[00:00:01]
[CALL TO ORDER]
AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING HELD AT 55 55 PERIMETER DRIVE.THE MEETING CAN ALSO BE ACCESSED VIA THE LIVESTREAM VIDEO RECORDED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WE WELCOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CASES.
THE MEETING PROCEDURE FOR EACH CASE THIS EVENING WILL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
THE BOARD WILL ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO STAFF FIRST, THEN THE APPLICANT.
THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE PODIUM.
EACH SPEAKER MUST PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS OR THE RECORD FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT, INCLUDING THOSE SUBMITTED BY EMAIL.
THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE ON THE CASE PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION.
[ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES ]
TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE LAST MEETING.UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION, UH, BEFORE THAT I JUST HAVE ONE CORRECTION IN THE MINUTES? SURE.
UM, ON PAGE FOUR, TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE, UM, PAGE, UH, IT LISTS, UH, MR. GARVIN ASKING A QUESTION.
AND SO THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO, SINCE DAN IS, IS NOT ON THE BOARD ANYMORE.
UH, SUBJECT TO THAT AMENDMENT, UH, WE CAN, UH, GO AHEAD AND, UH, WOULD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE A MOTION TO, UH, ACCEPT THEM? YEAH, I'LL, UH, I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 26TH, 2025 MEETING, UH, WITH THAT MODIFICATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES AND STAFF.
UH, ANYONE INTENDING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON ANY OF THE CASES THIS EVENING? PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IN YOUR TESTIMONY TO THIS BOARD? YES.
[Case #25-063V ]
TO OUR FIRST CASE OF THE EVENING.AND, UH, AS MENTIONED, THAT WILL BE, UH, STAFF WILL GIVE ITS PRESENTATION FIRST, AND WE WILL MOVE ON FROM THERE.
TODAY IS A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR CYPRESS CHURCH DUBLIN.
SO THIS IS A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW DEVIATIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR SPECIAL CONDITION.
SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, AND A DETERMINATION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL IS REQUIRED.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 70 55 AVERY ROAD AND ABUTS WEXFORD WOODS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST, AND WEXFORD ESTATES TO THE NORTH.
THE SITE IS 5.72 ACRES AND IS ZONED R ONE RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THE SITE CONTAINS A BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1983, WHICH HOUSES CYPRESS CHURCH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE EXISTING PARKING LOT SPANS MUCH OF THE SITE TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.
THERE'S ALSO A SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ALONG THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE WEST, UH, AND THEN TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TOWARD AVERY ROAD.
THERE ARE MATURE TREES AND VEGETATION ALONG WITH THE ACCESS DRIVE.
SO FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, UH, THIS IS THE REAR PARKING LOT LOOKING WEST.
AND THEN THE BUILDING, UH, ENTRANCE LOOKING NORTH, AND THIS IS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE REMOVAL OF PARKING.
AND IN ADDITION TO THE CHURCH FOR THE HISTORY OF THE SITE, THE SITE WAS FIRST ANNEXED TO THE CITY BY ORDINANCE 1373 IN 1973.
THEN IN 1983, THE CHURCH AND PARKING LOT WERE BUILT TO CONFORM WITH EXISTING OR WITH ZONING REGULATIONS, UH, FROM WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP.
SO IN 2003, THE SITE WAS THEN REZONED TO R ONE RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
SO THAT REZONING WAS PART OF A LARGER EFFORT TO REZONE PROPERTIES THAT HAD TOWNSHIP ZONING AND BRING THEM INTO CITY ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO THIS EXPLAINS WHY THE SITE IS CURRENTLY LEGALLY NONCONFORMING.
[00:05:03]
WHILE THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSIDER THE ADDITION ITSELF, ITS PROPOSED LOCATION IMPACTS THE EXISTING PARKING.SO THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION IN THE LOCATION OUTLINED IN RED ON THE SCREEN.
IT IS A 2,700 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AND WOULD SERVE AS AN ENTRY IN GATHERING SPACE AND WOULD NOT ADD TO ANY SANCTUARY SPACE IN THE CHURCH.
I DO WANNA KNOW THAT THE SITE IS CURRENTLY AT THE MAXIMUM, A LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED BY THE CODE AT 45%.
SO IF THIS VARIANCE WERE DENIED, THE CHURCH COULD NOT BUILD THIS EDITION WITHOUT PURSUING A SEPARATE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO EXCEED THAT LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.
NOW, ONTO THE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO 211.
