Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

>> GOOD EVENING. EVERYBODY.

AND CALL TO ORDER THIS THURSDAY MEETING OF THE WORTHINGTON CITY

[A. Call to Order - 7:00 pm]

COUNCIL BOARD OF APPEALS. WITH ORDERS AGAINST PUBLIC GATHERING WE HAVE MOVED TO A VIRTUAL PLATFORM.

WE'RE USING MICROSOFT.

>> NINE PEOPLE AT A TIME.

-- I WILL THEN ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THE ADVOCATE AND THEN GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU'LL NEED TO BE SWORN IN AND APPLICANTS MAY ASK THE BOARD TO TABLE YOUR APPLICATION AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROCESS. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS FOR WAYS THE PUBLIC CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS.

FIRST YOU CAN E-MAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO CITY STAFF AT PLANNING AT WORTHINGTON .ORG AN THE OTHER OPTION IS TO CALL USING THE TELEPHONE. THE NUMBER IS 1-567-249-0063.

AND WHEN YOU CALL YOU'LL NEED THE CONFERENCE I.D. OF 45677589 POUND SIGN. YOU WILL BE MUTED UPON ENTRY AND NEED TO HIT STAR 6 TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

THE E-MAIL ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ITH THE CONFERENCE I.D.

ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE AND TO ACCESS THE LIVE STREAM OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THERE'S A 25 TO 30 SECOND DELAY IN THE LIVE STREAM. THERE'S BE TIMES DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTIONS TO PAUSE TO ALLOW THE LIVE STREAM TO CATCH UP AND FOR PHONE CALLS TO COME IN.

THAT BEING SAID, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ON OUR VIRTUAL PLATFORM AND HAVE COME TO THE MINUTES OF THE MAY MEETING.

THEY'RE PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL ARE THERE COMMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS?

>> MOVE. >> SECOND.

THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. OUR FIRST CASE NUMBER IS

[1. Variance – Rear Yard Setback – New Warehouse – 1018 Proprietors Rd. (Michael J. Maistros, AIA) BZA 16-2020]

BZA-05-20 FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK FOR A NEW WAREHOUSE VARIANCE AT 1018 PROPRIETORS ROAD.

MAY I HAVE STAFF'S PRESENTATION, PLEASE.

>> I'M GOING SHARE MY SCREEN AND GO THROUGH THE POWER POINT FOR ONE SECOND. IS EVERYONE ABLE TO SKI MY

SCREEN? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. SO THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF PROPRIETORS ROAD A ONE-ACRE PARCEL LAND LOCKED IN OUR RESTRICTED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

IT'S 1.8 ACRES IN SIZE AND DOES HAVE AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING CURRENTLY ON THE SITE OF APPROXIMATELY 8600 SQUARE FEET.

[00:05:06]

A CLOSER UP VERSION OF WHAT YOU'LL SEE TONIGHT AS YOU SEE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE THERE'S THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING FOR HEATING AND COOLING AND AS A PART THEY'RE PROPOSING ABOUT 24,000 SQUARE FOOT THE SITE. AND OFFICE BUILDING O- AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THERE IS A UNIQUE SITUATION WITH A LANDLOCKED PARCEL WITH ACCESS TO PROPRIETORS ROAD WEST TO THE PROPERTY. WHAT YOU'LL SEE TONIGHT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SAW IN THE STAFF MEMO.

THERE'S THINGS THAT POPPED UP THAT STAFF CAUGHT AT A LATER DAY. THE REMOTELY WORKING FROM HOME IS CATCHING UP WITH ALL OF US SO I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE.

ONE THING WE'LL SEE TONIGHT WITH THE PROPOSAL ON THE SCREEN NORTH IS TO THE LEFT SIDE AND TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN IS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE 2400 SQUARE FOT WAREHOUSE IT'S FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR SPACE THAT'S GOING ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

WITH THE LAND LOCKED PARCEL THEY'RE SUBJECT TO A 30, 30, 30 REQUIREMENT SINCE THERE'S NO FRONTAGE FOR THE PROPERTY.

THE MAIN REASON THE APPLICANT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THAT WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE CLOSER TO THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE THAN THE 30 FEET THEY'RE PROPOSING T TO BE 10 FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AND WITHIN 29 FEET, 28 FEET TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. AS PART OF THIS, ONE THING WE DID NOTICE IN GOING THROUGH THE REVIEW, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR IN LOT LANDSCAPING.

THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AN UPDATING SITE PLAN SHOWING ADDITIONAL TREES ADDED TO THE CODE SO THAT ALLEVIATES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCE THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID NOTICE IN GOING THROUGH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS THERE'S AN EXISTING 8600 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING BUT WITH THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE AND BUILDING ON THE EASTERN SIDE IT RAISES UP THE PARKING REQUIREMENT REQUIRED BY THE WORTHINGTON -- ADDITIONAL 24,083 SQUARE FOOT OF OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE IT KICKS YOU INTO NEEDING ADDITIONAL -- -- AS I WANT TO POINT OUT 6300 SQUARE FOOT IS LABELLED AS FUTURE TENANT SPACE AND STAFF WAS CONSIDERING THE WAREHOUSING CALCULATION UP TO 23 SPACES. THE SHORT VERSION OF THAT IS THAT TOTAL OF 70 SPACES ARE REQUIRED BY CODE WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS 39 SPACES. CURRENTLY YOU HAVE OVER 60 PLUS PARKING SPACES SO THEY NEED A VARIANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 31 PARKING SPACES FOR THE SITE. THIS IS COMING OFF PROPRIETORS ROAD AND CONSTRUCTION TO THE NORTH ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.

I'LL QUICKLY TRIP THROUGH THESE AND COME BACK TO THE SITE PLAN IN A MINUTE. YOU SEE THE RAILWAY MUSEUM TO THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN AND --

[00:10:14]

AND HERE YOU'LL SEE THE NEW OFFICE BUILDING.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WAS RELATED TO STORM WATER.

WE'LL RELAY NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS AND THERE'S DEFINITELY MORE STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED UP ON THE CITY SIDE.

CURRENTLY WITH THIS THERE'S THE AT IF THERE'S A WAY IN THE LARGE PAVED AREA MAYBE TO CREATE A SMALL ISLAND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME PERVIOUS SURFACE.

THE CAVEAT IS FOR MANEUVERABILITY FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR DIVISION OF FIRE TO SAFELY MOVE AROUND ON THE SITE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE DON'T MEAN TO SURPRISE THE APPLICANT WITH BUT DID WANT TO BRING TO THEIR ATTENTION. IF IT'S NOT ABLE TO BE DONE TO SAFELY MANEUVER THEIR VEHICLES OR THE DIVISION OF FIRE, WE WOULD DEFER TO OUR CITY ENGINEER AS PART OF THAT THEY'RE DOING THEIR STORM WATER CALCULATIONS AS PART OF NEXT STEPS IN APPROVAL. WITH THAT, I HAVE RAMBLED ON.

WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER EARLIER I SENT OUT TO THE BOARD FROM THE RAILROAD MUSEUM THAT WENT OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AND DID ALSO GO OUT TO THE APPLICANTS JUST STATING THEIR CONCERNS AND THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. AGAIN, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN OUR I-1 OUR RESTRICTED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 1.8 ACRES.

THE REQUEST WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SETBACKS THE REQUEST IS NOT TOO CRAZY IF YOU DRIVE UP AND DOWN PROPRIETORS AND LOOK AT THE BUILDING UP O SCHROCK OAD A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS ARE ON THE PROPERTY LINE TO 0 TO 30 FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO IND A BUILDING CLOSER TO THE SETBACK ALONG THE EAST SIDE GRANTED MOST HAVE FRONTAGE ROAD WHICH MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP. AGAIN, YOU HAVE A LAND LOCKED PARCEL TRYING TO LEARN SHAPE AND MEET HE 30, 30, 30 FOOT SETBACKS MAKES IT DIFFICULT BUT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 45 FEET FOR THE THREE STORIES, WHICH EVER AND I'M RAMBLING AND

[00:15:08]

HERE FOR QUESTIONS. >> I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE ACCESS.

I'M LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH YOU JUST HAD WHERE IS THERE GOING TO HAVE ROOM WITH 39 MORE SPACES AND MAYBE AN ISLAND IN

THE MIDDLE. >> FROM THE STAFF'S STANDPOINT OUR CODE REQUIRES MORE THAN WHAT IS TYPICALLY NEEDED.

WE ARE LOOKING AT THE NEEDS OF THE ACTUAL BUSINESS ITSELF WITH THE CAVEAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IF THERE'S A FUTURE TENANT THEY NEED TO BE AWARE THERE MAY BE TIGHTNESS RELATED TO PARKING BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW AS PART OF THIS, THEY'RE PROVIDING 39 WHERE 70 IS REQUIRED SO THE DIFFERENCE IS A VARIANCE AS PART OF THIS APPROVAL. WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON SINCE THE MAJORITY IS WAREHOUSED BUT WE DID WANT TO GET IT ON RECORD AND LET THE BOARD MEMBERS KNOW IN THE FUTURE IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT TIGHTER FOR A FUTURE TENANT IN THAT SPACE.

>> BECAUSE WHERE -- WAREHOUSING DOESN'T TYPICALLY REQUIRE THAT

MUCH. >> WAREHOUSING IS 1,000 AND OFFICE IS TYPICALLY 4,000. IT STARTS TO ADD UP.

WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH THIS PROPOSAL WITH LIKE A HEATING AND COOLING FOR THEIR HEADQUARTERS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TYPICALLY UNCOMMON THE PROPOSED PARKING WOULD MEET THEIR EEDS. WE JUST WANTED TO GO ON RECORD THAT A PORTION WAS SUBDIVIDED OUT OR A FUTURE TENANT RENTED OUT THERE WOULD BE TIGHTNESS IN PARKING AND THEY NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHEN I SHOWED THIS SCREEN IF THERE'S A WAY TO ADD A LANDSCAPED ISLAND, OR IF THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE PARKING, WHEN WE START TO GET INTO THE STORM WATER REVIEW IT MAY BE THAT AN ONSITE RETENTION IS NEEDED TO MEET THE EPA REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY. WE THOUGHT THERE WAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A LAND ESCAPED AREA THAT MAY HELP -- LANDSCAPED AREA THAT MAY HELP. FIRE SAFETY IS OUR KEY THING.

IF IT INTERACTS AND IMPEDES ANYTHING WITH THE DIVISION OF FIRE WE'D BACK OFF ANY REQUEST FOR GREENING UP THE SITE.

>> THE PURPOSE OF TO THE ISLAND IS FOR DRAINAGE?

>> AND TO OT HAVE A SEA OF ASPHALT TO REDUCE IT FOR WHAT YOU ACTUALLY NEED BUT WHEN THEY GET TO STORM WATER CALCULATIONS IT MAY BE THEY NEED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE GREEN ON THE SITE OR IF THEY WERE TO TRY TO DO A LANDSCAPED ISLAND OR SOMETHING THAT -- I DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR TRUCK TRAFFIC MOVEMENT OR DIVISION OF FIRE IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN.

THERE'S THE ABILITY TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE GREEN.

BUT IF IT INTERFERES WITH FIRE SAFETY WE'D BACK OFF.

THAT'S OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?

>> AS I LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH, I CAN GET PASSED THE SETBACK.

I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE ON THE EAST SIDE.

WHERE YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH AND NOT SURE I CAN GET PASSED THIS IS OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE SIZE OF HIS BUILDING FOR HIS INVESTMENT PURPOSES AND AS AN ACT -- ARCHITECT I GET THAT.

IT JUST SEEMS IT'S PUSHING THE PARKING ISSUE TOO MUCH FOR ME.

WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHERE IT'S LOCATE. I JUST THINK IT'S TOO MUCH BUILDING FOR THIS SITE RELATIVE TO THE PARKING THAT IS REQUIRED.

RECOGNIZING IT'S A WAREHOUSE I ALSO KNOW WE'LL HAVE LARGER TRUCKS COMING IN AND SERVICE TRUCKS AND MAY HAVE TRAILERS THAT COME IN. IF THEY START PUTTING TRAILERS AND STUFF IT WILL EFFECTIVELY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE

[00:20:02]

PARKING SPACES. FOR ME THAT IS MY CONCERN.

PARKING SLOTS VERSUS WHAT IS SHOWN SAY 40% DEFICIT.

I DON'T HAVE TO GET CLOSE TO THE 70, I JUST NEED TO GET CLOSER

THAN WHERE THEY ARE NOW. >> AND THAT MAY BE WHERE THE CENTER AREA I SUGGESTED TO BE A LANDSCAPED ISLAND MAYBE THAT'S AN AREA WHERE IT COULD BE A FUTURE STRIPED OFF AREA FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT FOR THAT. I KNOW THEY DO GET LARGE EQUIPMENT BACK THERE SO MANEUVERABILITY COULD BE AN AREA WITH OVERFLOW PARKING DEPENDING ON TENANTS' NEEDS AND WHO ROTATES IN. MAYBE IN FIVE OR 10 YEARS FROM NOW THERE'S NOT THE HEAVY TRUCK I GUESS I'D DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO TELL US ABOUT THE SIZE OF EQUIPMENT IN AND OUT OF THE SITE BUT HAVE YOU AN EXCELLENT POINT THERE.

>> NE TO DO WITH MANEUVERABILITY FOR DELIVERY TRUCKS AND HOW THAT WORKS. MY ASSUMPTION IS THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL VEHICLES THAT WOULD DELIVER INTO THAT SPACE.

DOES THE MOTION NEED TO GET ADDED IN N SOME WAY?

>> YES, WE'LL NEED TO ADD IT. >> WE CAN WORRY ABOUT THAT WHEN IT COMES UP JUST THOUGHT I'D PLANT THE SEED NOW.

