- I'm gonna call the Board of Zoning Appeals to order on this date Thursday, March 27
- 2025 can I have a roll call, please?
- Ballard here Borel here Fernandez
- Katsinko
- Throckmorton here
- We had minutes that were distributed to the team to the board
- Do we have any discussion or do I have a motion to approve?
- I'll move approval of minutes from February 20th 2025 meeting
- Fernandez Cinco
- Throckmorton, yes
- We have any reports resolutions or communications
- Thank you
- All right, we do have some continuations
- I'm sorry. So the minutes of for January 23rd, 2025 had been approved
- We do have a list of petitions to be continued
- To the March 20th, I'm sorry
- What it says on our thing continued? It's April what?
- 24 petitions that will be continued or are these the ones I want to be sure I'm reading the packet,
- right?
- I think I know what it means, but I I'm not going to speak for the staff
- Petitions continued to April 24th. Okay
- The one I'm looking at says to March 27. I want to make sure I have the right one up. So
- Yeah, I think the one online says April 24th, so you might have last month's. Yep, let me
- I just don't understand why we continue to have
- the cutters Kirkwood
- Petition on this agenda. I
- mean you all I
- Mean there was a subsequent petition that was approved
- So this is kind of moot
- But it continues to be on our agenda. So I don't know why we can't continue to continue it because
- it's not an active petition
- I'm happy to explain it again
- Jackie Scanlon assistant director. This was the original petition from 2022 and because there was
- litigation
- We were told we couldn't take it off the agenda until we had an agreement from them
- So we've contacted them multiple times to ask them
- To acknowledge that it was being withdrawn and haven't heard back
- So we're waiting for them to do that and I could check with legal again about that before next
- month
- Okay, all right John anything further on that
- The petitions that will be continued April 24th 2025 will be a a - 17 - 22 joke camp construction
- LLC and Blackwell Construction Inc
- V - 27 - 22 cutters Kirkwood one two three LLC
- Do I need to name those subs on there?
- No, okay
- Those are all right. And so there's one two, three, four or five six subs portions to that
- That falls within that continuation. No, I'm so sorry. So there are
- They're all separate. Okay. Yeah administrative appeal 06 - 25
- That slash APPL 20 25 - oh two - zero zero three Porter land or lawn
- You do not have to say the second part is what I was saying
- Like if you just want to get the traditional number, that's great. They - oh seven - 25 Eli Brown
- V - 13 - 25 Kara Carolina Lopez
- Cu - oh eight - 25 Kamar is Aldi. I think it says or is I 80
- Cu - 33 - 24 hat rentals LLC V - 10 - 25 Tabor Bruce architecture and design all
- again will be
- Continued to the April 24th
- 2025 meeting so tonight we will be hearing in this order V - oh - - 25 Patrick Riggs
- Cu - oh nine - 25 Jared Taylor
- V - 11 - 25 Smith and Hayes properties LLC and we will conclude this evening with V - 12 - 25
- Don Cowden Foundation, Inc. Chick-fil-a with that
- We'll go to the first petition this evening and that petition again is the variance V - oh - - 25
- Patrick Riggs and
- May I have a report from the staff?