SHOULD THE VARIANCE BE GRANTED, THE APPLICANT WOULD BUILD THE AFOREMENTIONED ADDITION TO THE CHURCH.
THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS 225 PARKING SPACES, UH, AND THE CODE REQUIRES UNDER R ONE A MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 30 SQUARE FEET OF THE SANCTUARY AUDITORIUM OR MAIN PLACE OF WORSHIP.
THE SANCTUARY IS CURRENTLY AT 6,969 SQUARE FEET, EXCLUDING THE STAGE, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE 233 PARKING SPACES.
THIS VARIANCE WOULD REDUCE PARKING BY 14 SPACES AND WOULD FALL A TOTAL OF 22 SPACES SHORT OF THE REQUIREMENT.
THE APPLICANT ESTIMATES THAT CURRENTLY ONLY 44% OF THE PARKING AVAILABLE IS USED AT PEAK TIMES, AND THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE TODAY, AND I WILL LEAVE THE REMAINING DETAILS TO THEM TO DISCUSS FURTHER.
SO NOW, FOR THE FIRST SET OF CRITERIA, ALL THREE ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET, AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DETERMINED THAT ALL THREE HAVE BEEN MET.
FIRST, STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY'S CONSTRUCTION UNDER PREVIOUS SONY REQUIREMENTS REPRESENTS A SPEC, A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT LIMITS THE ABILITY FOR EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING OR PAVEMENT BASED ON CURRENT SETBACK RESTRICTIONS, THE PROPERTY BEING AT THAT MAXIMUM 45% LOCK COVERAGE AND EXISTING MATURE VEGETATION FORWARD OF THE STRUCTURE.
SECOND, THE VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSITATED BY ANY ACTION OR INACTION OF THE APPLICANT.
THE EXISTING ARRANGEMENT OF THE SITE AND ITS NATURAL FEATURES HAVE REMAINED LARGELY UNCHANGED SINCE ITS CONSTRUCTION, UH, TO CONFORM WITH THE TOWNSHIP ZONING STANDARDS, UM, INCLUDING THE LOT COVERAGE, PARKING, UH, ACCESS DRIVE, AND VEGETATION.
THE REQUEST IS NECESSITATE NECESSITATED BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING BEING APPLIED TO THE SITE AND DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FROM WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
THIRD, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE ADDITION TO THE BUILDING WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT THE NEED FOR PARKING, AND THE APPLICANT HAS APPROXIMATED.
THE CURRENT NEED FOR PARKING AT PEAK TIMES IS ONLY 44% WELL BELOW CAPACITY, AND THE REDUCED PARKING WOULD NOT AFFECT NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS AND WOULD PREVENT ADDED PAVEMENT TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
THE REMOVAL OF TREES AND THE DEGRADATION OF CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOR THE SECOND SET OF CRITERIA, TWO OF THE FOUR ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET, AND STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THREE OF THE FOUR CRITERIA ARE MET.
FIRST, NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ARE CONFERRED UPON THE APPLICANT, AND THE TOTAL REDUCTION IN PARKING IS MINIMUM IS MINIMAL.
SECOND, THE REQUEST DOES NOT RECURRENT IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CODE FOR OFF STREET PARKING.
THIRD, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
AND THEN FOURTH, SO THERE IS ANOTHER METHOD AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT.
HOWEVER, IT WOULD REQUIRE APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOCK COVERAGE AND PRESUMABLY TREE REMOVAL PERMITS EITHER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION ITSELF OR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL PARKING BOTH FORWARD OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE STRUCTURE.
THUS, THIS CONDITION IS NOT MET.
BUT TO BE CLEAR, EITHER METHOD WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT COME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO REQUEST A VARIANCE.
FINALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN PREVIOUS CASES APPROVED BY THE BOARD THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE VARIANCE REQUESTS PRESENTED TODAY, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, STAFF HAS DONE RESEARCH REGARDING PRIOR CASES, UH, THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD, AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
AND SO, IN CONCLUSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ZONING, SECTION 1 5 3 2 1 2 TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION IN PARKING SPACES FOR AN EXISTING CHURCH TO 211 SPACES.
AND THEN WE DID RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING, AND THIS HAS BEEN SAVED AND INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET MATERIALS FOR CONSIDERATION.
UH, BEFORE WE ENGAGE IN THE, UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, UH, UH, JUST AS A A POINT OF COURSE, THE, UH, THE CASE NUMBER IS TWO FIVE DASH 0 6 3 V FOR CYPRESS CHURCH OF DUBLIN, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE.