>> THANK YOU. >> NYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE GO TO THE APPLICANT?

>> HE IS. >> HAS HE ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN?

>> WE HAVE NOT SWORN HIM IN YET. DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH IF SO SAY I DO.

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO MR. BROWN'S

PRESENTATION? >> I HAD A MEETING WITH THE LIEUTENANT OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PROBABLY ONE THEIR LAST MEETINGS BEFORE THE COVID VIRUS TOOK US ALL TO THIS KIND OF MEETING BUT DID I MEET WITH HIM AND WE DID DISCUSS THIS CURRENT PLAN YOU SEE BEFORE US AND HIS COMMENTS WERE POSITIVE AS LONG AS I COULD GET THE HOSE LENGTH YOU SEE ON THE DRAWINGS.

AS LONG AS WE COULD MAINTAIN A HOSE LENGTH OF LESS THAN 200 FEET HE WAS HAPPY WITH THIS CONFIGURATION.

I UNDERSTAND THEY O FROM TIME TO TIME HAVE LARGE SEMI TRUCKS THAT BRING IN EQUIPMENT. THAT'S THE MAIN REASON FOR KEEPING THAT AREA AS OPEN AS POSSIBLE FOR ASPHALT TO ALLOW THE LARGER TRUCKS TO MANEUVER IN AND GET BACK CERTAIN BAYS OF THE WAREHOUSE IN ORDER TO DROP OFF EQUIPMENT AND ALSO BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND. THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT SHOW ANY FURTHER EITHER PARKING OR GREEN SPACE IN THAT AREA.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> FROM THE BEGINNING WE WERE AWARE THE TORM DETENTION WOULD TAKE PLACE ONCE THE BUILDING INCREASED IN SIZE. IT'S CORRECT THE OWNER DID INDEED WANT TO MAXIMIZE THE BUILDING SIZE TO MAXIMIZE HIS POTENTIAL PROFITABILITY ON AN EXPENSIVE BUILDING.

SO WITH THAT STRETCHING OF THE BUILDING WE DID LOSE THE ABILITY TO HAVE SOME PARKING, MORE PARKING THAN WHAT WE COULD HAVE

[00:25:07]

HAD. AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE I'M NOT -- WE COULD REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING TO A DEGREE TO GET CLOSER TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.

THE WAREHOUSE IS FOR THE STORAGE OF THE HVAC EQUIPMENT.

I DO THINK THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DEFINITELY WOULD NOT BE NEEDED FOR THAT PARTICULAR TENANT BUT I DO CONCEDE THAT A FUTURE TENANT MAY HAVE PROBLEMS IF THEY NEEDED MORE PARKING FOR THEIR BUSINESS. I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE WAS

ALREADY STATED. >> THANK YOU.

DO BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME NOR

APPLICANT. >> YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THE BUILDING COULD BE SHORTENED OR SHRUNK.

HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO HAPPEN?

>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE BUILDING OWNER HIMSELF BUT I KNOW THE EFFORT AT THIS POINT WAS TO STRETCH THE BUILDING AS FAR AS HE COULD TO MAXIMIZE THE INVESTMENT.

I WOULD THINK A DISCUSSION WITH HIM IS WHERE WE COULD REDUCE TO IT A DEGREE IF THAT HELPS APPEASE SOME OF THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL PARKING. 25 FEET WOULD PROBABLY BE NO PROBLEM AT ALL. BEYOND THAT I'D NEED TO GO TO THE CLIENT AND SK. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE CLIENTS' REPRESENTATIVES IS ON THE CALL LISTENING.

HE MAY BE ABLE TO CHIME IN WITH A BETTER NSWER HE'S HAD MORE INTERACTION WITH THE BUILDING OWNER THAN I HAVE.

>> IF E WISHES TO BE SWORN IN HE CAN GIVE TESTIMONY.

>> OKAY. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD -- FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS?

>> I HAVE ONE ORE QUESTION, PLEASE.

I WAS LOOKING AT ONE OF THE E-MAILS MR. BROWN HAD SENT US AND THIS ONE RELATE TO CONSTRUCTION ABOUT THE ISSUE OF WALKERS. WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT GETS

STRAIGHTENED OUT. >> I WAS JUST MADE WEAR OF THE WATER TAP ISSUE A FEW DAYS AGO. THIS NEW BUILDING, THE OWNER WANTS IT FULLY SPRINKLERED WHICH WILL REQUIRE TAP.

WE'RE CONFIDENT WE CAN SOLVE THE WATER PROBLEM COMPLETELY BY BRINGING IN A BRAND NEW WATER TAP FOR THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND THE WHOLE BUILDING ITSELF. IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEPARATE THE CLIENT'S WATER FROM THE OTHER CLIENTS.

IT FEELS LIKE ALL THREE ARE ON THE SAME TAP WHICH I WAS MADE AWARE OF TODAY. IT WOULD HELP SEPARATE THE HEATING AND COOLING FROM THE OTHERS.

NOT SURE THAT SOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE MUSEUM BUT WOULD RESOLVE THE QUESTION OF THIS CLIENT BEING ON WITH

EVERYBODY ELSE. >> WHEN THEY MAKE APPLICATION FOR THEIR PERMIT, OUR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL BE LE VIEWING THAT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE TOO.

THERE'S A SECOND RUN AT THIS TOO.

>> C. CRANE: IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENCE AT THIS TIME FROM THE BOARD I SAY WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU CAN EITHER E-MAIL OR YOU CAN CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN.

THE NUMBER IS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT?

[00:30:02]

HOPEFULLY IT IS THERE. IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK?

>> WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT JOINED TO SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL GIVE A PAUSE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

>> C. CRANE: I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO HAVE THEM SWORN IN AND WE

CAN HEAR THEIR PRESENTATION. >> OKAY.

EVERYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT YOUR TESTIMONY

THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> MY WIFE OWNS MACK CONSTRUCTION AND WE'RE JUST TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY.

I'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS.

THE FIRST TIME WE KNEW ABOUT THIS PROJECT COMING UP IS WHEN THE BALTIMORE BLUE SIGN CAME UP AND SAID THERE WAS A MEETING TONIGHT. WE WERE NOT CONSULTED AT ALL AS FAR AS WHAT THE NEW OWNER WANTED TO DO.

I WILL AY WHEN THE PURCHASE WAS BEING CONSIDERED I SPOKE TO THE OWNER AND OWNER'S ATTORNEY AND TOLD THEM WE WERE TOLD BY THE CITY LOTS COULD NOT BE BUILT ON BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FRONTAGE.

WE ALSO EXPLAINED THERE WAS NO SEPARATE WATER TAP FOR THEIR BUILDING AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME THEY WERE GOING TO NEED TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A WATER ILL FOR THEIR PROPERTY THAT IS UNPAID AND THERE'S NO AGREEMENT SIGNED AND NO APPROACH FROM THE OWNER ON WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND WE DON'T WANT OUR WATER SHUT OFF BECAUSE OF THAT.

