[00:00:01]
OKAY.[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.UH, YOU CAN JOIN THE MEETING IN PERSON AT 55 55 PERIMETER DRIVE AND ALSO ACCESS THE MEETING VIA THE LIVE STREAM ON THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S WEBSITE.
WE WELCOME PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CASES.
UH, NOW IF YOU'LL, UH, JOIN US FOR THE, UH, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, LIBERTY, JUSTICE FOR.
UM, MS. MAXWELL, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL A ROLL? YES.
[ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
UH, AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO, UH, ENGAGE IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION.SO WE WILL ADJOURN, UH, FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE PERSONNEL MATTER, UM, THE CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR, UH, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL TO JOIN US IN THE PROCEEDINGS? SO MOVED.
WE WILL BRIEFLY ADJOURN AND WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
UH, NOW THAT WE HAVE RECONVENED, UH, WE WILL HAVE A, UH, A VOTE ON THE CHAIR, UH, TO, UH, FOR ANOTHER ONE YEAR TERM.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR, UH, YEAH.
I'D LIKE TO, UH, MOVE TO ELECT, UH, PATRICK AS CHAIR FOR A ONE YEAR TERM.
UH, MOVING ON TO THE, UH, NEXT OFFICER.
WE HAVE THE ELECTION OF THE, UH, VICE CHAIR, UH, FOR A ONE YEAR TERM.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I DON'T THINK YOU CAN MOVE FOR YOUR YOURSELF, BUT, UM, I'LL DO A MOTION TO ELECT BRAD AS VICE CHAIR FOR ONE YEAR TERM.
[ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES ]
NOW WE ARE GONNA MOVE ON TO, UH, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 25TH MEETING? SO MOVED.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, MR. ANDERSON? YES.
[Case #26-035V]
UH, UH, MATTERS AT HAND, UH, THIS EVENING.UH, EACH CASE, UH, THIS EVENING WILL BEGIN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT SLASH APPELLANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.
THE BOARD WILL ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST, THEN THE APPLICANTS ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE INVITED TO COME FORWARD UNDER EACH APPLICATION.
PLEASE ENSURE THE GREEN LIGHTS ON THE MICROPHONE, UH, IS ON.
AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
WE REQUEST THAT YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES OR LESS.
UH, SO ANYBODY LOOKING TO, UH, INTENDING TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD OR PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CASES MUST BE SWORN IN.
UH, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD, PLEASE STAND, 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? GREAT.
SO WE WILL BE ADDRESSING OUR FIRST CASE THIS EVENING.
UH, CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 0 3 5 V FOR THE HICKS RESIDENCE.
IT APPEARS THAT, YEAH, FOR THIS ONE, I THINK WE, WE CAN JUST DO A VOICEMAIL.
UM, SO THAT, THAT CASE HAS BEEN, UH, POSTPONED AT THIS TIME.
UH, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE, UH, UH, SECOND CASE, UH, MR. CHAIR.
MY APOLOGIES IF YOU DON'T MIND.
THERE WAS A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT
[00:05:01]
TO POSTPONE IT, UH, BUT THE POSTPONEMENT WOULD BE OFFICIAL WITH A VOICE VOTE AND A MOTION, UH, TO DO SO FROM THE, THE, THE BOARD TONIGHT.UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 0 3 5 V HICKS RESIDENCE SHED NON-USE AREA OF VARIANCE.
THE CASE HAS BEEN, IT WILL SHALL BE POSTPONED.
UH, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE, UH, UH,
[Case #26-029V]
SECOND CASE ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.THAT'S CASE NUMBER TWO SIX DASH 0 2 9 V, UH, OHIO SINUS INSTITUTE.
UM, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE, UH, REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF NON-USE AREA VARIANCE FOR THREE CANOPIES, UH, TO ENCROACH THE SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK AREAS.
UH, THE THREE ACRE SITES IS ZONED SUBURBAN OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED AT 53 78 AVERY ROAD.
UH, WE WILL BEGIN WITH, UH, STAFF PRESENTATION.
BOARD MEMBERS, THIS APPLICATION IS A REQUEST FOR A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT THREE PORT CO-CHAIRS TO ENCROACH THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
VARIANCE PROCESS IS A SINGULAR STEP FOR THE APPLICANT AND ITS PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW FOR THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ASSOCIATED TO THE PROPERTY AND ANY NATURAL CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO INDICATE THEY RECEIVE BZA APPROVAL FOR ALL OR SELECT PORT CO-CHAIRS WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
IF DISAPPROVED, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PERMITTED TO ENCROACH THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND MUST MEET ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THE THREE ACRE SITE AT 5 3 7 8 AVERY ROAD IS ZONED SO SUBURBAN OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE AVERY ROAD IN RINGS ROAD ROUNDABOUT.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT SITE ALSO OWN THE ADJACENT VACANT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ZONE, R ONE RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT.
SOME EXISTING CONDITION PHOTOS.
UH, FIRST VIEW NORTHEAST SHOWS THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND STORMWATER DETENTION.
POND VIEW EAST SHOWS THE FRONT FACADE AT THE EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND THE VIEW NORTH SHOWS A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PROPERTY SOUTHWEST CORNER IN THE EXISTING PARKING LOT.
ALRIGHT, THIS SITE HAS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HISTORY THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT LEADING UP TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT IN 2011 AND THE REZONING TO, SO IN 2017, THERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
NORTH IS ORIENTED TO THE TOP OF THE IMAGE.
UH, THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK BOUNDARIES ARE OUTLINED IN RED.
THE NEW MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW.
THE PORT CHES ARE SHADED DARK GRAY, AND THE EXISTING BUILDING IS TOP LEFT AND THE EXISTING BARN IS TOP RIGHT.
UH, FOR CLARITY, THE PORT COR SHARE, THERE ARE ROOFED PORCH LIKE STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDS OVER A DRIVE AISLE AT A BUILDING'S ENTRANCE TO SHELTER PEOPLE AS THEY GET IN AND OUT.
UM, IN THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS AND THEIR, UH, NARRATIVE, THEY REFER TO THESE AS CANOPY.
SO I JUST FOR CLARITY, AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE AT THE TOP LEFT IS FORWARD OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND IS CONSIDERED LEGAL NON-CONFORMING.
UH, THE NEW BUILDING ADDITION IN SITE LIGHT LAYOUT HERE IS PROMPTED BY THE APPLICANT.
VARIANCE REQUEST NUMBER ONE IS TO PERMIT ONE PORT COHA TO ENCROACH 20 FEET AND SIX INCHES INTO THE 124 FOOT REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST NUMBER TWO TO PERMIT TWO PORT CO SHARES TO ENCROACH 25 FEET AND EIGHT INCHES INTO THE 54 FOOT FOUR INCH REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK.