SO THAT REQUEST FOR, UH, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM AN EXISTING CHURCH, THE 5.72 ACRE SITE IS ZONED R DASH ONE, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED AS, UH, STAFF MENTIONED AT 7 0 5 5 AVERY ROAD.
UH, SO, UH, WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE
[00:10:01]
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO.UM, I THINK YOU JUST TOUCHED ON IT.
I WAS GONNA ASK IF THERE'S, I KNOW THIS, UM, PROPERTY WAS GRANDFATHERED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, INTO THE, INTO THE, UH, AFTER THE NEW ZONING WAS APPLIED.
ARE THERE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS DISTRICT NEARBY THAT WERE ALSO GRANDFATHERED IN THAT HAVE SIMILAR PARKING VARIANCES? SO, NOT THAT I KNOW OF FOR THE VARIANCES.
THE REZONING ITSELF, UH, WAS FOR A RANGE OF DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT HAD TOWNSHIP ZONING, AND THERE WERE A COUPLE ORDINANCES THAT DID THIS IN SUCCESSION TO BRING THEM INTO FORMAT.
SO NOT THAT I KNOW PARTICULARLY FOR THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THERE ARE SIMILAR, UH, CASES THAT HAVE RELATIVELY CONSISTENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THOSE SIMILAR CASES, WERE THEY, UM, ALSO FROM THE WASHINGTON, UH, TOWNSHIP OR WERE THEY FROM OTHER ABUTTING UH, POLITICAL, UH, SUBDIVISIONS OR MUNICIPALITIES? YEAH, SO NOT THAT I KNOW OF FOR THOSE, UM, THEY'RE BOTH ON THE SCREEN ARE TWO PRIOR CASES THAT THE BOARD HAS HEARD THAT, UM, HAVE SOME CONSISTENT CHARACTERISTICS.
SO ONE WAS IN 1998 AND ONE WAS IN 2000.
AND BOTH OF THEM INVOLVED, UH, DIFFERENT CHURCHES THAT, UH, WERE UNDER R TWO, SO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT, BUT THE SAME OFF STREET PARKING STANDARDS.
UM, AND THEY WERE REDUCING, UH, REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, UM, TO ALSO TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONS ON THEIR OWN.
AND I SEE THAT THE 1998 INSTANCE, UH, INCLUDED A PORTION, THE EXPANSION INCLUDED, UM, AN EXPANSION TO THE SANCTUARY PORTION OF THE CHURCH, CORRECT? CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, HOW, HOW IS THE DETERMINATION MADE WHETHER THIS STRUCTURE IS ADDING TO THE SANCTUARY OR NOT? SURE.
SO THIS IS BASED ON, UM, THE FLOOR PLANS THAT ARE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS.
AND I CAN LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY'VE DESIGNED THIS SPACE AND HOW THAT CONTRIBUTES TO IT.
UM, BUT IT'S WHATEVER'S DESIGNATED FOR, UM, AT LEAST THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD USE TO DETERMINE THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT SPACE IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SANCTUARY OR NOT.
UM, SO BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO US, AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS NOT ADDING ANY SANCTUARY SPACE OR AREA OF, UM, OF GATHERING OR WORSHIP, IT'S OUTSIDE OF THOSE BOUNDS.
BUT I'LL, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TOWARDS THE DESIGN OF THAT SPACE.
UM, AND WITH THAT, UH, THE APPLICANTS, UH, IF YOU WOULD, UH, PLEASE APPROACH THE BENCH, UH, PRESS THE BUTTON, MAKE SURE THAT THE GREEN LIGHT ON THE MICROPHONE IS TURNED ON.
UH, AND PLEASE PRESENT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, I'M DUSTIN TODD WITH RHL ARCHITECTS.
UH, 49 EAST THIRD AVENUE, UH, COLUMBUS, OHIO.
FOR THE DETAILED PRESENTATION, I'D JUST LIKE TO PROVIDE US SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO THE PROJECT.
UH, THE, THE OVERALL PURPOSE FOR THE PROJECT AND THE GOAL IS TO PROVIDE A, A DEDICATED ENTRY SPACE, UH, THAT ALSO INCREASES, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR FELLOWSHIP BEFORE AND AFTER SERVICE.
THE CURRENT ENTRY TO THE BUILDING IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE DOORS THAT GO INTO THE SANCTUARY.
UM, IF YOU GO TO THE, THE FLOOR PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE, ON THE SCREEN.
