all right good evening everyone um
wanted to get everyone here together
tonight we are as a city council hearing
our proposed at a hearing here on a
proposed variance for 407 northview
thank you for everyone who is in
attendance tonight
wanted to remind everyone here
that we are here for the good of bexley
this evening
and with that being said i'm going to go
ahead and let um
mark do roll call all right
mr blake
here
all right let's uh go ahead and stand
for the pledge of allegiance
the united states of america and to the
republic for which it stands one nation
under god indivisible with liberty and
justice for all
all right um so i'm going to get started
here with some opening remarks and then
i'm going to be followed as the zoning
and judicial chair for the city
and then
mr fishel our city attorney will be
following me in this tonight we are here
to discuss resolution 10-21
granting area variants with conditions
from the minimum lot requirements for
the property located at 407 north view
drive zoned r3 residential
to allow for two
non-conforming contingencies
lots and single ownership being used in
combination and considered an undivided
parcel under the bexley city code to be
split to permit two independent lots and
partials that would not meet the
existing r3 minimum lot requirements
the resolution 10-21 is a placeholder
only
this variance tonight applies to council
making a decision on a lot split only
the question that we have in front of
council this evening is
what is being planned here is it right
for bexley tonight we will hear a staff
report from kathy rose our director of
building and zoning
we will hear from the applicants
that will present their case they will
have around hello and thank you for
coming tonight they will have around 20
minutes to do so
if there are any
opponents in the room they will have
five minutes to present and a reminder
that those opponents need to be in
standing
and then we will conclude with the
applicants having an opportunity to
make closing remarks and again it will
be around 10 minutes to do that
at this time i would like to ask if
there are any residents in attendance
that plan to speak in opposition to the
application and that they identify
themselves by name and address
is there anyone present currently
in the room
all right
and then
to conclude after we have heard the
facts and findings this evening i am
going to ask council that we take the
evidence that has been presented in
front of us and that we adjourn for
deliberation
mr i think you've covered it okay um so
uh i'll be swearing witnesses as we go
and uh
guess we can move on all right
all right we'll go ahead yeah and uh
with that being said kathy we would love
to hear the staff report all right would
you raise your right hand thank you
do you swear or refer to tell the truth
and the testimony you're about to give i
do
so first i'll start off with mexico
section 122602c
lots in combination i'm sorry i got to
pull this under my nose so i can not
plug up my glasses okay so if an
applicant or if a vacant non-conforming
lot or parcel in any district it joins
one or more lots or parcels in common
ownership on the effective date of the
zoning code approval
or any time thereafter such lots shall
be replated as such parcels
shall be combined to create conforming
to or more conforming lots and or
parcels as a prerequisite for
development
so
in that
code what we were trying to address are
the fact that we've got non-conforming
lots that over the years have been
considered buildable lots but but these
lots are
we have found some that are
not large enough to be built upon or are
in odd
locations
um
we've got one even in that's part of a
lot that's in a different zoning
district
but one of the problems is also if
you've got two lots and there's a
structure principle structure on that
lot and one of the lots are sold
it can sometimes
create a variance or
a safety code violation by giving the
existing structure a new side property
line
when it was built while they had two
lots so in this in this instance we have
uh
two lots
that
have existed over the years they're both
located in the r3 zoning district
and
one of those lots being 70 feet in width
and the other one
is 103.7
3 feet in width
i don't know if somebody can bring up
the staff report that i have to show the
the site plan that would be very helpful
thank you
so the lot let's see if we can go to
page
three
keep going
there okay so
uh
this this is the
existing two lots a and b
and this is a right of way that was
vacated years ago so half of that right
away went to the slot what we'll call b
and it's actually a lot 19 on the
uh plat map
so
this r3 zoning district allows lots that
are
90 feet
wide by 160 feet in depth
so what's what's strange is that the lot
to the north is consistent with all the
other lots to the north
and they're all only 70 feet in width
now the lot to the south is larger
because of the half of the right-of-way
that it it you know
obtained over the years and that lot is
consistent now with all of the lots
south in this r3 zoning district
and the fact that this these two lots