THAT BEING SAID -- AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DISAGREE WITH STAFF ABOUT THE PARKING BUT THE WAY I COUNTED UP THE PARKING WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME ON THE WEBSITE WAS THAT WE HAD BASICALLY 32 OR 33 SPACES PLUS TWO HANDICAPPED SPACES.

RATHER THAN THE 39. SO IT COULD BE -- THE CURBING COULD BE MORE OF AN ISSUE. OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE PARKING CONTROL BUSINESS. I DON'T WANT TO BE TOWING PEOPLE OFF THE PROPERTY. I'M SURE THE NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT PEOPLE PARKING DOWN THEIR STREET.

WHEN THE OFFICE BUILDING WAS REMODELLED IN 2009 THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS 29 SPACES PLUS TWO ADA SPACES. WE CAN TELL YOU FROM BEING THERE FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS NOW WHEN JORDAN L.L.C. WAS CRANKING ALONG, THEIR PARKING LOT FOR THAT OFFICE BUILDING WAS FULL.

ALL 61 OR YOU KNOW, 61 OR 51 SPACES THAT ARE THERE RIGHT NOW.

THOSE FOLKS WERE ALL THERE. THAT'S THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT WE'RE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NEW OFFICE AND STUFF AND NOTHING ABOUT HOW FAR AWAY THE PARKING IS FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING. THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS.

[00:35:04]

TRAFFIC IS THE OTHER. WE HAVE A 20-FOOT WIDE ENTRY TO THE PROPERTY. IF WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE TRAILERS COMING INTO THE LOT IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE 3 CHALLENGE. I DON'T KNOW HOW ITH THE BUILDING LOCATED RIGHT NOW HOW ANYBODY S GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL A 53-FOOT TRAILER IN AND BACK IT OUT WITHOUT BEING ON MACK CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY. I DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING.

MAYBE THEY'LL UNLOAD EVERYTHING A DIFFERENT WAY, I DON'T KNOW.

AND YOU WOULD SAY MAYBE THEY'LL JUST USE SMALLER TRUCKS.

WELL, BEING IN THE BUSINESS, I CAN TELL YOU WHEN YOU ORDER SOMETHING THAT'S 4X4, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL BRING IT ON.

THEY'LL BRING IT ON A 53-FOOT TRAILER OR WHATEVER.

YOU CAN'T TELL. AND WITH THIS BUILDING BEING 24,000 SQUARE FEET AND POSSIBLY IF THE TENANT WOULD WANT A SECOND FLOOR, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING 30,000 SQUARE FEET TO THIS LITTLE AREA I WOULD THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THIS THING JUST TO FILL THE PLACE UP. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER. HOPEFULLY THAT CAN GET RESOLVED.

THE OTHER THING IS AS FAR AS THE FIRE HYDRANT, I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY'S GOING TO FIGURE THE 199 FEET IS GOING TO GET TO THE BACK OF THAT BUILDING WITHOUT THERE BEING SOME SORT OF A FIRE HYDRANT THAT IS ADDED TO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE ONE RIGHT NOW IS ACROSS PROPRIETORS ROAD AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CROSS STREET. IT'S BASICALLY A WHOLE INTERSECTION AWAY AROUND THE CAR PLACE THAT'S THERE.

AROUND THE MUSEUM, AROUND THE OFFICE BUILDING AND THEN BACK TO THAT NEW BUILDING. I MEAN, IT'S A LONG WAY.

I CAN FINALLY SYMPATHIZE WITH THE OWNER WANTING TO MAXIMIZE HIS INVESTMENT. I DON'T HAVE ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT. THE ATTORNEY WHO TALKED TO ME SAID THEY'LL RY TO GET ABOUT A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILT ON THE BACK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY SO YOU CAN IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN I SAW 24,000 SQUARE FEET, MAYBE 30,000 SQUARE FEET WITH ANOTHER MEZZANINE IN THE TENANT PORTION OF THE BUILDING BEING SUGGESTED FOR THIS PROPERTY COMING DOWN OUR 20-FOOT WIDE ENTRANCE WAY. AND JUST O LET YOU KNOW SEVEN YEARS AGO JORDAN WAIVED -- PAVED THE BACK OF THEIR PARKING LOT AND THAT CAUSED WATER AND WE EXPERIENCED FLOODING INSIDE OF OUR WAREHOUSE. WE SPENT BETWEEN $15,000 AND $20,000 TO TAKE CARE OF THE WATER THE STORM SEWER ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW IS UNDERSIZED AS FAR AS WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE.

IF YOU GET A GULLY WASHER LIKE WE DID TODAY, ALL OF A SUDDEN ALL THE WATER HAS TO BE SET AND THEY HAD TROUBLE BECAUSE MANY ARE NOT ONLY 50 YEARS OLD BUT SOME I THINK ARE 50 YEARS OLD AND I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT ONE OF THE ENGINEERS FROM WORTHINGTON WAS EXTREMELY INTERESTED THAT WE NOT TOUCH

[00:40:07]

WORTHINGTON'S STORM WATER, NOT ADD ANYTHING TO IT WITH WHAT WE WERE DOING WHEN WE REDID OUR STORM WATER, WHICH OF COURSE WE WOULDN'T DO, BUT I THOUGHT I'D BRING THAT UP.

THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH STORM WATER.

I'LL FINISH UP BY SAYING THE RAILROAD FOLKS TOLD ME THE LAST RAIN THEIR TRACKS WERE SIX INCHES BELOW THE WATER.

I'LL BE QUIET. THANK YOU.

>> C. CRANE: I HAVE ONE QUESTION YOU SAID YOU WEREN'T NOTIFIED ABOUT THE MEETING. YOU ONLY SAW THE SIGN.

DID YOU NOT GET A MAIL NOTIFICATION?

>> YES, BUT WE DIDN'T GET IT IN UNTIL AFTER WE SAW THE SIGN.

AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING REMOTELY AND STUFF SO MAYBE IT'S JUST A

MATTER OF TIMING. >>

>> C. CRANE: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE SPEAKERS?

>> IF ON THE PHONE CAN WE SPEAK WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE.

>> C. CRANE: WE'LL GET TO YOU PROBABLY NEXT.

>> THANK YOU. >> C. CRANE: SO --

>> I CAN RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS.

>> >> C. CRANE: I'M SORRY, WHO'S

SPEAKING? >> THE APPLICANT.

>> C. CRANE: IT'S CONFUSING. I'M TRYING TO MANAGE THIS.

I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS GO THROUGH OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN GET BACK TO YOU. IS THAT ALL RIGHT?

>> THAT'S FINE, THANK YOU. >> C. CRANE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE MCHENRYS.

OKAY. I GUESS WE HAVE SOMEONE LSE WAITING TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC.

MR. BROWN? >> WE HAVE A CALLER FROM THE

RAILWAY MUSEUM. >> C. CRANE: OKAY.