I THINK IT'S RIGHT AFTER THE TREE PICTURES.
UM, THE CURRENT ENTRY IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE DOORS THAT GO INTO THE WORSHIP SPACE.
SO AT THE, THE TOP OF THE SCREEN WHERE THE ADDITION CONNECTS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING, THAT'S WHERE THE CURRENT ENTRY IS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE LEFT OF THAT ARE DOORS THAT GO INTO THE SANCTUARY, UH, ONCE YOU COME THROUGH THOSE DOORS.
SO IT CREATES CONGESTION WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO WELCOME PEOPLE INTO SERVICE OR WHERE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TRY TO GATHER AFTER SERVICE.
THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH SPACE IN THAT ROOM.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM SOME OF THE SEATING BEHIND IT, THAT'S ALSO THE SPACE THEY USE FOR, FOR, FOR THEIR FELLOWSHIP, FOR A LITTLE CAFE AFTER, UH, SERVICES.
SO IT, IT JUST BECOMES TOO CONGESTED.
SO OVERALL, UH, THE BIG PART OF THE
[00:15:01]
PROJECT IS TO DEDICATE THAT ENTRY AWAY FROM THOSE SANCTUARY DOORS AND, UM, PROVIDE A ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THAT FELLOWSHIP OUT IN THIS ENTRY SPACE.UM, THE, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE SANCTUARY, IT'S DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION TYPES OF THIS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO SEPARATE THIS ADDITION FROM THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH A FIREWALL, WHICH IS WHERE THOSE DOUBLE DOORS ARE THAT YOU SEE THERE.
AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL SET OF DOORS THAT SEPARATE IT FROM THE SANCTUARY SPACE, SO IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE EXISTING SANCTUARY AND WOULDN'T, UH, BE USED AS PART OF, UH, WORSHIP, UM, DURING SERVICES.
UM, OUTSIDE OF THAT, UH, I MEAN ETHAN PROVIDED GREAT DETAIL ON, ON WHY WE BELIEVE THAT THAT THIS CASE IS, IS REASONABLE FOR A VARIANCE FOR PARKING.
THE PRIMARY REASON IS THAT IT'S, IT'S JUST NOT REALLY NEEDED FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, UH, ON TOP OF THE OBSTACLES, UH, IN ORDER TO ADD THE PARKING WHERE WE HAVE TO ADD IT FOR THE VARIANCES FOR THE, UM, ALLOWABLE, UM, LOT COVERAGE, UM, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROTECTED TREES ON THE FRONT OF THIS PROPERTY.
UH, AND THEN, UH, PARKING FLOW WAS ANOTHER BIG CONSIDERATION.
THIS SITE HAS A NICE DRIVE OFF OF A ROAD THAT, YOU KNOW, AT PEAK TIMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE LEAVING, SERVICE PROVIDES ROOM FOR STACKING OF VEHICLES WHEN THEY'RE LEAVING.
UM, IF WE WERE TO TRY AND ADD SOMETHING TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD IMPEDE ON THAT FLOW.
AND THEN LASTLY IS, IS JUST THE AESTHETIC.
UM, THE BUILDING LOOKS NICE FOR MA ROAD WITH THE GREEN SPACE AND SPACE IN THE FRONT AND THE TREES.
UM, WE BELIEVE ADDING PARKING TO THE FRONT WOULD BE JUST AN OVERALL DETRIMENT TO THE CONDITION OF THE SITE AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I'M HERE WITH SOME REPRESENTATIVES OF CYPRESS CHURCH.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UH, ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HOW LARGE IS THE CONGREGATION AT CYPRESS CHURCH? HOW LARGE IS THE CONGREGATION
UH, MY NAME'S KEN MURPHY, UH, SENIOR PASTOR OF CYPRUS CHURCH.
MY ADDRESS IS 6 3 5 7 DURBAN DRIVE, GALLOWAY, OHIO.
AND, UH, THE QUE ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT 500.
UH, WE DO MULTIPLE SERVICES, SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT THAT MANY AT ONE TIME.
IT'S BROKEN UP, UH, BETWEEN SERVICES.
AND THEN I KNOW THAT YOU DID A RECENT PARKING STUDY OVER LIKE A TWO WEEK PERIOD, AND I THINK THE UTILIZATION WAS LIKE 44%, BUT IS THAT CONSISTENT GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, DO YOU BELIEVE, OR ARE THERE, YOU KNOW, PEAK TIMES OR WOULD THAT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE EVER OVERFLOW SITUATIONS LIKE HOLIDAYS OR LIKE EVENTS OR WEDDINGS OR ANYTHING? I, I THINK, UM, SUMMERS OBVIOUSLY LOWER ATTENDED FOR MOST CHURCHES THAN, UH, SCHOOL YEAR.