UH, THESE SETBACKS ON THIS SIDE ARE MORE DEFINITIVE 'CAUSE IT'S A STRAIGHT ZONING DISTRICT RATHER THAN A PUD.
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS BASED ON THE FUTURE PLANNED RIGHT AWAY AT AVERY ROAD, AND THE SIDE YARD IS BASED ON A FORMULA THAT RELATES TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND WALL LENGTH.
UH, THE APPLICANT DOES STATE THAT THESE PORT CO SHARES ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE COVERED PATIENT DROP OFF AREAS, INCLUDING ACCOMMODATION FOR AMBULANCE ACCESS, AND TO ENSURE SAFE AND WEATHER PROTECTED ENTRY FOR PATIENTS, UH, CRITERIA.
A FOR REQUEST NUMBER ONE, ENCROACHING THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
ALL CRITERIA MUST BE MET, UM, FOR THIS REQUEST, STAFF FINDS ALL THREE ARE MET.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PORT COSAIR WOULD NOT BE FORWARD
[00:10:01]
OF THE EXISTING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON THE SITE, WHICH BECAME NON-CONFORMING WITH THE EXPANDED RIGHT OF WAY OF AVERY ROAD.IT WOULD ALSO NOT ALL ALTER THE LOCATION OR SETBACK OF THE EXISTING PARKING BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET FOR ACTION AND INACTION.
STAFF CONSIDERS AVERY ROAD RIGHT OF AWAY EXPANSION, NOT AN ACTION OR INACTION OF THE APPLICANT, AND PAIRING INTENT MET PERMITTING THE PROPOSED PORT CROSHA TO ENCROACH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT DOES NOT INCREASE THE SITE'S CURRENT NONCONFORMANCE VARIANCE CRITERIA B FOR REQUEST NUMBER ONE, TWO OF FOUR MUST BE MET AND STAFF FINDS VARIANCE ONE MEETS TWO OF FOUR VARIANCE CRITERIA A FOR REQUEST TWO SIDE YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT ALL MUST BE MET.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UH, THE SITE, IT'S NOT MET.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS DESIGNED THE PROPOSED LAYOUT, WHICH CAN BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.
CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTED THE LOT SPLIT THAT CREATED THE PROPERTY'S CURRENT CONFIGURATION AS WELL AS THE REZONING TO SUBURBAN OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT.
AND IN PAIRING INTENT AND IN PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT SIDE, YARD SETBACKS IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT ARE INTENDED TO PRESERVE CLEAR BUFFERS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND PUDS PERMITTING MULTIPLE STRUCTURES.
TO ENCROACH THE REQUIRED SIDE, SIDE YARD SETBACK WOULD MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
VARIANCE CRITERIA B, REQUEST 2 2 0 4 MUST BE MET.
STAFF FINDS VARIANCE TWO MEETS TWO OF FOUR.
STAFF HAVE PROVIDED A RECOMMENDATION THAT VARIES BETWEEN THE FRONT SETBACK AND THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, HOWEVER, REASONING REASONINGS OF FACT MUST BE PROVIDED.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT ONE PORT S SHARE TO ENCROACH 20 FEET AND SIX INCHES INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO, PLANNING RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF THE NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO PERMIT TWO PORT S SHARES TO ENCROACH 25 FEET AND EIGHT INCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
NO ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS? CLARIFICATION ANYTHING RIGHT NOW? NOT AT THIS TIME.
UM, COULD YOU CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT THE STATUS OF THE ZONING OF THAT ADJACENT PARCEL THAT IS ALSO OWNED BY THE APPLICANTS? YES.
THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
IT IS R ONE RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL.
AND THE, OKAY, AND THIS, THAT WAS, THIS PARCEL UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SPLIT OFF FROM THAT? CORRECT.
AND IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED CORRECT BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR NON-CONFORMING USE, OR IS THAT ACCURATE ENOUGH?
UH, THAT BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDER A TOWNSHIP ZONING CLASSIFICATION, WHICH ALLOWED THE COMMERCIAL USE AND THE INTENT TO EXPAND THAT EXISTING USE REQUIRED THE REZONING TO, SO.
SO FOR CLARITY, THAT'S THE, WE'RE WE'RE DEALING WITH DIFFERENT ZONING, UM, UM, CLASSIFICATIONS ON THE BORDERS OF THIS, UH, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
THIS IS SUBJECT SITE IS, SO, AND I BELIEVE ALL OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
LIKE WHETHER R ONE R AND MAYBE R TWO.
UH, ANY OTHER PRELIMINARY? OH, I'M SORRY.
AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THESE SETBACKS ARE REQUIRED OF THE SO DISTRICT WHEN PROPERTIES THAT ABUT IT ARE ZONED RESIDENTIAL OR PUD.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
DO YOU KNOW THE, WHAT THE SETBACK OR IS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL THAT'S IT'S ABUTTING AGAINST? TYPICALLY? NOT EXACTLY, BUT I KNOW IT'S A SPECIFIC FIGURE AND IT'S A MINIMUM.
IT'S FINE IF YOU AS WELL AS A COMBINED NUMBER,
[00:15:01]
AND IT WOULD LIKELY BE LESS THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THE O DISTRICT.WE HAVE ANOTHER, ANY OTHER PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? NO.
UM, WE MAY HAVE SOME AFTER, UH, THE, UH, PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, AT THIS TIME, UH, WE REQUEST THE APPLICANT, UH, PLEASE PROCEED TO THE PODIUM.
UM, ANYONE WHO WOULD BE SPEAKING, WE ASK THAT YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELVES, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND, UH, ENSURE THAT BEING GREEN LIGHT IS TURNED ON, ON THE MICROPHONE.
I'M MICHAEL MAESTROS WITH NEW AVENUE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS.
UH, WE ARE AT 47 40 REED ROAD IN UPPER ARLINGTON, OHIO.
UM, I'M, UH, THE, UH, PHYSICIAN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UH, BORIS, KAREN FEOF.
I RESIDE AT 6 6 5 5 PLAIN CITY, UH, GEORGESVILLE ROAD IN MADISON COUNTY.
AND, UH, OUR FAMILY TRUST ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY.
MY MOM HAS PASSED, SO IT'S IN THE FAMILY TRUST NAME.
SO THIS, UH, THIS REQUEST FOR THE, THE PORT RICOCHETS IS, IS VERY DEPENDENT ON THE USE OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S A, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE, UH, IT HAS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE COVERED DROP-OFFS FOR THIS, UH, UH, FOR THIS SURGICAL CENTER THAT'S GOING IN.
THE, THE REASON FOR THE TWO ON THE SIDE, THIS IS ACTUALLY SPLIT INTO TWO KIND OF SEPARATE DISTINCT, UH, USES UNDER THE SAME MEDICAL, UH, VARIETY.
UH, THERE'S MORE, THE SURGERY CENTER IS MORE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE THERE.