HE'S BEEN SWORN IN. >> CALLER: I'M ON THE PHONE.

>> DO YOU SWEAR YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WILL BE TRUTHFUL?

>> CALLER: I DO. A COUPLE THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT BEFORE WE GO FURTHER TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND WE AGREE WITH MACK CONSTRUCTION FULL HEARTEDLY.

>> C. CRANE: COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

>> CALLER: I'M SORRY, JOHN B-E-R-G-M-A-N AND REPRESENT HE RAILROAD MUSEUM AT PROPRIETORS ROAD AND I'M ON THE BOARD AND THE TREASURER. THANK YOU.

ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT JUST IN THE SCOPE OF THE WORK WAS MR. BROWN'S MEMORANDUM TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING APPEALS BOARD TONIGHT ABOUT THE FINDINGS OF ACT UNDER BACKGROUND THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM.

IT SAYS THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE BUILDING WILL BE TWO STORIES. ACTUALLY, THE WHOLE BUILDING IS TWO STORIES. ALSO ON THE SECOND PAGE UNDER CONCLUSION WHERE IT SAYS THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED AS THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE WILL NOT BE SEEN FROM THE ROAD AND PROPOSED TO BE MOSTLY SINGLE STORY. THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

THE WHOLE WAREHOUSE IS 27 FEET TALL.

NOW, 27 FEET IS APPROXIMATELY A GOOD TWO STORY HOUSE, A LITTLE BIT MORE. ACTUALLY A TWO AND A HALF STORY HOUSE. I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE DRIVEN OVER THE YEARS UP AND DOWN PROPRIETORS ROAD AND SEE THE GREEN BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY NEXT TO OURS WHICH HAS BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, THAT BUILDING IS 20 FEET CALL AND YOU CAN EASILY SEE IT FROM PROPRIETORS ROAD. THAT BEING MY POINT OF REFERENCE, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS WE HAVE A 315-FOOT LONG BUILDING THAT WILL BE TWO STORIES TALL, 27 FOOT AND YOU'LL

[00:45:02]

BE ABLE TO SEE IT ROM PROPRIETORS ROAD.

IT WON'T BE HIDDEN EVEN BEHIND THE RAILROAD MUSEUM.

YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT FROM OUR PROPERTY AND FROM PROPRIETORS ROAD VERY WELL, THAT TALL STICKING OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. WE CONSIDER IT TO BE TAJMA HALL AND IN DEALING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND SINCE THEN WE'VE BEEN VERY MUCH LEFT OUT. I FEEL THE PAIN OF MR. MCHENRY AND HIS WIFE ABOUT THE WATER BILL.

THIS GENTLEMAN HAS BEEN RUDE AND BULLYING TO US ABOUT OUR EASEMENT BEING NEGOTIATED. THEY'RE GOING ON YOUR DRAWINGS THERE YOU'LL SEE ON THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY THE ONLY WAY TO GET ON THEIR PROPERTY IS THE 50-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT AND THE ONLY WAY THROUGH IS THROUGH MACK'S PROPERTY AND THEY'RE THE BEST NEIGHBOR YOU CAN HAVE AND WE'RE PLEASED O HAVE THEM.

THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS ALSO A BOARD MEMBER THAT PASSED RECENTLY AND WE'VE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH HIM.

THAT'S THE REASON THEY HA AN EGRESS AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY BUT THE NEW OWNER DOES NOT HAVE LEGAL INGRESS AND EGRESS ACROSS THE 50 FOOT. THAT'S NOT FOR YOU BUT A POINT OF REFERENCE WE'RE ADDRESSING THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM.

WE WERE SURPRISED ABOUT 315 FOOT LONG IS A BIG PROPERTY.

MR. BROWN SAID HE'S SIGN OFF OUR REACTION TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENTS AND THEY'RE NUMBERED I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM AND POINT OUT HIGHLIGHTS AND ANYBODY THAT HAS QUESTIONS FOR US ABOUT

RESPONSES -- >> C. CRANE: I THINK WE'VE ALL RECEIVED A COPY THROUGH E-MAIL? I KNOW I DID AND HAVE MINE PRINTED OUT. I ASSUME WE'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE

TO READ THAT BOARD MEMBERS? >> YES.

>> A COUPLE HIGHLIGHTS AND IF ANYBODY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS SPECIFIC THAT'S FINE BUT THERE'S NO SENSE IN READING WHAT WE'VE TYPED BUT SOME HIGHLIGHTS ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH MACK CONSTRUCTION, MOST WHOLEHEARTEDLY ABOUT THE STORM WATER PROBLEM. WE HAVE HAD A STORM WATER PROBLEM UP THERE FOR AGES AND WE'RE WORKING TO REMEDY THAT BY RUN RUNNING UNDERGROUND DRAIN LINES ON OUR PROPERTY BUT OUR PROPERTY AS I'VE POINTED OUT IN ITEM 4 ON MY RESPONSE WHETHER THE VARIANCE WOULD AFFECT SERVICES, OUR RESPONSE TO VACANT LAND IT HOLDS WATER AFTER A RAIN STORM, THE VACANT LAND AND MACK HAS THE PROBLEM YOU HEARD THEM STATE.

WHERE IS THIS EXISTING SITTING WATER GOING TO GO? THERE'S A 16,250 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH A PITCHED ROOF THAT WILL HAVE GUTTERS AND THAT WATER WILL HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE.

ALL THE STORM WATER FROM THE NEW PAVED PARKING LOT IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO SOME WHERE. I'M JUST FRAID IT'S GOING TO END UP ON MACK'S PROPERTY OR END UP ON OUR PROPERTY.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH BUT I KNOW WITH THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE NOW IT'S GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE AND IF IT CAN'T GO BACK INTO THE GROUND WHERE THE BUILDING'S SITTING AND CAN'T GO BACK IN THROUGH THE PAVED PARKING LOT, MACK AND US ARE GOING TO SEE EVEN MORE PROBLEMS THAN WHAT WE SEE NOW.

THAT'S ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CONSIDERATIONS ADDRESSED.

WE HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN ABOUT THE WATER PROBLEM.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT AND THE PROPERTIES AND MUSEUM BEING PART OF THAT.

THE MUSEUM IS NOT PART OF THAT. WE'RE NOT ON THAT WATER METER.

WE KNOW THAT LINE IS JOINTLY SHARED BY THEM BUT THAT DOESN'T AFFECT US T ALL HOWEVER, ANY UTILITY TRENCHING, EASEMENT,

[00:50:04]

GAS, WATER, SEWER THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK, THEY'LL HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO GET THERE AND DON'T HAVE AN EASEMENT FOR US TO GET NEW UTILITIES AT BEST EVEN IF THEY CAN PROVE AN EASEMENT IS AN INGRESS AND EGRESS AND NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN JUST GO TEARING UP THE WHOLE YARD FOR. WE DEFINITELY FEEL IT'S TOO MUCH BUILDING FOR THE SITE. THAT'S IN REGARDS TO THE SHORE WATER RUNOFF AND DRAINAGE. IT'S A VERY DYNAMIC BUILDING.

