Board of Zoning Appeals approves variances for multiple infill projects; car‑wash plan OK'd with conditions

The Columbus Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 6 approved variances and special permits for several residential lot splits, additions and a commercial redevelopment, and voted to dismiss an appeal after the appellant failed to appear.

The board’s actions included approvals for variances at 5757–/East Livingston Avenue, 106 Coles Street, 473 Jackson Street, 395 Stewart Avenue, 2316 Turquoise Drive and 2828 Fieldwood Avenue; a special‑permit approval to expand burial capacity adjacent to Greenlawn Cemetery at 1155 W. Mound St.; and conditional approval for a proposed six‑story residential building at 1036 S. Front St. A proposed car‑wash redevelopment on Cleveland Avenue was approved after the applicant agreed to design and landscaping conditions the board required.

Why it matters: the approvals further the city’s stated goal of adding housing and redeveloping underused lots, while the Cleveland Avenue decision highlights tensions between newly adopted Title 34 walk‑ability goals and the practical constraints of an interstate‑adjacent, auto‑oriented site.

Key decisions and actions

East Livingston Avenue (BCA24‑152; maneuvering area, side/rear yard variances) Planning staff had recommended denial, arguing the large paved front yard departed from neighborhood character. The owner’s representative said some gravel area had been mistaken for pavement and that the owner would accept limits on the paved maneuvering area. After discussion, the board approved the requested variances with a condition limiting the allowed turnaround/maneuver area to a 9‑by‑18‑foot space (standard single‑car dimensions) and requiring removal or reduction of the larger paved apron shown in photos. Owner Jenny Gandy testified about safety concerns when backing onto the main street; she told the board the extra space was intended to allow a car to exit safely when other cars are parked. The board concluded the condition balanced the owner’s maneuverability concerns with neighborhood character.

106 Coles Street (BZA24‑165; multiple lot‑development variances) Planning staff and the Near East Area Commission recommended approval. The applicant presented revised plans showing alley‑oriented access and other design adjustments; the board approved the requested variances as presented.

473 Jackson Street (BZA24‑169; lot split and related variances) Staff recommended approval to legitimize existing conditions and to increase housing density. The Southside Area Commission had mixed recommendations on one parking reduction but staff supported the project. The board approved the variances, with conditions noted in the staff report.

PCA25‑030, Cleveland Avenue (MooMoo Express car wash) This drew the most extended debate. The applicant requested multiple variances to allow a car‑wash building set back behind a broad parking area and to reduce storefront transparency and other community‑activity‑center standards. Planning staff recommended denial under the new Title 34 standards, arguing the proposal did not sufficiently meet the pedestrian‑oriented goals in the Northland area plan; staff asked that an 8‑foot masonry wall be reduced to a lower wall with black metal fencing consistent with Title 34.

Applicant representatives and consultants said the property is subject to reciprocal easements and access constraints tied to an adjacent Home Depot parcel, that a standard tunnel car‑wash cannot be oriented north–south on the site and that the wall plus dense landscaping would create a walkable promenade and buffer headlights and noise. Dave Perry, a consultant for the applicant, said the car‑wash building needs long east–west dimensions to accommodate conveyors and vehicle circulation; he and others described the site as an auto‑oriented interchange location where strict Title 34 requirements are difficult to meet.

After back‑and‑forth, the board approved the variances, asking for commitments on a stamped landscape plan, a public‑frontage sidewalk connection where feasible and clarification of the wall/screening design; several members voiced support for the project given the site constraints and the applicant’s screening and sidewalk commitments.

395 Stewart Avenue (BZA25‑035; lot split and variances) The applicant sought to split the existing lot and build a new single‑family home on the resulting parcel. Planning and the Southside Area Commission supported the revised design; staff recommended approval with a condition that no access be provided to Stewart Avenue. During discussion the board and applicant negotiated whether the split would carry entitlement to a curb cut and how any off‑street parking obligations would be resolved. The board approved the lot‑split variances but recorded the applicant’s representation that it would pursue off‑street parking solutions (including the possibility of a future separate application) and accepted the staff analysis on the Dunkin/Duncan factors.

2316 Turquoise Drive (BZA25‑066; right‑of‑way acquisition + lot split) The applicant seeks to combine the existing parcel with a portion of the adjacent Moonstone Court right‑of‑way (which the owner has requested to purchase from the city) and then subdivide into two lots that would be slightly smaller than the SR district minimum. The board approved the variance conditioned on the right‑of‑way acquisition process: the purchase and related city approvals must be completed through the city’s infrastructure/land‑use procedures before the lot split can be finalized.

1155 West Mound Street (special permit for cemetery expansion) The board approved a special permit that would allow a neighboring cemetery to construct additional mausoleums on a parcel that would be accessed from the cemetery site; staff and the Southwest Area Commission recommended approval.

1036 S. Front Street (BZA25‑M054; six‑story residential building / parking configuration) Staff recommended disapproval of a request to permit parking and trash/mechanical space on the ground floor in lieu of active interior frontage along a street, noting removal of a few parking spaces could avoid some variances. The applicant and HRC proponents argued the narrow long site and other constraints made the proposed layout necessary. The board concluded the project met the Dunkin/Duncan factors in context and approved the variances, finding the proposal would add housing density and activate a long‑vacant surface lot.

Dismissal: Appeal BCA25‑074 (1789 Hollybridge Road) The board dismissed an appeal for failure of the appellant to appear. Staff testified that certified notices had been sent and that the appellant had not engaged recently; the board voted to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution.

What members and witnesses said

• Jenny Gandy, property owner (East Livingston): “That is a huge danger ... It is a huge danger to back out to that main street.” • Brian Sweeney, sworn witness for the East Livingston application, described the gravel/pavement confusion and said the owner would accept a defined maneuvering area or landscape treatment to reduce tracked gravel. • Dave Perry, consultant to the car‑wash applicant: “You need 40 feet to safely ... get the rear tires onto the conveyor,” meaning orientation constraints drove the design choices. • John Lang, consultant for the Stuart Avenue lot‑split applicant, said the team had explored curb‑cut solutions and would pursue additional permits if the board approved the split. • Gary Stulthoff, Southside civic‑association representative, opposed the 473 Jackson reduction in parking without clearer plans for what would be built on the new lot.

Next steps and conditions

Several approvals included conditions the board or staff noted on the record: the East Livingston maneuvering area limit (9 by 18 feet) and removal of the extended apron; the Cleveland Avenue car‑wash approval included requirements for a stamped landscape plan, a sidewalk connection where feasible and clarified screening/wall details; the 2316 Turquoise Drive approval was conditioned on successful right‑of‑way acquisition through the city process; and the 395 Stewart Avenue lot‑split outcome included the applicant’s commitment to pursue off‑street parking solutions if needed.

Meeting context

The session included detailed testimony from applicants, consultants and neighbors. The board applied the city’s Dunkin/Duncan factors and the new Title 34 guidance in several contested cases; several decisions turned on site‑specific constraints (easements, existing ingress/egress agreements, or a parcel’s frontage) that limited code‑compliant alternatives.

Ending

The board’s approvals clear several pending redevelopment proposals to proceed to the next steps of permitting and, in some cases, follow‑up applications to finalize parking or frontage details. Cases that require additional city actions (for example the Moonstone Court right‑of‑way sale) must complete those administrative steps before final lot splits can be recorded.

Note: This summary reflects statements and actions recorded at the Aug. 6, 2025 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. It does not infer facts beyond the meeting record and indicates when applicants committed to future filings or city departments must complete administrative approvals.