out some complications with
that okay
so it's probably going to be next month
so i've worked that out with that
applicant
okay all right is there any other
business
before the board or anybody have any
other business they'd like to raise any
panel
member board member
all right kathy thank you karen thank
you
uh jason uh thank you
and members of the board thanks i think
uh i would uh
entertain a motion to adjourn the the
meeting
thank you alicia the
[Music]
the may meeting of the bees app is
hereby adjourned
thanks everyone thank you everybody hey
good night good night
i'll text him is that just
just you and i on there now karen oh
look it says
viewstream recording okay i can stop the
recording now
stop cloud recording stop recall
okay so did i copy i don't know this
youtube has stopped though
oh okay let me tell you again
i can give you a call yeah just just
call me let me tell him
we are done awesome that worked out well
stop youtube
um yeah do you just want to i'll give
you both
okay thanks bye
you