I CAN ADDRESS ONE OTHER ISSUE THE UNPAID WATER BILL WITH MACK, WE'VE HAD NOTHING BUT PROBLEMS WITH THEIR ATTORNEY.

THE FIRE HYDRANTS ARE GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.

I KNOW WHAT MACK WAS SAYING. THE 199-FOOT HOSE LAYS ON THE FIXTURE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE THERE'S A FIRE TRUCK PARKED ON EACH END OF THE BUILDING AND FEELING QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ON THIS BECAUSE I WAS A FIREFIGHTER FOR 40 YEARS WITH THE CITY OF COLUMBUS. I KNOW ABOUT FIRE TRUCKS AND HYDRANTS. THEY'RE TRYING TO SHOW THE 199 FEET PULLING A HOSE FROM EITHER END WHERE A FIRE TRUCK IS PARKED AND HAVE A FIRE TRUCK PARKED AT THE ND IT WOULDN'T BE LONGER THAN 199 FEET IF YOU PULLED FROM EITHER END TO GET TO THE MIDDLE.

THAT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. AS MR. MCHENRY SAID, THE HYDRANTS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

THERE'S ONE SORT OF CLOSE ON PROPRIETORS AND ANOTHER DOWN.

WATER PRESSURE FROM LAYING THAT LONG OF A LINE WOULD BE PROBLEM.

THAT'S A LONG LAY. IT'S DEFINITELY THERE'S USUAL A 1,000 FEET OF FIVE-INCH HOSE ON TRUCKS AND I THINK FOR WORTHINGTON RUNS IT ABOUT THE SAME.

THAT'S A LONG HOSE LAY. IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE EVERY BIT OF 800 TO 1,000 FEET TO GET BACK IF YOU'RE LAYING TO THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPOSED SITE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR LETTER AND RSPONSES, WE FEEL IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL DETERRENT TO US AS STATED IN THE CENTRAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED AND THEIR ANSWER IS THE SITE IS TUCKED AND THE RAILWAY MUSEUM.

YOU'LL SEE A 27-FOOT BUILD FROM PROPRIETORS ROAD, I GUARANTEE AND WE FEEL IT THE BE A DETERRENT TO OUR OPERATION AND WE'LL LOOK AT GARAGE DOORS AND DUMPSTERS IS ALL WE'LL BE SEEING. THAT TOTALLY BLOCKS THE VIEW AS I POINTED OUT OF ALL PASSING TRAINS WHICH IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS FOR GUESTS ATTENDING OUR FACILITY BECAUSE YOU CAN WATCH THE FIELD FOR WHAT THE OWNER INTENDED AS THE FIELD'S NEVER BEEN BUILT UPON. WE WERE IN DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THIS WAS EVEN BUILT. THE GENTLEMAN CAN'T SAY UNDER NUMBER 5 THAT HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ZONING RESTRICTION. IT SAID THE OWNER WAS NOT WARE.

HE WAS AWARE. I CAN TELL YOU I HAD PERSON DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AND THEIR ATTORNEYS, NUMEROUS DISCUSSIONS ON THE LAND AND GIVING THEM THE INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT THEY VIEW OF THE RAILROAD RACKS FROM- OUR PROPERTY LOOKING STRAIGHT ACROSS. FROM OUR PROPERTY LOOKING STRAIGHT ACROSS TO THE 27-FOOT BUILDING YOU WON'T SEE ANYTHING.

OF THE PROPERTY FROM NOVEMBER L- 2006 WAS LATER VOIDED BY THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT DUE TO THE LAND NOT BEING DEVELOPABLE ON THE SECTION NOW IN QUESTION AND THAT'S THE MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SECTIONS AND DEVELOP IT LIKE TW- THAT. I THINK I'VE SAID ENOUGH.

I DID ALL MY RESPONSES. IF YOU READ THEM I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M ON TO ANY QUESTION -- OPEN QUESTIONS AT ALL AND WE SUPPORT MACK'S POSITION IN ALL THIS TOO.

THE GUY'S BEEN NOTHING BUT A PAIN TO DEAL WITH AND SEE THEM BEING A PAIN IN THE FUTURE. I THINK THE BUILDING IS A TAJ MAHAL AND DOESN'T BELONG WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> C. CRANE: THANK YOU VERY

[00:55:05]

MUCH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS OR FROM THE PUBLIC?

>> I HAVE ONE E-MAIL I RECEIVED AND IT PRETTY MUCH ECHOS WHAT'S JUST BEEN SAID. IT'S FROM GARY IGNACIOS AND HE APPARENTLY OWNS A PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THESE TWO.

HE SAYS THAT HE'S CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT THE DISTANCE FROM THE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ON THE BUILDING AND HE SAYS STORM DRAINAGE IS A PROBLEM IN THE WHOLE AREA. HIS PROPERTY WILL FLOOD TOO DURING HEAVY RAINS AND SEWERS BACK UP OFTEN AND CAN'T TAKE THE CURRENT RUNOFF THERE AND BLACK TOPPING 90% OF THE BACK LOT WILL AFFECT THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE CURRENTLY ON THIS CALL WITH US THAT WANTED TO SPEAK.

IF SO, UNMUTE YOURSELF. OKAY.

WE SHOULD PROBABLY TAKE TIME IN CASE THERE'S ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS

THAT WOULD LIKE TO CALL IN. >> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL DO THAT AND THEN WE WILL GET BACK TO THE APPLICANT FOR A RESPONSE. SO WE'LL TAKE A 90-SECOND BREAK.

>> YES. >> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT.

>> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT. HAVE WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS? >> NOTHING ELSE HAS BEEN

RECEIVED. >> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE

ANYTHING TO ADD AS A RESPONSE? >> YES, EARLY ON I FORGOT TO MENTION ONE OF THE ITEMS HE WAS GOING TO REQUIRE WAS THAT WE WERE GOING HAVE TO PUT A NEW FIRE HYDRANT ON THE PROPERTY SOMEWHERE. THAT WAS PLANNED.

SO, YES, JOHN IS CORRECT. THE FIRE RUCKS TO THE HOSES ARE FROM THE FIRE TRUCK ITSELF AND WILL HAVE A NEW FIRE HYDRANT PUT ON THE SITE TO TIE THE TRUCKS TO.

ON MY DRAWING I DO SHOW WHERE THE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS WERE LOCATED TO SHOW WE ARE NOWHERE NEAR IN ACCESSING IT.