AND THEN THERE'S MORE OF A, UH, I, I GUESS MORE OF A PROCEDURAL TYPE OF FACILITY ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
IT IS STILL ONE, UH, ONE BUSINESS, ONE, UH, OCCUPANCY.
IT'S JUST KIND OF SPLIT INTO TWO, WHICH IS THE REASON FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT ENTRY POINTS ON THAT SIDE.
UM, THE PRIMARY REASON THAT WE ARE SO CLOSE TO THAT SOUTH PROPERTY LINE JUST HAD TO DO WITH THE EXISTING DETENTION POND THAT WAS BEHIND THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IT, WE COULD ONLY GET SO CLOSE TO THE, TO BEHIND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND TO THAT DETENTION POND.
SO IT DID PUSH THE BUILDING FURTHER TO THE SOUTH THAN THAN IDEAL.
UM, UH, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE, THE NATURE OF THE, OF BORIS'S FAMILY OWNING BOTH PROPERTIES, THERE, THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY ON HOW WE HANDLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIALLY TO POTENTIALLY, UH, I GUESS COUNTERACT, UH, THIS ENCROACHMENT.
SO, UM, SO REALLY THAT'S THE GIST OF WHAT WE'RE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS, IS THAT FLEXIBILITY TO, TO HAVE THESE CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE POTENTIAL EXCEPTION OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE.
WE COULD CREATE SOME, UH, SOME RESTRICTIONS ON HOW CLOSE THE, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY COMES TO THAT, WHETHER IT'S, UH, BY DEED RESTRICTION OR BY, UH, BY OTHER METHODS.
SO, UM, THAT'S JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHERE WE ARE, BUT, UH, UH, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? YEAH.
UM, SO OUR PLANS ARE TO HAVE A MEDICARE APPROVED AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER, AND, UH, THIS RIGHT NOW HAS 51% OWNERSHIP OF A MAJOR MEDICAL SYSTEM THAT'S INTERESTED, THAT CURRENTLY IS NOT IN CENTRAL OHIO.
SO THE PORTICO SHARES ARE REALLY KEY AND CRITICAL TO HAVING A, UH, MEDICARE COMPLIANCE CENTER.
AND THIS IS MORE OF A NATIONAL STANDARD VERSUS A LOCAL, UH, COATING OR POLICY ISSUE.
UM, AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY'S CONCERNED, WE'VE OWNED IT SINCE 1983.
UM, THERE IS NO INTENTION TO SELL, OBVIOUSLY, THIS PARCEL OR THE OTHER PARCEL.
AND OUR INTENT, UH, FOR MANY YEARS HAS BEEN TO DEVELOP, UH, THE REMAINING 20 ACRES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUBLIN'S PLANS.
AS, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY AS YOU ENTER THE CITY OF DUBLIN THAT YOU SEE ON AVERY ROAD.
AND WE HAD INQUIRED ABOUT DEVELOPING YEARS AGO, BUT WE ARE LIMITED BY SEWER AND WATER RIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT BECOMES MORE AVAILABLE.
WE WERE INTERESTED IN, UH, PURSUING DEVELOPMENT.
SO, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT OF, OF, UM, UH, DEVELOPING, BUT WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO ANY SORT OF, I GUESS, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, A RESTRICTION OR A DEED? YEAH,
[00:20:01]
LIKE A, A DEED RESTRICTION, DEED RESTRICTION ON THE OPPOSITE PROPERTY, IF THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO GET THESE PORTICO SHARES IN.BUT RIGHT NOW, I'LL BE FRANK WITH YOU, MY DAD GETS PROBABLY ONE OFFER A DAY, AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY SUBSTANTIAL AND HE REALLY HAS NO INTEREST IN SELLING.
SO MY BROTHER AND I ARE INTERESTED IN MAINTAINING AND DEVELOPING THAT PROPERTY ADJACENT IN THE FUTURE.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, I GUESS, YEAH, THE, THE ONLY ONE, THE OTHER THING I FORGOT TO ADD WAS, UH, CURRENTLY WE ARE, WE ARE INTO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL ON THE, THE BUILDING.
UM, WHEN, UH, WHEN THESE, UH, ISSUES CAME UP WITH THE SETBACKS, WE ACTUALLY TOOK THE, THE CANOPIES OFF THE DRAWING.
SO RIGHT NOW, THE, UH, THE DRAWINGS ARE BEING APPROVED WITHOUT THE CANOPIES.
THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THE, UH, THE TIMELINESS OF TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH THE CIVIL, UH, DRAWINGS APPROVED.
AND THEN IF WE ACHIEVE THE ZONING CLEARANCE HERE, WE WILL AMEND OUR DRAWINGS AND, AND SUBMIT A REVISION TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN TO ACTUALLY GET THE, THE, UH, THE PORT RICOCHETS APPROVED, UH, OFFICIALLY THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
SO, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE NOT ON THE DRAWINGS THAT DUBLIN HAS CURRENTLY.
SO IT WAS JUST SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE, WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, AT THIS TIME, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UM, UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, SO I, YOU GUYS SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE COVERINGS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO SOME SORT OF MAYBE MEDICARE STANDARD.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, MAYBE? YEAH, SO FOR MEDICARE AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTERS, THERE ARE CERTAIN STANDARDS YOU HAVE TO MEET WHEN YOU GO THROUGH WHAT'S CALLED THE, UH, INITIATION SURVEY.
AND ONE OF 'EM IS SAFE ACCESS FOR PATIENT DROP OFF.
UM, PART OF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE GRADE, BUT THE OTHER IS, UH, TO HAVE THEM OUT OF INCLEMENT WEATHER.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS PATIENTS HAVE HAD ANESTHESIA AND YOU WANT TO HAVE SAFE ACCESS.
SO IN PARTICULAR, COVERED PORCHES ARE WHAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THE, IN THE HANDBOOK.
I CAN PROVIDE YOU THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT.
I JUST DON'T HAVE IT ON ME, BUT IT'S STANDARD PRACTICE AND, UH, TYPICALLY COMES UP ON YOUR ANNUAL MEDICARE SURVEY.
UH, SO THE, UH, UH, CENTER THAT, UM, I SEE FROM THE, UM, THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IMAGE THAT WE HAVE, UM, THE THREE PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE, UH, ARE THEY ALL ATTACHED TO THIS, UH, SURGICAL AREA INSIDE THE, THE BUILDING? ARE THEY ADJACENT TO THAT? UH, THE, THE TWO ALONG THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, UH, ENTERED DIRECTLY INTO THE, UH, THE LOBBIES FOR EACH OF THOSE CENTERS THAT I DESCRIBED.
UH, THE WAITING ROOM, IF YOU WILL, THE ONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY DOES ENTER DIRECTLY INTO THE ACTUAL RECOVERY SLASH NURSING AREA OF THE MAIN SURGICAL CENTER.