sit across the street from the r6 zoning
district which has even a smaller lot
size requirement
it doesn't seem out of character
for
what's being proposed and it's actually
simply taking it back to the
original size lots
with the addition of the vacated
right-of-way
now the applicant has
taken
their
architecture review application before
the board and have received approval for
demolition and in that application
what's proposed to be built actually
meets the setback requirements of lot b
by itself so whether this goes forward
or not that does meet the zoning
requirements didn't have to go to the
zoning board so that was approved with
conditions but one of the conditions
that the board placed on it was it was
subject to request for a lot split
otherwise the lots would need to be
combined under one parcel
so the fact that
these lots don't meet the minimum lot
requirements for our three
it's a council issue and only council
can say whether this is appropriate
the splat the split itself is actually
uh the job of the zoning board and
that's also subject to what council does
with this
size
size request to reduce the size of the
luts
and
technically they're simply taking this
back to what was original
with the addition of the right-of-way
and i do not
find what's being requested to be out of
character for this location
does that conclude your staff report it
does in case any unless that anyone has
any questions
are there any questions from council
miss robinson
catherine you can tell me if this is
outside of of what we are to consider
but do we know
um what
would happen with that lot a is that
something that there are plans to build
something on or is that something that
would potentially be on the market for
purchase
he does not have any plans that i'm
aware of he's simply interested in
building on the southern lot but he
would like to have that lot available
uh for for sale or perhaps unless he's
interested in building on it himself do
i have to thank you provided
miss bible madam chairwoman if i may i'd
love to ask um miss rose um can you just
remind us what exactly what is the r3
that the number of the the lot it's
supposed to be what by what
uh 90 by
160 is the lot down 90 by 160. thank you
yes mr sharp
um if you don't mind i have two
questions the first is uh kathy you
explained the relationship with the
other properties to the south and to the
east
but um
what is your feeling on the property to
the west
which
from the slightly
tinted
outline i have here
it looks like there is a property that's
exact same size as the property under
consideration this evening with a house
built
over both lots
and
the
so if you can clarify if if i'm reading
this map correctly and what you think as
far as
the relationship
um with that property to the west and
the integrity of the
the neighborhood in general
and then i'll ask my second question
like may by if the chairman will allow
me to ask a second question
well the
both of these
properties were double lots
and then the right of way was vacated so
both of them obtained half of that right
of way
so this existing lot
was simply as opposed to one large
structure built across those property
lines there is a principal structure
built on lot b the southern lot and
there's a detached garage built on lot a
you're talking about the current
property the current property
i'm talking about the property
immediately to
yes
on north drexel
yes that they also have two and a half
lots
and
that's
always
that's always been there
okay and then the second question is
when the current zoning code was was
written and r3
was established and these properties
didn't meet the requirements of r3 but
they were
included in the r3 zone
was that the intent of the city at that
point that as
as property usage changed that it was
the intent that these properties at some
point conform to this code why wasn't it
included in
the r6 which is a smaller
i don't know
that was the case because you've got a
lot of even 40 foot wide lots throughout
the r6 zoning district and r6 has a
minimum a lot with a 50 feet so you've
got a lot of
existing non-conforming lots
but to just simply create them when they
weren't ever original lots of record
this request actually is putting these
back to the original lots of record
they're not trying to
split a an original out of record
yeah i'm not talking about that but i
was talking about the potential intent
of council at the time the zoning or
the the people who made the
recommendations since
properties to the west and to the south
are
larger lots
and larger homes was at the intent to
include them in a in an area to
to old at some point encourage
larger homes
and larger lots as
um to the north
that's just not sure if that was the
entire question
it was just simply to protect
existing
slots that were
way smaller than what's typically found
in that zoning district
so if this was an r6 lot for instance
which is not this is 70 feet in width
and r6 would be 50 feet in width so this
is larger than an r6 so it is in the r3
but this this is one of those growing
pains that we're dealing with with the
code changes