- Good evening, I'm Gabriel Holbrough zoning planner here to present the staff report for
- This portion
- For this case
- So this is a second hearing for this case you may remember from February
- the property is
- 415 West Fountain Drive, it's the property is
- 1.17 acres on the west side of the intersection where North Lemon Lane meets West Fountain Drive on
- the northwest side of the city
- It's currently zoned a mixed-use employment ME in the comprehensive plan and it's given the
- designation employment center
- The existing land use is a single-family dwelling and proposed will be a single-family dwelling
- with a detached
- accessory dwelling unit detached ADU
- Surrounding properties are characterized by
- Characterized by a low density of development with a mix of residential and commercial uses
- The area is also characterized by karst geology including several sinkholes
- There's a compound karst feature encompassing two sinkhole depressions to the west and southwest of
- the property
- So this was the site plan
- Shown at the first hearing generally the petitioner proposes to construct
- There's there's already a residential structure on the property. The petitioner proposes to
- construct a new detached single-family house
- With the construction of the new house the petitioner intends to retain the existing dwelling
- structure without modification
- But reclassify it as a detached accessory dwelling in a detached ADU, which will be accessory to
- the new house
- So this was the previous version of it. You can see the
- Existing structure is on the right
- Toward the top so this is in this view north is to the right
- so the existing structures of the north end of the property along Fountain Drive and you can see
- the proposed new house in the
- previous version of the site plan was
- Down and toward the middle in other words toward the southeast from there
- But that was within the required cars buffers. We'll get into
- So the new site plan that was submitted with this hearing the location of the new
- House has moved up to sort of the the center
- Between the east-west property east and west property lines, but still set back a little bit from
- The north property line along Fountain Drive, which is to the right
- So so they it's moved a little bit
- So this is the existing structure on the
- On the property that is proposed to become an ADU
- So in order to to accomplish building the new house the petitioner is requesting two variances
- The first I'll go over briefly again. We discussed it last month
- But I guess not all of you were here. So
- The first variance request is a variance from the front setback standard for an ADU
- so the the structure is compliant with all the
- Standards in the unified development ordinance the UDO for an ADU except for the required front setback
- So what what is that setback the UDO requires that it's attached ADU not extend closer to any
- street than the primary dwelling structure
- So the the existing ADU is set back
- Approximately eight feet from the front property line on Fountain Drive
- But the proposed house is going to be about 45 feet back and as you can see that dashed
- Black line that just appeared on there
- That's approximately the setback of the proposed house and the existing structure that will become
- the ADU is closer to Fountain Drive than that
- But even if the new structure were relocated to the minimum front setback of 15 feet, you can still
- see that the
- existing structure that will become the ADU is closer to Fountain Drive than that
- so
- there's a request for a variance to allow that so that location to
- to continue
- Some other background information the transportation plan
- Calls for a 60 foot right-of-way width for this segment of Fountain Drive
- The existing width of the public right-of-way is at least 16 feet less than that
- Estimated at 40 feet wide
- So if the Fountain Drive right-of-way were ever widened to the full 60 feet called for in the
- transportation plan the existing structure
- Would encroach encroach at least slightly into the public right-of-way
- There is no requirement that this property that this property dedicate additional right-of-way at
- this time
- And the city is not currently pursuing acquisition of additional right-of-way on this street
- segment
- And there's no expectation that the right-of-way will be widened in the near future
- Because Fountain Drive is classified as the neighborhood residential street typology the front setback
- standard in the UDO is
- Supposed to be measured from the edge of the existing right-of-way not the proposed right-of-way
- So that was just some background about right-of-way, but we're left with the same
- Variance request to allow the existing location of that building to continue when it becomes an ADU
- So the second variance request
- Has to do with a variance from karst geology standards
- So there is a compound karst feature
- That is present in the area
- The UDO requires so when building a building on a property subject to karst geology standards
- The UDO requires that a karst conservancy easement be established for all area within 25 feet
- Horizontally from the last closed contour around the karst feature in this case
- It's a compound one. It has two you can see there's sort of a north part and a south part
- And then the orange line highlighted is the elevation contour at
- 866 feet above sea level which is the last
- Closed completely closed contour. This is a map provided by the
- Provided by the petitioner that shows that highlights that is the last closed contour our GIS
- That we have as staff shows the last closed contour is
- 868 so it's a it's a slight difference
- The the strict language of the UDO says that we follow the staff's information unless we have
- reason to doubt it in which case
- We can follow other information in this case. This is this seems to be reliable
- There's no reason to the staff does not feel there's any reason to doubt it
- So we're comfortable going with the 866 as the last closed contour around the karst feature
- So to back up a little bit the conservancy easement needs to be 25 feet
- Horizontal from that from that from that orange line you see there
- So where does that come on the site?