SO THAT WAS MORE, THAT ONE'S MORE FOR, YOU KNOW, DEFINITELY AMBULATORY, UH, PICKUP DROP OFFS, UH, ON, ON THAT WEST SIDE.
UH, AND THE, UH, UH, PROPERTY ITSELF, IS IT, UM, IT'S LOCATED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, IS THE MEDICAL CENTER A, UH, NONPROFIT ENTITY? IS IT THE 5 0 1 C3? IT'S NOT.
UM, UH, IS THE, UM, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THERE ARE SOME PURSUANT TO THE, UH, THE MEDICAID, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT, UH, UH, SOME CERTAIN EMERGENCY FACILITIES NEED TO BE, UH, READILY AVAILABLE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A SORT OF A SPECIALIZED MEDICAL FACILITY.
UM, BUT DOES IT HAVE, LET'S SAY, AN EQUIVALENT OF AN EMERGENCY ROOM WITHIN, WITHIN THE, THE BUILDING, OR IS IT, UH, JUST KIND OF TANGENTIAL TO THE, UH, THE SPECIALIZED SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED WITHIN THE, UH, THE FACILITY? UH, THIS WILL BE STRICTLY LIKE AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER, POSSIBLY 23 HOUR STAY WITH A FOCUS ON EAR, NOSE, THROAT, OPHTHALMOLOGY, AND ORTHOPEDICS.
UM, BUT THESE CENTERS GENERALLY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENT, UH, WITH A ADJACENT HOSPITAL.
UH, OUR PARTICULAR INVESTOR IS, UM, ALIGNED WITH OHIO STATE, SO THAT'S WHO WILL HAVE THAT, UH, UH, ALIGNMENT AGREEMENT WITH, BUT THERE WON'T BE A EMERGENCY ROOM TYPE SETTING, BUT THE PLAN IS LIKELY THE WEST SIDE WILL BE FOR PATIENT DISCHARGE BECAUSE THE DISCHARGE WAITING IS THERE, AND THEN PATIENT ENTRY WILL BE ONE
[00:25:01]
OF THE FRONT ONES THERE.BUT OFTEN THERE MAY BE AMBULANCES.
I MEAN, EVEN AT MY OFFICE ABOUT ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS, SOMEBODY PASSES OUT, AND I KNOW THE WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP GUYS PRETTY WELL, SO MM-HMM
AND, UH, IF THEY DID, LIKE, IF, IF, IF YOUR MEDICAL FACILITY WAS, UH, THE ONLY, UH, THE CLOSEST MEDICAL FACILITY AVAILABLE FOR, SAY, A NON, UH, EAR, NOSE, THROAT ISSUE, LIKE YOU MENTIONED SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, LOSING CONSCIOUSNESS OR SOMETHING.
THIS WOULD BE SORT OF AVAILABLE FOR THEM AS WELL FOR AN AMBULATORY SERVICE.
IS THAT FOR, UH, EMERGENCY, YOU, YOU COULD DO THAT BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE FULL ANESTHESIA CARE, UH, A HIGHER LEVEL OF ACUITY THAN YOU WOULD GET AT A AM YOU KNOW, AT A OFFICE, MEDICAL OFFICE, I SHOULD SAY.
UH, I DON'T WANNA MONOPOLIZE THE DISCUSSION HERE.
DO WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
UM, SO THE, UM, FOR CLARITY WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES, WE HAVE THEM LISTED AS, UM, UH, CANOPIES AND SOME OF OUR RECORDS AND THE PORT, UH, PORTE CO-CHAIR ON, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER, UM, UH, RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE HERE.
CAN YOU SORT OF DESCRIBE WHAT THEY, UH, WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, UH, AND HOW THEY OPERATE WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, UH, THE, THE AMBULATORY, UH, UH, UH, UH, UH, COMPONENTS OF THE, OF THE BUILDING? YEAH, I, THERE IS A SLIDE, I BELIEVE IT MAYBE THE, THE NEXT SLIDE THAT, UH, DOES SHOW, OH, MAYBE WE HAD THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.
IS IT? DO YOU HAVE IT AS A SLIDE? OH, OKAY.
UM, UH, THE, THE, UH, STAFF REPORT WE RECEIVED DID SHOW OUR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.
THE, UH, THE CANOPY OR THE PORT CHE ON THE, THE WEST SIDE, UM, HAS A GABLE END, UH, PITCHED ROOF TO IT THAT MATCHES THE, THE PITCH OF THE, OF THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
UH, THE, THE SOUTH TWO CANOPIES ARE MORE FLAT ROOF STRUCTURES THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING.
UH, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED WITH THE PORT RICOCHETS ON THE BUILDING, AND THEY ARE JUST, THEY'RE, THEY'RE FLAT ROOFS, UH, YOU KNOW, RUBBER ROOF MEMBRANE TYPE, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, ROOFS THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE, UH, THE WAY WE HAVE THE FRONT OR WELL, THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING DESIGNED.
UH, SO THE, THEY DO VARY FROM ONE ELEVATION TO THE OTHER.
UH, THEY, THEY ATTACH TO THE BUILDING FACADE ITSELF, AND THEN HAVE BOAT, LIKE ALL THREE OF THEM HAVE, HAVE TWO POSTS OUT IN THE, YOU KNOW, OUT IN THE PARKING AREA TO, TO HOLD UP THAT SIDE OF IT.
SO THEY'RE, UH, ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING ON ONE SIDE AND TWO COLUMNS ON THE OTHER.
SO AN AMBULANCE CAN, OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR, UH, EMERGENCY VEHICLE CAN COME THROUGH AND MM-HMM
YEAH, THE, THE HEIGHT IS, IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR, UH, FOR THE AMBULANCES AND, AND ANY OTHER EMERGENCY ACCESS, UH, VEHICLE GOING THROUGH THE SITE, SO THE, UH, THE FIRE TRUCK CAN GO THROUGH IT AND EVERYONE CAN GO THROUGH THESE.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME OR OKAY, ANYTHING? NO.
UM, SO AT THIS TIME, WE WILL, UH, BEGIN OUR, UH, DISCUSSION.
UH, IF WE DO HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS FOR YOU, WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP FOR, FOR COMMENT.
I'M DEFINITELY IN AGREEMENT WITH, UH, PLANNING RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THAT, THE ONE ON THE WHAT, SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO ME.
THE, UH, YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THE, UH, SORT OF THE STICKING POINTS THAT, UH, WE ENCOUNTER HERE IS THAT THE, UH, UH, SETBACK FOR THE, UH, WEST, UH, FACING, UM, CANOPY IS, UH,
[00:30:01]
124 FEET AND IT WOULD ENCROACH ABOUT, UH, 20 FEET, SIX INCHES.SO PROPORTIONALLY SPEAKING, IT'S NOT AS, AS GRAVE AS THE, UM, UH, THE SECOND VARIANCES AS WELL.