you know you try to make a code to
prevent
a concern that's
you know exists throughout the city and
then you run into these types of
situations where you have to explain
that you know this is an original lot of
record and it's always been r3 zoning
and it's the edge of r3 zoning so it's
abutting the r6 so it's not
you know
asking for smaller lots in the middle of
a mansion district that's nothing but
all large lots this does have some
consistency with what's what's
surrounding it not necessarily to the
west to the north and to the south
and if if catherine do you want to chime
in on that no she's got the map if you
want to see it farther out or ariel on
it
the honors map is up no i what you're
really talking about is non-conformities
whenever you do a zombing code
you try to get something that's the
standard that you want to apply to that
district but
actually is a is a
a wonderful old community and has
planning back that goes way before
zoning was ever thought of so in this
case
it was subdivided and there were plats
and the plant maps established these
lots that that when the zoning code came
into play the new code i don't know i
don't even know if those dimensional
standards were changed with the new code
because they carried over a lot of the
older standards they did they just
they are what are considered
non-conforming lots which means they're
allowed to continue as they are
they still have to meet all the
development standards for setbacks and
everything else but what creates the
complication in this is
when you have two lots that were
combined they were not performing as to
what depth
because in this case the lot depth on
these slots that's another it says 149
149.5 feet where you see this 407
um yeah if you if you
zoom in on that a little bit that what
will happen is you'll see yeah there
that you pop up the lock the lock
dimensions so there's a 149.5 depth of
that lot and the code requires 160. so
those lots were planted
and are now non-conforming to the zoning
the southern lot which i think happened
right
the southern lot which is b has um
go back up the other way
the one that's shaded
lot 19 that's flat 19 because it was
platinum slot 19. it has 103 because the
alley is added
that does meet the the width requirement
which is reflected in the resolution
that's before you well for your as a
starting point it's not really
it'll be based on whatever you decide
from your hearing but the lot to the
north is only 70 feet wide
and the zoning standard is 90. so it's
non-conforming both as to what depth
which should be under your zoning code
160 and it's at 149.5 but it was planted
that way it's been that way forever
and the lot width is 70 which it was
plotted that way it has been that way
forever so it's a non-conforming lot as
to both side dimensions
not unusual particularly in a historic
community where planning was done
you know i think the plat on this it was
1926.
so these lots were set out in 1926 and
at the time plotting was done initially
if actually the mayor is here he might
be able to tell us the original zombie
date program
um i would have that information at my
office but it was after a lot of these
subdivisions were planted that zoni even
became into effective next week so this
is just an example of that
um and it puts them into a variance
um requirement because of a lot with and
a lot that as to what it is conforming
now because they're used
but as to depth it is not performing now
anyway so they still need a variance as
to both
and for all of those lots if you think
about it all of these thoughts are
non-conforming as far as the depth goes
so i mean maybe we should have added a
clause where if it's in a certain
percentage of the original lot size
makes it okay but we've really got some
strange lock configurations that you
absolutely cannot build a house on but
you never know people will ask for
anything
so that that's sort of the history of
why
and throughout bexley um
back in the day people would convey
property either by lot or by whatever
portion of lots you see it all over the
place where there are lots that were
conveyed
by meats by different different than the
lot itself and then and you also have
place many places in the backseat where
two lots were combined and somebody used
them as a single lot and that's what the
zoning code in this case is dealing with
because on the b lot
you see the house
and on the a lot to the north is a
garage which services that house
which means now those lots have been
under single owner used in combination
so under your code they're considered as
a single one
even though they were originally planted
that's two the scene is known or biased
both owns both and uses them as a joint
is
your your code treats them as a single
one
even though it was platinus too because
of the way it was used
that makes sense
that that answered my question thank you
kevin mr markham
so natalie can you pull back a little
bit i i just have a question i want to
clarify what i'm looking at maybe one
more time even
yeah
so
when we're looking at
a and b there we're seeing a house in b
and a garage on a