CHRISTMAS, EASTER ARE GONNA BE THE BIG ONES, BUT NO, THAT'S NOT A, PARKING'S NOT BEEN OUR ISSUE IN DUBLIN.
UM, IS THIS ADDITION PART OF ANY OTHER, UM, PLANS TO IMPROVE OTHER AREAS OF THE CHURCH, OR IS THIS, AND YOU'RE JUST DOING THIS ONE FOR NOW, OR IS THIS LIKE A ONE OFF? UM, IS THIS A SINGLE PROJECT ON ITS OWN, A STANDALONE PROJECT? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.
THE, THE ADDITION ITSELF IS STANDALONE.
THERE'S, UH, AS PART OF THE PROJECT, THERE ARE SOME INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND JUST MAINLY FINISH IMPROVEMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT TO THE, IN INSIDE OF THE BUILDING, IN THE CLASSROOM AREAS AND IN THE CAFE.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, THIS IS THE ONLY, UH, THE ONLY PLAN FOR ANY WORK LIKE THAT.
I, I THINK I SAW THIS IN THERE, BUT JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.
WOULD IT IT BE THE SAME AMOUNT OF HANDICAP SPACES? YEAH, WE WOULD STILL BE, UH, I CAN'T RECALL IF IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OR IF WE HAVE TO UPDATE IT FOR UPDATED CODES, BUT WE'LL BE MEETING CODE OKAY.
WOULD THAT REQUIRE ANY, UH, RE CATEGORIZATION OF CURRENT PARKING SPACES TO HANDICAP SPACES OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN, UH, ADDRESSED YET? UM, A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE SOME OF THE CURRENT HANDICAP SPACES ARE WHERE THE ADDITION IS GONNA BE.
UM, SO WITH WHERE WE'RE SHOWING 'EM ON THE SITE PLAN IS WHERE WE'RE PLANNING TO RELOCATE SOME OF 'EM KIND OF AROUND THE CORNER SO THAT THEY'RE STILL ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK THAT GOES RIGHT UP TO THE ENTRY AND THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO CROSS FROM OTHER DRIVE AISLES.
[00:20:02]
CITY STAFF HAS COMMENTS ON THE LOCATION OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE 'EM, BUT THAT WE FELT THAT THAT MADE THE MOST SENSE.AND WE'RE GOING TO GAUGE IN OUR, UH, UH, BOARD DISCUSSION AND, UH, OH, UH, I SUPPOSE, UH, WE CAN, THERE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WE CAN READ THOSE OFF NOW AND WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE IF WE ADDRESS.
SO THERE WERE TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKETS AHEAD OF TIME.
UM, SO WE WILL NOT BE READING THOSE AT THIS POINT SINCE THOSE WERE NOT SWORN IN.
UM, BUT THOSE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, SO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE, UH, HOPEFULLY SEEN THOSE.
UM, AND THEN I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS THIS.
I GUESS JUST MAYBE ONE MORE TIME FOR STAFF GIVING KIND OF, DO YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE, HOW DIFFERENT THE WASHINGTON ZONING WAS COMPARED TO WHAT IT BECAME, AND I GUESS JUST IN A GENERAL LIKE THE 45% LOCK COVERAGE, UM, WAS, WAS THERE ANY LOCK COVERAGE REQUIREMENT WHEN IT WAS WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP? SO, UN UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN LOOKING BACK AT THE REZONING AND BOTH THE ANNEXATION, THEY DID NOT STIPULATE IN OUR RECORDS WHAT SPECIFIC ZONING TYPE WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP HAD.
WE EXPECT THAT IT CONFORMED TO THAT.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS DOING THE DIRECT COMPARISON, WE ATTEMPTED TO FIND THAT OUT AND WERE NOT ABLE TO.
SO THE, UH, TRANSITION WAS AROUND 2003 FROM WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP WHEN THE REZONING OCCURRED IN DUBLIN.
UM, DO WE KNOW IN THE INTERVENING 22 YEARS WHETHER ANY SIGNIFICANT, UH, CHANGES ARCHITECTURALLY WERE MADE EITHER TO THE PARKING AREA OR THE STRUCTURE ITSELF? UP TO THIS POINT? NO, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY CONSIDERABLE CHANGES.