UM, SO THE, UH, YEAH, JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT COMMENT.
UH, SOMETHING I'VE NOTICED HERE IN STAFF'S REPORT, UM, PAGE EIGHT, UNDER CRITERIA B, UNDER THE REVIEW PART NUMBERS ONE AND TWO WHERE IT SAYS CRITERIA NOT MET, UM, THE SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING DESIGN CAN BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.
AND THIS SENTENCE IS WHAT GOT MY ATTENTION.
ADDITIONALLY, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MAY LESSEN THE IMPACT OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED.
WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IS THAT A STAFF QUESTION? I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
UH, SO OBVIOUSLY THEY MENTIONED THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ARE THE SAME AS THE SUBJECT SITE, SO A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BEING, YOU WOULD SUBMIT A FORMAL APPLICATION WITH THE CITY, BUT IT WOULD ADJUST THAT SOUTHERN LOT LINE BOUNDARY TO EXTEND FURTHER TO THE SOUTH, WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY IMPROVE THE CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE, RIGHT.
ALLOWING THEM TO MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE PROPOSED BUILDING LAYOUT.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY BO THEY OWN BOTH LOTS? THAT'S CORRECT.
PERHAPS FOR MORE DETAIL, UH, WHAT, UM, AFFIRMATIVE STEPS WOULD THEY HAVE TO TAKE TO COME TO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT? WE PROCESS MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, A LOT SPLIT AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS THROUGH OUR MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS.
AND THERE'S ARE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY OFTEN PLANNING AND ENGINEERING.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION.
UM, I GUESS THE ONE THING TO MENTION IS OBVIOUSLY THE ZONING VARIES, SO THAT WOULD BE A PART OF THE PUZZLE.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS? YEAH, I AGREE THAT THE, THE FIRST ONE, THE RATIONALE THAT IT DOESN'T EXTEND ANY FURTHER THAN THE BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY THERE, UH, MAKES SENSE TO ME.
UM, I GUESS AS THE SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST, I MEAN, TWO THINGS TO ME THAT I MIGHT DISAGREE A LITTLE BIT WITH THE BOARD IS THAT, I MEAN, THERE ARE ALREADY A PARKING LOT THERE.
I UNDERSTAND THESE ARE LIKE BUILDING STRUCTURES TECHNICALLY, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THEY'RE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE PARKING LOT ALREADY ENCROACHES INTO THAT.
OR MAYBE I'M AT USING THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY, BUT THE PARKING LOT, IT GOES FARTHER OUT THAN THE STRUCTURES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALREADY TOWARDS WHATEVER POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE, OR COULD BE ON THAT OTHER LOT ANYWAY.
SO, UM, SO THESE STRUCTURES AREN'T, WELL, THEY MIGHT BE TECHNICALLY ENCROACHING BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING, THEY'RE NOT THEMSELVES ENCROACHING INTO THE BUFFER ZONE ANYMORE THAN THE PARKING LOT ALREADY IS.
UM, AND UM, AGAIN, SINCE THEY'RE, I GUESS TWO THINGS ABOUT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP COME TO MIND.
ONE IS YES, THEY CONTROL THAT PROPERTY AND COULD DO DEED RESTRICTIONS OR SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, IF THEY DO, UH, SELL THAT PROPERTY OR DEVELOP IT, UM, WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT HERE.
SO THAT'S SPECULATIVE REALLY, THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.
UM, THEY MIGHT GET OFFERS THAT SAY, WE DON'T WANT THAT
YOU KNOW, SO, AND THEN THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IS CERTAINLY AN OPTION, UM, UM, THAT COULD ALLEVIATE THAT.
AND THAT COULD BE DONE AFTER THIS HEARING, AFTER THE APPROVALS OR WHATEVER, AFTER AT SOME OTHER LATER TIME AS WELL, I GUESS BEFORE THEY, SINCE THEY WILL STILL HAVE CONTROL.
[00:35:03]
SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH MY MIND.MR. CHAIR, IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE BOARD, UH, IF YOU FEEL THAT THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON THE FIRST VARIANCE SUIT REQUEST, UH, IT COULD BE WORTHWHILE TO TAKE A MOTION AND A VOTE ON THAT AND LET THAT PROCEED AND THEN HAVE SECOND DELIBERATION ON THE REMAINING QUESTION.
I, I DID SEE THAT STAFF WAS, UM, MOTIONING TO, UH, COMMENT.
DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT FIRST AND THEN WE CAN, I JUST WANTED TO MAYBE ADD SOME CONTEXT.
TO BRAD'S POINT, DEFINITELY TRUE THAT THE PORT CO SHARES DON'T ENCROACH FURTHER THAN THE PARKING LOT, BUT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO STRUCTURES BOTH PRINCIPLE AND ACCESSORY, WHEREAS THERE'S A DIFFERENT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING LOTS AND PAVED AREAS.
AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FRONT SETBACK AS WELL, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THE SITE'S CURRENT CONFIGURATION IN THE PARKING LOT EXTENDING FURTHER WEST.
AND, UH, TO COUNCIL'S POINT, UH, UH, DO WE, I BELIEVE WE, WE PROBABLY DO HAVE A CONSENSUS ON THE, UH, THE FIRST, UH, ISSUE.
SO, UH, UH, DO WE HAVE A, UH, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE, UH, NON-USE AREA VARIANCE FOR THE, IT WAS THE WEST, I ANNOUNCED THE RIGHT ONE.
YES, THE, UH, WEST, UH, PORT COSAIR, UH, SO MOVED.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? CAN I JUST CONFIRM THAT'S THE ONE TWO ENCROACH 20 FEET, SIX INCHES INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND, UH, NOW WE WILL ENGAGE IN THE, UH,
SO, UM, I GUESS I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR, UM, THE APPLICANT'S.
IF YOU WANT TO RETURN TO THE STAND, SO TO SPEAK.
MY QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT? UM, THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.
HAS IT BEEN CONSIDERED BY YOU IN THIS PROCESS, OR WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? UH, YES, IT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.
THE, UH, THE ONLY THE REASON WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING, UM, AS SOME OF YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS SITE, UH, DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR, UH, FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE GETTING THE CIVIL ENGINEERING APPROVED, AND NOW WE'RE LITERALLY DAYS AWAY FROM GETTING IT, UH, GETTING THE CIVIL ENGINEERING APPROVED FOR THE SITE.