and then just to the west of it we're
seeing a lot the same size that is the
same situation and really
really the same sort of layout which is
a house and probably a garage or
something extending over there but
what we are really seeing though north
of that if i'm correct is
that lot a those lots are all pretty
similar sizes and each of those contain
a single structure for the most part
right i see we get a little weird maybe
up as we get a little farther north
again so this a
would be similar to
looking like i don't know the six or so
lots to the north of that is that
correct that's correct okay and i'd like
to also point out as you see these
larger lots over to the west
you know at one point this was all r3
zoning and
you know people were were buying these
large lots and requesting splits
when we didn't have this code in place
and the zoning board had nothing to
prevent from not having not being or
they were able to be split so with that
in being a concern we actually then
created the r1 and the r2 zoning which
actually have even larger lot
requirements
so
you know i'm not sure how far over i
don't have my map in front of me again i
should we're the other r2 or the r1
start but
this block for sure is all r3 right you
can put an aerial layer on that if you
want to actually see the
yeah there you go
2019. oh yeah there you go if you click
that
there
that that actually it helps you at least
see the lots as they're
sort of the houses and the driveways it
sort of just pops it a little bit for
you so you can see kind of what's
happening
in that neighborhood
yes mr sharp
so the houses on the east side of the
street
and one farther north
it looks like at the top of the screen
there's a there's a house that's built
on two lots larger size
then the houses on the
east side of the street are
elongated houses that give the
appearance of wide lots similar to
farther west
so and so the houses on the east are
look like double lots even though
they're not deep
but they give the appearance of having a
larger
lot size as you're going up the street
so right
so it would make it
more condensed looking on the west
versus the east side of the street
if
[Music]
houses were built on both a and b
any other questions from council
we are ready to hear from the applicant
the button on the on the right there
take your mask
um thank you kristen ross and i'm here
on behalf of the applicant i'm an
attorney i don't know if i need to be
sworn
okay my client is here and he may want
to speak so when he comes up you and
i'll remember to to make sure that he's
sworn thank you it's my pleasure to be
here before you this evening um
council has already really honed in on
what is relatively a very simple issue
we are simply asking that
um the the lots go back to how they
originally are platted
they are two separate legally distinct
lots already two separate parcel id
numbers um and in 2016 when um there was
an ordinance changed and kathy went
through this in her report
because there was only a garage on lot
what we've been calling lot number a um
it was combined for purposes of use okay
but legally they still are
separate lots and so the applicant is
requesting that you today vary the r3
requirements the the um
requirements for both width and depth um
and with that variance of the r3
requirements then the application would
go back to the zap for the actual lot
split
um the applicant has already received
approval from um the arb for purposes of
tearing down the building that's there
and the garage um and the applicant
seeks to um build a home on lot b which
is is the the lower lot um we would
submit and you guys um already did a
fantastic job of reviewing
um the the current state of the lots
lot number a is already non-conforming
would never be conforming to
an r3 zoning lot number b is also
non-conforming as to depth um it would
never be conforming and with respect to
the remaining surrounding lots
notwithstanding the fact that there's a
structure to the east
i believe that's east i might be wrong
the one we were talking about on the
other side off of drexel um those still
are non-conforming lots with for
purposes of the r3 zonings and so we
would submit that there is sufficient
basis in your code to grant a variance
to restore these two lots to their
original legal platted
size
your and and i'm sure your city attorney
will go over this but the
criteria that the council will consider
in evaluating whether or not to grant
the variance is set forth in uh 1226.11
c there are seven criteria laid out
there and if you would indulge me for
just a second i'll go through those for
you
um and and we believe that that the
evidence that you'll receive not only
from staff but also from um the
applicant will provide um a
preponderance of evidence that those
criteria are met um the first is whether
or not and the property in question will
yield a reasonable return
i believe there's photos in your staff
report of the beautiful home that the
applicant is proposing to build on lot
number b certainly it is an improvement
over the home that's there now
and will further upgrade the
neighborhood
so we believe that that is