UM, AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, UH, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO CONFORM WITH R ONE.
UM, HENCE WHY WITH THIS ONE, UM, THEY COULD FEASIBLY KEEP THE CURRENT PARKING ARRANGEMENT BY BUILDING MORE.
UM, BUT SHOULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANY CHANGES, LIKE WITHOUT THIS, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO CONFORM WITH THE R ONE STANDARDS.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE HERE.
AND, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THERE WERE AN EXPANSION, UH, IF THE ADDITION WERE MADE TO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF AND THERE WERE AN EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT, IT MIGHT, THERE WAS A RISK THAT IT WOULD, UH, THE PARKING LOT WOULD ENCROACH ON THE REAR SETBACKS, IS THAT CORRECT? SO EXPANSION WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IN THE FRONT, UM, AND THEN IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE R ONE SETBACKS THERE.
UM, THE MAIN THING IS IT WOULD, UM, ALMOST CERTAINLY NEED, UH, A VARIANCE FOR THE LOCK COVERAGE.
SO EITHER THE PARKING ITSELF OR THE ADDITION WOULD BOTH NEED TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE WITH WHICH THE SITE IS CURRENTLY AT, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT ALSO RESULTS IN THE REMOVAL OF TREES, WHICH MAY REQUIRE PERMITS AND THEN THAT SETBACK AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY.
UM, SO HOW ARE WE SORT OF FEELING ABOUT OUR POSITIONS? OR HAVE WE SORT OF OKAY.
FLOATING AROUND? OH, HAVE A QUESTION.
I JUST MORE ASKING, THIS IS I GUESS A STAFF QUESTION, BUT IS WHEN IT ASKS IF A PRIVILEGE IS BEING GIVEN THAT OTHER, UH, THAT FIRST OF THE B CRITERIA QUESTION? I BELIEVE IT IS, IS THE FACT THAT IT'S, I'M JUST GONNA KEEP USING THE WORD GRANDFATHERED, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK THAT WAS IN THE REPORT, BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S GOTTEN A GRANDFATHERED IN ALREADY AND HAD A VARIANCE ESSENTIALLY TO BE THE, TO EXIST AS IT IS, IS THAT CONSIDERED A PRIVILEGE OR IS THAT JUST, UM, SO THE NON WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS LIKE THAT IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE CURRENTLY BE A NON-CONFORMING
[00:25:01]
USE.WHICH IS, WHICH IS MORE A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAN I WOULD SAY A PRIVILEGE.
AND THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES, THE TWO OTHER CHURCHES HAVE THE SAME, ENJOY THE SAME LEGAL STATUS OR WHATEVER THAT THEY WERE BUILT BEFORE THAT, UH, ZONING CHANGE, OR THEY HAVE HAD VARIANCES BECAUSE OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
SO I KNOW THOSE TWO, THOSE TWO PROPERTIES WERE ALREADY ZONED TO THE R TWO ZONING DISTRICT.
I GUESS IN YOUR RESEARCH, DO YOU WANNA, WE CAN LOOK THROUGH OUR RECORDS REALLY QUICK AND YEAH, WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THE SITE ARRANGEMENTS WHETHER THEY WERE UNDER R TWO OR NOT, BUT THE BASIC REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WERE THEN, YOU KNOW, DIVERGING FROM IS THE SAME AND THEN FOR THE SAME REASON.
SO THEY WERE SEEKING TO BUILD AN ADDITION THAT WOULD REDUCE WHAT THEIR CURRENT PARKING STANDARD WAS AND WOULD THEN HAVE TO MEET THE R TWO STANDARD.
SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SITE WAS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED TO CONFORM TO R TWO OR THE PREVIOUS STANDARD, EITHER WAY THE COMPARISON IS THE SAME IN THAT THEY NEEDED TO PRESENT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO DIVERGE FROM THAT AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THEIR ADDITIONS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WOULD'VE EXPANDED THE SANCTUARY AND THEN CREATED A HIGHER REQUIREMENT.
SO THE REQUIREMENT IS THE SAME FOR ALL THREE OF THE CHURCHES, AND THEN THE ADDITION IS ALSO A SIMILAR FACTOR THERE, EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW IT'S NOT A SANCTUARY.