UH, SO OUR CONCERN WAS LIKE, WELL, IF WE MOVE THE LOT LINE NOW BEFORE THE APPROVAL, IS THAT GOING TO SET ANYTHING BACK OR KIND OF START THE BALL ROLLING ON FULL APPROVAL WITH THE, WITH THE, THE CITY ENGINEERS? SO WE'VE, UM, WE JUST HAD THAT CONCERN, UH, WITH ADDING TO THE SITE AT THIS, AT THIS TIME, THAT WAS WHAT STOPPED IT.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S BEING LIKE ASSUMING OR IF YOU GET TO THE FINISH LINE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD CONSIDER IS STILL CONSIDER, UM, FOLLOWING THIS PROJECT'S COMPLETION OR WHATEVER YOU MEAN? UH, LIKE I GET GETTING THE APPROVAL AND THEN, UH, AND THEN I, I GUESS, COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? WELL, I GUESS YOU TALKED ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT COULD ALLEVIATE THAT ENCROACHMENT IF IT'S APPROVED AS IS.
UM, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF, IF THAT'S A, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO FEEL THERE'S SOME ASSURANCE OF THAT OTHER THAN THAT COULD BE AN OPTION IN THE FUTURE.
UM, I MEAN, WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT YOU DO AFTER YOU LEAVE HERE, OBVIOUSLY, BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW.
[00:40:02]
IS THIS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD, UM, IF WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE SOMETHING SUBJECT TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LIKE A DEED RESTRICTION OR PROPOSE PROPOSED, I DON'T KNOW, UH, I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO POTENTIALLY, IF THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE WE, WE WOULD GO WITH IT, I WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE INCLINED TO TABLE THE MATTER AND, UH, UH, HAVE THE APPLICANT ENGAGE IN CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS WITH, UH, UH, THE CITY TO, UH, TO PERHAPS ARRIVE AT A MORE AMENABLE SOLUTION OR THAT, UH, MIGHT COMPLY WITH THAT.BEFORE WE DO THAT, I GUESS, HAS THERE BEEN ANY TALKS ABOUT THAT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ABOUT THOSE ISSUES? UM, OTHER THAN WHAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED, THOSE ISSUES, MEANING, I'M SORRY, LIKE THE DEVIATION, THE ALLEVIATING IS THE LOT LINE MOVEMENT OR SOME OTHER SORT OF FUTURE RESTRICTIONS ON THE THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED PERSONALLY DURING, WITH THIS APPLICATION AS THAT WASN'T THE PURVIEW WHERE WE WERE JUST REVIEWING THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH CITY STAFF OVER THE TIMELINE OF THIS PROJECT.
THAT'S, HE MENTIONED HAS BEEN IN AND ONGOING FOR A HANDFUL OF YEARS.
ARE THERE, YOU SAID YOU'D GET OFFERS ON THIS PROPERTY REGULARLY.
ARE THERE ANY, UH, OPTIONS OR RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSAL OR ANY OTHER INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY BESIDES YOUR TRUST OWNERSHIP? ZERO.
YOU KNOW, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO MAKE MENTION, PRIOR TO MICHAEL, THE PREVIOUS ARCHITECT THAT SUBMITTED THE BUILDING PLANS, AND IT WASN'T, UH, MICHAEL, BUT, UM, I THINK THE SETBACK RULES ACTUALLY CHANGED SINCE WE STARTED THE PROCESS.
SO WE STARTED THE BUILDING IDEA BACK IN 2018, AND THE SETBACK RULES, I BELIEVE ARE NOT THE SAME AS THEY WERE THEN, ALTHOUGH THAT THIS ISN'T FROM MICHAEL'S FIRM, IT WAS ANOTHER FIRM, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.
SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, AS LONG AS IT WAS, IT'S ZONED THE SAME DISTRICT, IT WOULD BE THE SAME FORMULA.
BUT THAT FORMULA CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE BUILDING.
SO THE HIGHER THE BUILDING AND WIDER THE BUILDING, THE BIGGER THE SETBACK.
SO THAT MIGHT BE WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOME DIFFERENCES.
JUST 'CAUSE I'M NOT IN COMPLIANCE IN MY CURRENT BUILDING, AND I KNOW I WAS ALERTED TO THAT WHEN THE RULES KIND OF WERE ADJUSTED, SO, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO EXPLORE THE LOT POSITION CHANGE IF WE NEED TO.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT THE IMPLICATIONS, UH, THAT MICHAEL IS, UM, ALLUDING TO REAL BASICALLY RELATE TO THE WHOLE SANITARY STORM WATER AND OUR RETENTION POND IS ACTUALLY MANAGING A LOT OF THE BALANCE TRAY WATER, UH, 313 ACRES WEST OF THE PROPERTY.
AND CHANGING THOSE LOT LINES MAY MAKE ENGINEERING REVISIT THAT.
UH, PLANNING SUGGESTED THAT, UM, THAT THE BUILDINGS DESIGN CAN BE MODIFIED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.
WAS THAT A DISCUSSED AT ALL? LIKE, DID YOU TRY TO COME UP WITH A MODIFICATION TO THE PLAN TO MEET CODE? NOT IN THIS CONFIGURATION.
WE WERE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ABOUT HOW WE COULD CHANGE IT.
THE BUILDING DESIGN ITSELF IS LAID OUT THE WAY WE FEEL IT NEEDS TO BE FOR A SURGICAL CENTER, AND IT WAS REALLY THAT DETENTION POND THAT BORIS MENTIONED THAT FORCED IT A LITTLE MORE SOUTH THAN WE NEEDED TO.
PLUS THE, THE ADJACENCY TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ALSO HAS LIMITATIONS AS FAR AS HOW CLOSE WE CAN GET TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AS WELL.
SO THE CONFIGURATION ON THE, ON THE PARCEL, UH, AS IT'S CURRENTLY BOUND PUSHED, IT KIND OF FORCED THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH WIGGLE ROOM AS FAR AS NORTH SOUTH.
IT COULD BE TECHNICALLY SLID MORE TO THE EAST, BUT THAT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE THAT SOUTH SETBACK, SO THANK YOU.
[00:45:01]
ONE MORE HERE TOO.THE, UM, WELL ACTUALLY, LET'S SEE NOW, NEVERMIND.
UH, SO WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, RATIO, IT'S THE, UH, UH, UNDER ORDINANCE, UH, 1 53, UH, 0.026 C3, UM, THE, UH, SETBACK SHALL, UH, NOT BE LESS THAN ONE QUARTER OF THE SUM OF THE HEIGHTS AND LENGTH OF THE STRUCTURE.
UM, IS THE PART OF THE DIFFICULTY JUST LOOKING AT THIS, UH, SCHEMATIC IN FRONT OF US? IS IT THE, THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING IS AS LONG AS IT IS THAT'S, THAT'S CAUSING THE ISSUE? SO YES.
IF IT WERE
IT WOULD LESSEN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE BARN IN THESE PLANS? THAT STAYING, OR IS IT BEING TORN DOWN? THE BARN WAS BUILT UNDER AG, UH, RULES, UM, AND IT'S FOR CURRENTLY VACANT.
