Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Commercial Parking Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board approves reduced drive-aisle width for 6008–6014 E. Livingston Ave.

2768147 · March 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board approved a variance to allow a 15-foot-10-inch two-way drive aisle (instead of the required 22 feet) for a multi-tenant site at 6008–6014 East Livingston Avenue; staff had recommended denial citing precedent and uniqueness concerns, but fire and public-safety reviewed without objection.

The Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board on March 20 approved a variance that reduces the required two-way drive-aisle width from 22 feet to 15 feet 10 inches at a multi-tenant property listed as 6008–6014 East Livingston Avenue.

The request, application 20240770, was presented by John Gleeson on behalf of 1 SUS LLC. The subject consists of two parcels totaling about 0.49 acres with a 7,072-square-foot building housing multiple tenants. Staff reported the site shows 23 parking spaces; the code requires 24 spaces but the property qualifies for a 10% parking reduction because it lies within 1,200 feet of a bus stop, reducing the required spaces to 22. The variance before the board sought relief from section 110501(g)(6) to permit a 15-foot-10-inch two-way drive aisle along the eastern side of the site.

Staff recommended denial, arguing the applicant had not clearly demonstrated uniqueness under variance factors 7 and 8 and that granting the variance could confer special privileges and set precedent for surrounding properties in the Innovation zoning district. The applicant said both the fire department and public-safety review had no objections to the reduced drive-aisle width and argued that the combination of change-of-use requirements and the building’s configuration created a hardship because future tenants would have to meet modern parking requirements.

After discussion, board member [Mr. First] moved to approve the variance; the motion was seconded by Mr. Bruske and passed on a roll-call vote. Recorded votes during the roll call were: Chair — yes; Ms. Allaby — yes; Ms. Barnhart — no; Mr. Bruske — yes; Ms. Ward — yes; Mr. First — no. The board’s affirmative votes constituted the majority required to grant the variance.