THEY'D HAVE TO RAG THEIR HOSES ACROSS THE PROPERTY OR RAILROAD TRACKS WHICH DOESN'T WORK. WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION ON ADDING THE FIRE HYDRANT ON THE SITE TO TAKE CARE OF THE WATER FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO

[01:00:01]

REITERATE WITH THE STORM DETENTION THAT IS ALSO PLANNED, THERE SAY CIVIL ENGINEER THAT WILL BE GETTING INVOLVED IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD. THEY'LL DO ALL THE STORM CALCULATIONS FOR THE SITE AND AS I STATED EARLIER WE ARE PRETTY CONFIDENT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE DETENTION SYSTEM WHICH WILL DEFINITELY ADDRESS THESE STORM RUNOFF ISSUES. IT CAN DEFINITELY BE SIZED ACCORDINGLY TO THE EXISTING SITE CONDITION AND HANDLE THE EXCESS RUNOFF IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. THERE'S THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE EASEMENT. THE ACCESS GETTING EVERYTHING TAKEN TO THE PROPER LOCATION. THAT TO ALSO BE RESOLVED.

IN GENERAL, THE PLAN WOULD BE TO HAVE THE DETENTION AND HOLD THE WATER AND THEN TAKE IT OUT THROUGH THE PROPER LOCATION.

AGAIN, THIS WILL BE DONE BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER.

THOSE TWO ITEMS BROUGHT UP WILL BE RESOLVED IN THE NEXT PHASE.

THE OTHER THING I DID WANT TO MENTION, SINCE THE TIME F THE APPLICATION, THE OWNER HAD DECIDED TO REMOVE THE LARGE PORTION OF THE SECOND FLOOR MEZZANINE IN THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING. SO THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS MORE AT 17,500 SQUARE FEET AS FAR AS THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

IT AFFECT THE PARKING CALCULATIONS A LITTLE BIT.

IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PARKING CALCULATION BUT IT TAKES THE NUMBER OF PARKING REQUIRED DOWN MORE IN THE 50S, CLOSER TO 60 RATHER THAN 71. THAT GETS US A LITTLE BIT 3 CLOSER. AGAIN, IF WE HAD TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING BY 25 FEET, WE'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT AS WELL. SO THOSE WERE THE ITEMS I WANTED TO ADDRESS BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO SPEAKERS.

>> C. CRANE: OKAY. THANK YOU.

BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THIS?

>> MR. BOWN YOU HAVE CITED THE BUILDING WAS INTENDED TO BE FULLY SPRINKLERED IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLED AND AS THE APPLICANT MENTION THE FIRE HYDRANT EXTENDED TO THE SITE.

WHEN BRAN DUNN WITH THE DIVISION OF FIRE REVIEWED THIS IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING WAS IN FULL SUPPORT IT WOULD MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND NEEDS FOR ACCESS TO THE SITE ND BE ABLE TO PROI TECT THE BUILDING -- PROTECT THE BUILDING IF NEEDED.

>> THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE THIS SITE IS IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND A BUILDING AS TALL AS THREE STORIES. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE THERE'S

NO ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT? >> CORRECT.

THE HEIGHT IS WITHIN COMPLIANCE FOR THE DISTRICT.

>> OKAY. TAKING OUT THE MEZZANINE HELPS.

WHAT IS THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE BUILDING -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE EASEMENTS ARE RESOLVED, GETTING A WATER LINE BACK THERE.

IT'S A MATTER OF PROCESS THAT WILL WORK ITS WAY OUT.

IT'S A SIZE ISSUE FOR ME. THANK YOU.

>> >> L. REIBEL: I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SIZE WELL AND SAYING JUST LOP OFF 25 FEET.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A DESIGN DECISION WE CAN MAKE AT THIS

MEETING. >> I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE JUST SAID IS IT'S TRYING TO PUT TOO MUCH ON THE SITE AND MAYBE IF IT WERE SMALLER IT WOULD BE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ACCESS.

[01:05:12]

DO ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY FEELING.

>> I WOULD LAYER ON TOP OF WHAT MS. CRANE AND MR. COULTER SAID.

I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SIZE. I APPRECIATE OFFERING UP 25 OF THE BUILDING I DON'T KNOW WITHOUT DOING QUICK PUBLIC MATH ABOUT THE PARKING AND IT'S PROBABLY MORE OF AN AREA GAIN, 25 FEET PROBABLY QUALS NO MORE THAN THREE SPACES ACROSS THE WIDTH THERE. BUT THE OTHER HING IS I THINK THE FOLKS FROM MACK CONSTRUCTION BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT WHICH IS THE MANEUVERABILITY OF THE LARGE VEHICLES.

ONE OF THE BENEFITS FROM HOSTING A MEETING LIKE THIS IS WE CAN ALL HOP ON GOOGLE EARTH AND GET A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT THE BUILDING AND SPACE IS. IT JUST SO HAPPENS THE FOLKS AT MACK CONSTRUCTION AND GOOGLE EARTH HAVE A COUPLE JOB TRAILERS IN THERE A LOT RIGHT NOW AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE SATELLITE IMAGE AND YOU START TO SEE WHAT THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILERS RESULT TO BE AND IF WE TABLE THIS AND WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES BACK, THERE COULD BE SOME GOOD BENEFIT TO SHOWING MANEUVERABILITY OF TRACTOR-TRAILERS AND HOW YOU CAN DO THAT WHILE STILL ON YOUR PROPERTY OR AT MINIMUM WITHIN THE EASEMENT AND NOT ENCROACH TO THE MACK CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY.

JUST TO ADD TO WHAT THE TWO OF YOU SAID, I AGREE IT SEEMS LIKE AN AWFUL LOT OF BUILDING CRAMMED ONTO THE SITE.

>> MY SUGGESTION IS THE APPLICANT SKS FOR THIS TO BE TABLE. IF THEY ASKED FOR A VOTE I'M NOT SURE IT'D GO THE WAY THEY WANTED.

BY TABLING IT IT GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT MAY BE LOOKING AT THE CONCERNS OF THE RAILROAD MUSEUM AND MACK CONSTRUCTION HAVE LAID.

>> OVERALL, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT I JUST NEED QUESTIONS ANSWERED BEFORE I CAN GET FULLY BEHIND IT.

>> I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS.

I WILL DEFINITELY GO BACK. IT'S A GOOD PROJECT TO TABLE FOR THE MEETING. WE'LL COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT.

I HAD SOME TRUCK TURNAROUNDS ON THE DRAWING BUT WE TURNED IT OFF TO SUBMIT FOR THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE IT CLOUD THE OVERALL LOOK BECAUSE THE TRUCKS WERE ALL OVER THE DRAWING.

I DO HAVE THOSE. WITH OUR NEXT SUBMISSION I'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT MAYBE SEPARATES THOSE THAT WAY IT DOESN'T CLOUD THE OVERALL SITE PLAN BUT CAN BE AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE PLAN FOR THE TRUCKS. I SHOULD ALSO MENTION ACCORDING TO THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS THEY ONLY RECEIVE LARGE DELIVERY TRUCKS TWICE A MONTH. THE LARGER TRUCKS ARE NOT ON THE SITE VERY OFTEN AND WON'T BE AN IN AND OUT WITH THE LARGER TRUCKS. MOST IS HANDLED BY THE SMALLER TRUCKS. THEY'LL HAVE LESS TROUBLE MANEUVERING ON THE SITE. SO I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS NOT ONLY BY THE BOARD BUT BY THE SPEAKERS AND WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS AND RESUBMIT.