a good return we also believe a lot
split allowing for a property to
ultimately one day be built on lot
number a also does create
a reasonable return in that you've got
two new structures that are there with
upgrades and and
contributing to the neighborhood in
terms of visual
visual upgrades
whether or not the variance is
substantial we submit that it isn't
because
um these are existing lots and there's
an existing non-conformity
whether it changes the
essential character of the neighborhood
we would submit that it wouldn't and in
fact it upgrades uh the character of the
neighborhood um there are adjacent lots
both to the north and to the west that
are similar character size and style and
so um we don't believe that you would
have any concern there whether the
variants adversely affects um service
water sewage
i would say you know down the road um
the most you're looking at is one other
single-family home one other family in
bexley so we don't believe there is a
significant
impact there
whether the property owner purchased
with the knowledge of the zoning
restriction he did
and it was one of the things he
evaluated in deciding whether or not to
undertake this effort
whether or not the property owner's
predicament feasibly can be alleviated
through some other
method um you know he could build his
home
but then there is somewhat i would say
that there's the potential waste of
really what is a existing lot next door
that could be used
to to bring another home to the
neighborhood and then the last one is
whether the split and intent behind the
zoning requirement would be observed and
substantial justice done by granting the
variants and
you know again we believe that it would
because you're really just reverting
this property back to its original
platted
size and and as it is now it's still
non-compliant with the r3 and so we
don't believe by
um granting the variance from an r3
requirement um that that um that there's
a deviation from
um the the intent behind the zoning
because all the surrounding properties
essentially are non-compliant as well um
if i might turn it over to see if
there's any comments and then i'll take
any questions that you might have and
i'll remind the city attorney he needs
to be sworn
yes thank you
uh do you
can you state your name and your address
j.i last name is now iu i live at 2427
brentwood currently and
do you
affirm swear or affirm that the test i
do
i do
yes thank you i do
basically before we bother that property
we do not wear
those code issue in there
because
there's no reason for us
to build the white home the other lots
is not benefit for somebody else or
benefit for the neighborhood
for the financing wise we cannot afford
a you know keep that big lots
maybe jay sasting
can buy many many you know what i mean
you know i'm not trying you know
but as you know working hard couple you
know we just want to build a single home
otherwise we want to split it you know
the lots that's the purpose you know
our you know i want to split the lots
you know i do know the last
it is the two lots already in the
you know franklin county
i also know recently they do not meet
the new code
but if you look at the baxley i live uh
17 years
so many homes even way smaller than
uh this is eight lots
way smaller even i live
right now is
way smaller than 70 by
149.
so i'm just ask a fever you know if you
can
concern we we are allowed to split the
lots
well we appreciate you coming tonight
and speaking to us on your behalf of
your home and um we really value your
time because we know how how busy we all
are so thank you for coming and speaking
on your own behalf tonight is there any
questions currently from council
right and i do not believe that we have
any opposition in the room this evening
okay
or supporters um for the record
so um from here we will be i will be
advising um unless
is there any more time that you would
either of you would like to have uh well
because this is when we would come into
um your opportunity for closing remarks
af after opposition right
so we have nothing further nothing
further so at this point in time then i
would ask that the evidence that's been
presented to council tonight that we all
take this time to adjourn for
deliberation
[Music]
um meeting
for
the third reading well the third
reading's already been had it'll be
removed from the table and the decision
will be rendered at that time council
intends to
deliberate about that decision in
private now um but not come back and
make a decision this evening and and i'd
also like to point out that he is on the
agenda for the zoning board meeting this
thursday
he could proceed and any decision made
at that meeting could be contingent upon
whatever council decides at the
september
28th meeting
or you could simply table it and wait
till
the october meeting but that's up to the
applicant
that's fine
okay thank you so much thank you have a
good evening so
question for council
is
do you feel comfortable because this is
going to be more than
can i say one thing before
all right i'd like to make a motion to
adjourn
mr klinger uh thank you for seconding
that