- That's the
- 866 contour line crossing this part of the site
- 25 feet from it approximately here and where the building has been relocated is outside the area
- that will have to be in a karst conservancy
- easement
- But there's also what for the UDO prohibits structures within 10 feet of the easement
- Meaning that effectively a building can't be built within 35 feet of the last closed contours
- Is over here. So the the proposed building location is
- Within that 10-foot buffer. So the variance is still required for the building
- The buildable area on the site that is completely outside these is
- All the stuff that's to the right to the north of that line
- Proximately highlighted in yellow here
- This is so even though this is a fairly large property because of the compound karst feature
- There's not not as much buildable area as you would think so this is
- Approximately what the what the buildable area is beyond all the karst buffers
- There's also a septic field highlighted here in the in the light green
- Which is completely within
- the
- The area that has to be in a karst conservancy
- easement, it's worth highlighting that it's
- It's not clear to staff possibly the petitioner can clarify whether this
- Septic field already exists or is proposed to be constructed. I
- Should also say that there is no sewer available here. This is confirmed by CBU and by the
- applicant
- There is a private sewer main but the owner of that private main has declined to allow a connection
- so
- The UDO allows a septic field as long as it you know abides by other standards
- Including that the UDO requires that it not be in a set in the karst conservancy easement
- And more specifically the way that the UDO requires that it not be in the karst conservancy easement
- is because there cannot be any
- Within the karst conservancy easement any man-made change of the land surface including removing
- vegetative cover removal of trees excavating filling and grating
- are
- All land-disturbing activities which are prohibited as well as
- Permanent or temporary structures or the placement of any fill material so if it's an existing septic
- field you could argue
- They're not doing any land disturbance, right?
- They're just maintaining it they're just keeping it
- But if any of the the pipes in there break or need to be replaced there's going to have to be some
- excavation
- So it just there there couldn't
- Functionally, you couldn't have a septic field in there if it doesn't exist yet
- Certainly you couldn't create one because creating one involves digging up the soil putting on the
- piping and then putting backfill over it
- so
- They need a variance for having the septic field within the required
- karst conservancy easement those are the two variances the 80s front setback and the
- karst
- geology standards
- So we'll go to staffs recommending criteria and findings
- What we have on the screen here are bullet points from them the complete proposed findings are in
- your packet
- And some of them are going to be the same as what we presented last month
- Some of them are going to be a little different. I'll highlight those as we go along
- So first of all the first criterion that the approval will not be injurious to public health safety
- morals and the general welfare of the community
- Same as last month staffs recommendation regarding the adu front setback is that it will not be injurious
- The structure is stood in its current location for nearly a century with no known adverse impacts
- And there's no reasonable expectation that the existing right-of-way will be widened in the near
- future
- for the karst geology standards
- Based on the board's deliberations last month some new information from the petitioner staff is amending
- our proposed finding for this one
- Constructing a house within the required buffer will not be injurious
- the large
- size of the compound karst feature means that the proposed development is relatively far from the
- parts of the karst feature that are
- Experiencing some sidings and water infiltration as so shown in the provided karst survey report
- There are no signs of soil piping or subsidence in the proposed footprint of the new house and no
- impacts to existing drainage volume
- To the sinkhole are expected
- However, the location of the septic field in the karst feature is injurious to the public health
- The Monroe County Health Department reviewed plans for the proposed septic system. However, city
- Bloomington karst regulations are not part of their review
- For the second criterion that it won't harm
- neighboring
- the use and value of neighboring properties
- For the edu front setback. This is the same as
- last month
- Proposed finding is that will not substantially affect the use and value of neighboring properties
- The structure is stood in its current location for nearly a century with no known adverse effects
- for the karst geology
- This is a little bit new
- Constructing a house within the required buffer will not affect adjacent properties in a
- substantially adverse manner
- The proposed house development will not significantly
- Increase the risk of water contamination or the potential drainage flow through the karst feature
- However, the department cannot determine that inclusion of a septic field and all the future
- maintenance that
- That it requires
- Will not affect adjacent properties. So in other words the department cannot determine that it will
- not affect adjacent properties
- There's a chance that it will affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner
- going on to the third
- criterion
- Having to do with practical difficulty and peculiarity of the property. This is slightly amended
- for the
- Proposed findings are slightly amended from last month for the adu front setback
- It is infeasible to move the existing structure because of its structural condition
- Even if relocation to elsewhere on the property were feasible the limited buildable area on the