SO THIS, UH, THIS VARIANCE THAT, UH, CYPRESS IS ASKING FOR IS THE SIMILAR TYPE OF VARIANCE THAT THESE OTHER SAME RATIONALE AND SIMILAR VARIANTS THAT THOSE OTHER TWO CASES WERE AS WELL, TO NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THEY DID IN YOUR, IN THE, IN YOUR OPINION.
UH, I THINK, UH, DO WE HAVE, UH, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT, UH, WE WOULD HAVE ENDED ON THE RECORD OR IS THAT STILL OKAY? I WOULD ASK IF THERE WAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE, THE AUDIENCE THAT IS, WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS APPLICATION.
ANY, ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING OR NO.
UM, I THINK WITH THAT, WE MIGHT BE READY FOR A VOTE, UH, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS, UH, I THINK JUST A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON, ON BEFORE WE VOTE WOULD BE MAYBE A GOOD IDEA.
UM, I JUST, I'LL GO THROUGH WHAT I, I THINK, UM, I AGREE WITH THE CITY ON THE FIRST CRITERIA OF A, UM, I DO THINK THE FACT THAT IT HAS PROTECTED TREES IN THE FRONT, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GET OTHER VARIANCES, UM, IT'S A, UH, IT'S A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT EXISTS TO THAT PROPERTY.
I ALSO THINK, YOU KNOW, BRAD'S TERM OF GRANDFATHERED IN, UH, MAKES IT A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE TO THAT PROPERTY.
SO I THINK THAT CRITERIA'S MET.
UM, I ALSO AGREE WITH, UH, THEIR ANALYSIS OF CRITERIA TWO, UM, FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN UNCHANGED AND, UH, THEY REALLY HAVEN'T DONE MUCH.
THEY, UH, STARTED OFF BUILDING IN A DIFFERENT ZONING, UM, TOWNSHIP, AND THEN IT WAS ANNEXED, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NOT ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT ONE'S MET.
AND THEN THREE, UM, I ALSO THINK THAT ONE IS MET, UH, SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE THE SAME FOR HANDICAP SPACES.
IT SOUNDS LIKE, BASED ON THE CHURCH AND PUBLIC COMMENT THAT, UH, OVERFLOW ISN'T GONNA BE AN ISSUE, IT'S NOT GONNA BE AFFECTING NEIGHBORS.
UM, AS FOR CRITERIA, UH, B UM, I AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW, ONE, TWO, AND THREE AND, UH, DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT FOUR SINCE ONLY TWO ARE NEEDED.
BUT, UM, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WOULDN'T BE A, A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, UM, CONVEYED ON CYPRUS.
UM, IT, YEAH, IT'S ONLY 21 SPACES, AND I MEAN, LOOKING AT THE OTHER CHURCHES, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WERE REDUCTIONS WERE, WERE QUITE MORE THAN THAT.
SO, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE.
UM, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'D BE RECURRENT.
IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY UNIQUE PROPERTY AND A PRETTY UNIQUE ISSUE.
AND THEN FOR THREE, UM, I DON'T SEE ANY IMPACT TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES, SO AGREED.
[00:30:01]
STILL, I'M STILL A LITTLE IN THE GRAY AREA ON, I, I DO THINK, I DO THINK THE SITE IS GETTING A PRIVILEGE, UH, THAT'S THAT OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE, BUT I MEAN, I DO THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTY, LIKE OTHER CHURCHES HAVE HAD SIMILAR, UM, OTHER CHURCHES HAVE GOTTEN SIMILAR PRIVILEGES AS WELL.UM, EVEN IF THEY'RE, SO I'M A LITTLE GRAY ON THAT CRITERIA.
A BUT I DO AGREE THAT AT LEAST TWO OF THE OTHER ONES ARE MET IN, IN THAT SECTION.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE, UH, ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY IN, IN 2003 DO, UH, CONVEY A SORT OF, UH, PRIVILEGE TO THE, TO THE CHURCH THAT MIGHT NOT BE, UH, AFFORDED TO OTHER CHURCHES.
BUT, UH, I THINK THOSE, UH, UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, UM, UH, SORT OF, UM, MAKE THAT A, A, A NECESSITY TO, UM, UH, IN, UH, REQUESTING THEN ULTIMATELY, UM, SEEKING THE, THE VARIANCE, UM, AS THEY WERE, UH, FORMERLY GOVERNED UNDER A SEPARATE MUNICIPALITY.
UH, AND THE, THE DIFFERENCE HERE, UM, IS IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF 14 PARKING SPACES IN A, UH, PROPERTY THAT, UH, AS MENTIONED IN THE RECORD, UH, WE HAVE 44%, UH, AVAILABILITY OF SPACES DURING PEAK HOURS.