>> THANK YOU. >> MRS. MCHENRY WOULD LIKE TO

ADD SOMETHING. >> I ALREADY SWORE.

I'M A CO-OWNER FOR MACK CONSTRUCTION AND HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE TWO PARCELS IT'S AN OBLIGATION ON

[01:10:05]

THE TENANT OWNER TO HAVE THEIR OWN TAP.

NO LONGER CAN TWO TIE INTO ONE TAP.

IT'S A REGULATION AFTER THE PARCEL AND WHEN THEY SPLIT IT IT WAS NOT DONE AND REQUIRED BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT AND NOW SAY SOMEBODY HAS TO ENGINEER WHAT KIND OF A WATER TAP AND WHAT KIND OF A LINE NEEDS TO GO. I WANTED TO REMIND THE COUNCIL AND THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE PROPERLY.

>> C. CRANE: CAN I HEAR A MOTION TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION,

PLEASE? >> SO MOVED.

>> I MOVE TO TABLE. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> C. CRANE: MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL?

>> MS. REIBEL. >> MR. FALCOSKI.

>> YES. >> MS. CRANE.

[2. Variance – Front Yard Setback – Porch – 661 Seabury Dr. (Famiglia Homes/Piche) BZA 17-2020]

>> C. CRANE: MOVING ON TO OUR SECOND ITEM TONIGHT.

THAT'S BEEN TABLED. .

THE NEXT ITEM IS CASE NUMBER BZA17-2020.

LOCATED AT 661 TEABURY DRIVE. MR. BROWN, DO YOU HAVE A

PRESENTATION? >> THE REQUEST IS FOR A RONT YARD SETBACK AND I'LL SHARE MY SCREEN REAL QUICK.

WE HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION. A CORNER LOT ON SEABURY DRIVE AND THE ACCESS DRIVE THAT RUNS ALONG 161 ACROSS FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL. BEFORE YOU YOU HAVE A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R10 DISTRICT OUR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. AGAIN, 161 IS CONSIDERED A REGIONAL THOROUGHFARE AND REQUIRES 50 FEET WHERE A TYPICAL SETBACK IS 30 FEET. SEABURY DRIVE HAS A SETBACK OF 30 AND THE CCESS DRIVE HAS A SETBACK OF 50 FEET SO ONE OF THE REASONS YOU'RE SEEING IT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

FRONT PORCH ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS ACTUALLY -- IF YOU DRIVE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE MOST HOUSES DO HAVE FRONT PORCH. IT WOULD BE IN CHARACTER WITH THAT. IT DID O BEFORE THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD LAST THURSDAY FOR APPROVAL.

AGAIN, IT'S FOR A 34-FOOT WIDE BY EIGHT-FOOT DEEP CONCRETE FRONT PORCH EXTENDING ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

HERE YOU CAN SEE THE PORCH ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

HERE'S THE PROPOSED VIEW OF WHAT THE PORCH WILL LOOK LIKE.

SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO WHAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT KILBORN VILLAGE.

THIS IS LOOK FROM THE ACCESS DRIVE ALONG 161.

SOME PHOTOS ALONG 161 WON'T CREATE A LINE OF SIGHT ISSUE.

THE PORCH IS AN EXISTING PLANTING BED RIGHT NOW.

WON'T CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

IT'S COMMON TO DRIVE THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FIND A SIMILAR STYLED HOUSE WITH A FRONT PORCH ON THE FRONT.

STAFF DID NOT AVE CONCERNS. THE VARIANCE SETBACK FOR SEABURY IS ACTUALLY ONLY ONE FOOT DEEP THAT IS REQUIRED.

THE VARIANCE ALONG THE 161 ACCESS DRIVE IS 13 FEET.

STAFF DID NOT HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU AND CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AT THIS TIME.

>> C. CRANE: THANK YOU. ARE THERE QUESTION OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF FROM THE BOARD AT THIS POINT?

DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE? >> YES, MY NAME'S ELENA GREEN.

I'M THE APPLICANT. >> C. CRANE: HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN

IN? >> NOT YET.

>> DO YOU SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IS THE TRUTH. IF SO SAY I DO.

>> CALLER: I DO. >> C. CRANE: DO YOU HAVE

ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO >> CALLER: I DON'T THINK SO.

[01:15:03]

WE HAVE EVERYTHING. >> C. CRANE: BOARD MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? I WAS WALKING BY THAT PROPERTY THE OTHER DAY AND IT LOOKS LIKE -- AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN YOU KIND OF HAVE A VERY SMALL BACKYARD. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CALLER: THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH.

>> C. CRANE: YOU'LL HAVE LIVING SPACE OUT IN THE FRONT AND I THINK IT'S SORT OF BEEN SOMETHING THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAVING PEOPLE OUT ON THEIR FRONT PORCHES INTERACTING WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS A LITTLE BIT. MAYBE NOT ALL THE TIME BUT --

>> CALLER: CORRECT. >> C. CRANE: HAVE WE RECEIVED COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC EITHER BY TELEPHONE OR E-MAIL?

>> NO, WE HAVE NOT. >> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL PAUSE FOR ABOUT 90 SECONDS TO ALLOW ANY TO COME IN THAT

PEOPLE MAY WANT TO ADD. >> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT.

HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS? >> NO, WE HAVE NOT.

>> C. CRANE: ALL RIGHT. IF NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR BOARD MEMBERS, REMEMBER TO UNMUTE.

>> DO YOU WANT TO UNSHARE YOUR SCREEN.

>> C. CRANE: IS THAT BLOCKING. >> BLOCKING SEEING EVERYONE ELSE. THE NEXT ONE OVER.

THE REG TANGLE WITH THE X IN IT. CLICK THAT.

THE RECTANGLE WITH THE . >> NO, THAT SHARES MY SCREEN,

RIGHT? >> YOU'RE ALREADY SHARING.

>> APPARENTLY I'M SHARING ALREADY.

>> OH, I DON'T KNOW HOW I SHARED.

ALL RIGHT. THEN I CAN HIT HARE OR HANG UP.

>> SHOP SHARING. -- STOP SHARING.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> OKAY. MADAME CHAIR I MOVE THE MOTION FOR CODE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR A PORCH TO BE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AT 661 SEABURY AS PER CASE NUMBER BZA 17-2020 DRAWINGS NUMBER BZA 17-2020 DATED -- BE APPROVED AS

PRESENTED AT THE MEETING. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> C. CRANE: IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

. >> C. CRANE: IT'S BAN PROVED.

[01:20:18]

THANK YOU. >> AWESOME.

THANK YOU. I SHARED SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT DID. >> C. CRANE: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS TO BRING BEFORE US TONIGHT?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> C. CRANE: THEN DO I HAVE A

MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> C. CRANE: MOVED AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? WE HAVE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.