THERE'S NO UTILITIES OTHER THAN ELECTRIC.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW THERE AREN'T ANY FUTURE PLANS FOR THE BARN? WELL, IT'S NOT BEING REMOVED IN THIS, OR IS IT? UH, NOT LIKELY, NO.
IT'S BUILT TO A COMMERCIAL STANDARD.
IT'S A TWO BY EIGHT SOLID WOOD CONSTRUCTION CLEAR SPAN INSIDE, UH, FOUNDATION IS BUILT TO A COMMERCIAL GRADE.
SO I, I DON'T THINK IT'S, UH, THERE WEREN'T ANY PLANS TO TAKE IT DOWN.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR, FOR THE APPLICANTS.
[COMMUNICATIONS ]
UH, IT APPEARS THAT MAYBE, UM, UH, THERE, THERE HADN'T BEEN A, UM, A ROBUST, UH, UH, SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS AND, AND THE CITY WITH REGARD TO, UH, THEIR OPTIONS, UH, IN THIS, UH, IN THIS, FOR THIS SPECIFIC, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST.UM, IT COULD, COULD YOU, UH, DESCRIBE SOME OF THE, UH, UH, THE CONVERSATIONS OR HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS YOU'VE HAD TO THIS, THIS POINT, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT? UM, I HAD NO SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATION, BUT THEY WERE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE PLANNING REPORT WITH ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS THAT YOU, THE BOARD HAS READ MM-HMM
UM, SO I WAS JUST REVIEWING THIS PROPOSED SITE PLAN AS IT'S, AS IT LIES BASED ON THE VARIANCE CRITERIA.
SO IT SEEMS THAT, UH, THERE MAY BE SOME SORT OF, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE OPTION AVAILABLE TO THEM, UM, WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE, UH, UH, THE, THE ABUTTING, UH, PROPERTY, UH, BUT THE CONVERSATION TO ATTAIN THAT, WHICH THEY, THE APPLICANT, I, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK OUT OF TERM, BUT YOU DON'T SEEM, UH, OPPOSED, UH, OUTRIGHT TO, TO AT LEAST ENTERTAINING THAT OPTION, UH, TO, UH, TO, UH, AT LEAST ATTAIN COMPLIANCE OR GET AS CLOSE CLOSER TO, UH, TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE AS, UM, UH, CLOSER THAN WE CURRENTLY ARE, AT LEAST.
UH, SO IS, UM, DO, DO WE FEEL LIKE, UH, THERE'S MAYBE AN OPTION THAT COULD OCCUR OUTSIDE OF, UM, THESE DISCUSSIONS, UH, BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS AND THE CITY WHERE, UH, WHERE IN A MORE AMICABLE ARRANGEMENT CAN BE, CAN BE HAD, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, PROPERTY LINES? AND I THINK, I MEAN, TO ME, I MEAN, AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE, UM, IF THE BUILDING WERE SHORTER OR THERE WERE TWO BUILDINGS IN THE ONE LONG BUILDING THAT MIGHT BRING THIS SETBACK LINE INTO COMPLIANCE, OR AT LEAST MINIMIZE THE ENCROACHMENT INTO IT, UM, LIKE THE ONE IN THE FRONT.
SO I KIND OF THINK THERE ARE SOME, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S SOME UNIQUE
[00:50:01]
ASPECTS TO THIS PROPERTY THAT MAKE ME LEAN TOWARDS DISAGREEING WITH THE BOARD ON, ON THE THIRD CRITERIA.THEY, IN THAT IT IS LIKE THE LAST PARCEL IN DUBLIN ON THAT LINE, AND IT'S, AND THEY'RE CHANGING, AND LIKE HEATH, LIKE YOU SAID, THE, THE RETENTION POND IS NOT EASY TO MOVE ONE OF THOSE.
I MEAN, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S TAKING WATER FROM LAND OUTSIDE OF THEIRS, THAT COULD AFFECT PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THEIRS AS WELL.
UM, AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S JOINT OWNERSHIP MEANS THERE'S POTENTIAL WAYS TO ALLEVIATE THAT ENCROACHMENT DOWN THE ROAD.
UM, SO, UM, THAT'S WHERE I'M LEANING RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY, FOR ME, I DON'T EVEN THINK WE NEED TO LOOK OUTSIDE THIS MEETING FOR MYSELF.
SO SORT OF THE ARTIFICE OF THESE, UH, UH, THE, THE, THE RATIO ITSELF, IF THERE WERE LIKE A BIFURCATION, UH, OF THE BUILDING, WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS SITUATION.
UH, AND, UM, GIVEN THE PRO, UH, THE, UH, ABUTTING PROPERTY, UH, CLASSIFICATION, THOSE ARE THE REALLY, THE HANGUPS THERE THAT ARE MAKING, UH, UH, GIVING THE APPLICANT HEADACHES WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE, UH, ORDINANCES.
UM, IS, IS THAT THE, THE FEEL, THE FEELING THAT, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE ALL WELL THAT YOU ARE HAVING AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
SO SORT OF IGNORING THE ARTIFICE OF THOSE, UH, THOSE RULES, UH, THOSE, THOSE SPECIFIC ORDINANCES WHICH WOULD MAKE THINGS, UM, UH, NON-COMPLIANT.
UM, SO RATHER THAN HAVE THE APPLICANTS, UM, TABLE THE MATTER, OR HAVE THE APPLICANT HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY TO PERHAPS ARRIVE AT A, UH, AMICABLE SORT OF SOLUTION, UH, WHERE WE WOULD JUST SORT OF CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN AND SEEK, UH, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE VARIANCE.
I WOULDN'T SAY I'M IGNORING THE VARIANCE, THE, THE RULES.
I'M JUST SAYING WERE, I'M WILLING TO VARY FROM THAT
AND AGAIN, IF IT'S A MATTER OF, IF IT WERE TWO BUILDINGS THAT TOOK UP THE SAME OR LONGER LENGTH IN THE FORMULA BECAUSE OF THAT, THE FORMULA WOULD DECREASE THE IMPACT, THE, THE VARIANCE AS SCORE.
THAT'S, UH, NOT VERY EFFICIENT IN MY MIND.
UH, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY VARIANCES EXISTED TO AVOID HAVING TO MM-HMM
AND UNDER THE, UH, TO HAVING TO TOY WITH THE RULES GAME THE SYSTEM OR WHATEVER.
IT'S UNDER A THEORETIC SCENARIO WHERE THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BIFURCATE THE BUILDING.
IT IS A MEDICAL FACILITY AND IT MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST, UH, APPROACH TO, TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT ACTUALLY WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE, UH, UH, PROPERTY.
UH, AND, AND THE, UH, THE PURPOSES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MEDICAL PURPOSES THAT ARE, UH, BEING, UH, OBSERVED, UH, WITHIN THE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO HAVE A SINGLE FACILITY THAT IS INTACT.