SO, UH, I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE CURRENTLY A, UH, A MAJOR, UH, THERE'S NOT CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE A, UH, UH, MAJOR, UH, IMPACT FROM, UH, REDUCING
UH, OBVIOUSLY THERE MIGHT BE SOME, SOME VARIATION BASED ON SPECIAL EVENTS AND HOLIDAYS AND, AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT, UH, I WOULDN'T SEE THAT BEING TOO MUCH OF A HINDRANCE IN, IN GRANTING, UM, GRANTING THE VARIANCE ON THOSE GROUNDS.
UH, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE, UH, UH, ZONING VARIANCES THAT WERE, OR THE ZONING ORDINANCES THAT WERE IN PLACE IN THE, UH, 1970S AND EIGHTIES, OR THE ANNEXATION THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2003.
SO, UH, IT'S NOT DUE TO YOUR ACTIONS OR INACTIONS.
UH, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD CAUSE ANY SUBSTANTIALLY ADVERSE EFFECT, UH, TO ALLOW A, UH, AN EXPANSION, UH, QUELLING AREA AT THE, BE AT THE, UH, UH, FRONT OF THE, UH, OF THE FACILITY.
UM, AND, UH, I, I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, I'M IN LINE WITH THE CITY IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF, UM, SECTION 1 53 0.23, ONE H TWO B, UH, INCLUDING ITS ASSESSMENT THAT THE FOURTH, UM, UH, ELEMENT IS NOT MET AT MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING LOT COULD BE MADE AS, UH, WAS MENTIONED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT THEY MAY, UH, NECESSITATE OTHER POTENTIAL SETBACK, UH, VIOLATIONS OR THEY MIGHT REQUIRE, UH, ADDITIONAL PERMITS, UH, BASED ON THE, THE VEGETATION, OBVIOUSLY THE, UH, UH, THE COST AND, UH, FEASIBILITY OF THOSE, UM, REQUIREMENTS AREN'T REALLY A CONSIDERATION HERE.
BUT, UH, THAT'S, UH, I GUESS THAT'S WHY THAT'S ONLY TWO OF THE FOUR THAT HAVE TO BE MET.
SO, UH, WITH THAT, UH, ANY OTHER FINAL CLOSING COMMENTS OR ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? CAN I ASK, CAN I ASK A QUESTION DURING DISCUSSION FROM STAFF? IS THAT FINE? PLEASE.
UM, IS THERE A REASON, THIS IS R ONE AND I, I, I THINK YOU SAID THE OTHER CHURCHES WERE R TWO I, I HAVEN'T LOOKED IN DEPTH ON WHAT'S ALLOWED IN R ONE, BUT IT WOULD BE, UM, THOSE TWO OTHER PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY.
SO THIS WAS WHEN THIS WAS DONE REZONED BACK IN 2003.
UM, THE ZONING WAS TO TRY AND BRING IT CLOSER TO COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT, UM, IS ALREADY EXISTING WITHIN THAT AREA.
SO IT WAS MORE TRYING TO FIT THE CHARACTER, THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER OF AVERY ROAD.
AS YOU GO THROUGHOUT THERE, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT OVERHEAD, IT'S MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY.
THERE'S SOME OTHER CHURCHES THAT ARE THROUGHOUT THERE, BUT THAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND WHY IT SWITCHED TO OUR ONE.
ANY OTHER CLOSING COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING? OKAY.
[00:35:01]
UH, WITH THAT, UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO ZONING CODE 1 5 3 0.212 TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES FOR AN EXISTING CHURCH TO 211 SPACES.IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE.
WITH THAT, THE VARIANCE IS, IS, UH, GRANTED, UM,
[COMMUNICATIONS ]
ANY COMMUNICATIONS THAT, UM, THE ONLY COMMUNICATION I HAVE IS THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT ON TUESDAY FOR OUR TRAINING.WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER JOINT TRADING, UH, BUT THIS WILL BE WITH CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER, SO WE'LL SEND OUT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS AN AGENDA.
AND, UM, JUST THINGS TO MAYBE PREPARE FOR AS, AS WE GET TO THAT.
SO IT'LL BE A SIMILAR FORMAT TO WHAT WE DID ON TUESDAY.
UM, WE'LL JUST BE BRINGING IN CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT.
BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, NO OTHER COMMENTS.
UH, WITH NO OTHER MATTERS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE BOARD, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.