AND, UH, BUT TO YOUR POINT, UH, HAVING SPLIT UP INTO TWO, BUT STILL BEING ON THE SAME PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE.
UM, SO IS THAT, AM I NOT COMPLETELY OFF WITH MY ASSESSMENT JUST FOR CLARITY? THAT'S MY, YEAH, I AGREE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, SPECIFIC, UH, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ELEMENTS THEM OR THE ELEMENTS OF THE, UH, UH, CRITERIA THEMSELVES? UH, I THINK THE DESIGN IS FINE.
IT LOOKS LIKE A ME UPSCALE MEDICAL BUILDING, UM, ACCORDING TO THE EXTERIORS.
AND, UH, AND I MEAN, THAT AREA IS MIXED, MAYBE, I MEAN, NOT USING TECHNICAL TERMS, PART OF IT'S NOT IN DUBLIN, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN THE HILLIARD SIDE A FEW METERS DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT THERE'S ALREADY COMMERCIAL OFFICES THAT THIS ONE, I DON'T THINK TAKES AWAY FROM THE, THE PLANS THEY'VE SUBMITTED DON'T TAKE AWAY FROM ANYTHING, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S ALREADY THERE, NOT ALREADY THERE.
UH, I WOULD ALSO UNDERSCORE THE,
[00:55:01]
UH, FACT THAT GIVEN OUR, UH, EARLIER AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, UH, IT'S, THIS IS THE SAME, UH, BUILDING WITH, UH, SIMILAR STRUCTURES JUST ON A DIFFERENT SIDE OF IT, BUT THEY'RE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL, UH, THEY WOULD BE GOVERNED, UH, SOMEWHAT, UH, DIFFERENTLY.UM, UH, HOWEVER WE FEELING ABOUT, UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE OTHER, UH, VARIANTS, UH, ELEMENTS, UM, I THINK THE SAME SPECIAL CONDITION APPLIES HERE AS IT DID FOR THE FIRST ONE.
SO I THINK, IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS WOULD AGREE, THE RETENTION POND AND ALL OF THAT? YEAH, IT'S, I THINK IT IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL, UM, CONSIDERATIONS.
THE RETENTION PONDS, UH, PUTTING IT IN, UH, ITS, ITS CURRENT LOCATION, UM, CAN'T VERY WELL BUILD IT OVER WATER, UH, AND, AND STILL ACHIEVE THE SAME UH, EFFECT.
SO IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT, UH, THE BUILDINGS, UH, PLACEMENT ON THE, ON THE REAL PROPERTY, UH, IS WHERE IT IS.
AND GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE, UH, SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED, UM, THE, IT'S, IT'S THE, THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES ARE, LET'S SAY, MINIMALLY INVASIVE, GIVEN THAT THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY JUST CANOPIES FOR, UM, UH, INTAKE AND, AND, UH, UH, UH, DISCHARGE, UH, AND FOR AMBULATORY, UH, SERVICES.
SO, UH, I'M INCLINED TO SAY THAT, UH, UH, THE, UH, IT IS NECESSITATED THE, UH, VARIANCE WOULD BE NECESSITATED BY, UH, SOMETHING THAT IS NOT DUE TO THE ACTION OR INACTION OF THE APPLICANT.
THERE ARE THE, UH, GEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, UH, ITSELF.
AND, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE, UH, UH, THIRD ELEMENTS, UH, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, UH, TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY, UH, OR WILL NOT MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE INTENTS AND PURPOSES OF THE REQUIREMENTS BEING VARIED.
UH, WE ARE LOOKING AT, UH, CANOPIES, WHICH ARE, UM, FOR, FOR A SETBACK, IT'S, IT SHOULD BE OPEN AREA.
I THINK A CANOPY IS, IS FOR, UH, COMPARATIVE COMPARED TO OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES THAT COULD BE ENCROACHING ON A SETBACK.
UH, IT'S ONE OF THE LEAST, UM, INVASIVE, UM, UM, STRUCTURES THAT, UH, THAT COULD BE ON THE PROPERTY.
SO, UH, I'M INCLINED TO, TO SAY THAT, UM, UM, WE'D BE ABLE TO, TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR, UH, UH, SECOND THAT FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD ELEMENTS, UH, FOR THE, UH, UH, REASONS DISCUSSED.
UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR, UH, WE FEEL LIKE WE MIGHT BE READY FOR A, UH, A VOTE ON THE SECOND VARIANCE? YEAH.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE A NON-USE AREA VARIANCE TO, UH, CODE SECTION? UH, MAKE SURE I GET THE RIGHT ONE HERE.
AGAIN,
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, MS. MICHAEL? YES.
UH, VARIANCES, BOTH VARIANCES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
UM, SO DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMUNICATIONS? UM, WE DO, YES.
FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE ANTHONY.
THIS IS HIS FIRST PRESENTATION AS A PLANNER ONE.
UM, IN TERMS OF GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS, WE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT WE'RE DOING SOME ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
UM, THAT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, IT'S ALL OF OUR BOARDS.
UM, AND AGAIN, THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SUCH AS THE NAME OF OUR AGENCY AND ENSURING THAT THEY'RE UP TO DATE.
UM, SO I'LL BRING THAT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION.
THERE'S NO ACTION REQUIRED BY THE BOARD.
WE JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THOSE WERE GOING TO PROCEED TO COUNCIL.
UM, THE SECOND ITEM WE HAVE IS WE HAVE A JOINT WORK SESSION ON TUESDAY, WHICH IS I BELIEVE SEPTEMBER 1ST.
UM, THE MEETING ACTUALLY STARTS AT FIVE 30.
WE'LL PROVIDE, UM, DINNER FOR THE BOARD, AND THIS WILL BE A JOINT, UH, MEETING, INCLUDING COUNCIL STARTS AT FIVE 30.
UM, IT'LL PROCEED INTO THE MEETING WHERE, UM, WE'LL HAVE REPORTS FROM ALL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WHICH PATRICK, I CAN ASSIST YOU AND WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL.
IT'S JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CASES
[01:00:01]
THAT THE BOARD HEARS AND ANY HIGHLIGHTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MENTION IN FRONT OF COUNSEL, SO I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT.UM, AND THEN THE PRIMARY CONVERSATION IS A DISCUSSION THAT STAFF HAS BEEN HAVING WITH ALL OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ABOUT MIXED USE AND WHAT MIXED USE ACTUALLY MEANS TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
UM, SO THAT'LL BE A MAJORITY OF THE MEETING'S PURPOSE.
SO IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ATTEND, UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR SV OUR SVPS, UM, SO WE KNOW WHO WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE AND PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
UM, I WILL EMAIL YOU, UH, UH, WITH, UH, UH, ANOTHER BUSINESS, UH, BEFORE THIS, UH, BOARD.