- property due to the karst geology
- In need for a septic system pose practical difficulties to find room for both a detached adu and a
- primary dwelling structure
- For the karst geology this is this is a new proposed finding
- Even compared excuse me even compared to other properties adjacent to karst features
- The karst standards is applied to this property are peculiar
- Those peculiar areas include the distance between the individual sinkholes and the compound karst
- feature results in a peculiarly large
- Karst buffer the centers of the individual sinkholes and the compound karst feature are more than
- 300 feet from each other and not even on
- the petition property
- The idea is required easement distance from the karst feature renders a significant portion of the
- property unbuildable and the size and shape of the
- Remaining buildable area outside required setbacks from karst and property lines further restricts
- what can be built to a peculiar degree
- The buildable area is roughly triangular making it difficult to locate features in the corners of
- the area
- The lack of sewer service to the property is another peculiar feature
- These peculiar features will result in practical difficulties to find room for the existing adu and
- new house
- However, there's no evidence presented that the septic system cannot be located to the west of the
- residences
- Granting a variance for the proposed location of the house will relieve the obvious practical
- difficulty
- However, no information has been presented that indicates a practical difficulty
- Requiring issuance of a variance to allow the location of the septic system in an environmentally
- sensitive location on the property
- So if you're following along you'll see that
- based on these proposed findings the department recommends that the board adopt the findings and
- approve the requested setback variance for the adu
- approve the karst geology variance as it relates to the new primary structure and
- Deny the karst geology variance as it relates to the septic system
- With that we recommend two conditions the first
- Just clarifying that the front setback variance is for the existing
- 760 square foot residential structure in its current location only
- If the existing structures move the new location must comply with the political applicable setback
- standards
- Any new additions new structures or replacement structures on the property must comply with
- applicable setback standards
- And then secondly the the second condition was printed
- Incorrectly in the packet meaning that what's in the packet does not match with what staff actually
- wants to recommend for this condition
- So this is I'll read this full text here
- This is our this is staffs recommended
- Second condition on this approval prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance for any
- building
- construction on the property the property under shell record a karst conservancy easement in a form
- approved by the Planning and Transportation
- Department and in accordance with the ud o section 20 dot oh four dot oh three oh f
- Period in the packet. There was some further language
- about
- Carving out so the septic system is not part of the karst conservancy easement if you were
- interested in
- approving a variance to allow the septic system to be in
- In the karst buffer you might want to add that language back
- But because staff is recommending denial of that portion of it
- We recommend taking off that other language and just ending it as it's shown here
- with that
- That's the staff report. Thank you
- We have a representative from the petitioner or the petitioner or a representative, please come
- forward
- It will only be one person speaking you we've done this before just you
- Okay
- Well go ahead and come forward I'll go ahead and swear you in
- Go ahead and sign in
- What will happen here is the petitioner will have 20 minutes to speak
- Whatever time is not used at the initial presentation will be reserved for later before votes taken
- by the board
- And when you're ready you can give us your first and last name
- I'm Patrick Riggs and do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the
- whole truth and nothing
- But the truth I do okay again up to 20 minutes
- And if someone else needs to come forward, we'll stop the timer swear them in and then continue.
- Thank you
- Okay, I appreciate your time
- Good evening members of the board. My name is Patrick Riggs and I appreciate the opportunity to
- speak again this evening
- First I would like to thank the city staff for their thoughtful review and recommending approval of
- the setback variance
- I do truly appreciate the recognition of preserving and repurposing the existing structure
- I believe it adds value to both the property and the neighborhood
- Tonight I will focus solely on the second variance the karst variance as it relates to the septic
- system since that seems to be the
- only resolved unresolved issue
- To clarify the septic system is not new it has served the existing home for years
- The septic system in the provided site plan is in the same exact general location as the existing
- system
- While the existing septic system was undocumented before my ownership. I have since located and
- documented the system location
- Including adding a clean out to the tank
- For maintenance, I have photos available if needed for that that weren't included with the packet
- The Monroe County Health Department has reviewed the system and issued the repair permit
- Allowing a modest expansion to accommodate the new residents. This permit was granted based on the
- field's existing location and function
- This is a repair permit not a new permit
- The word the use of the word proposed on the site plan simply reflects
- How my septic installer labeled the permitted work not an indication of new construction?
- there is no new land disturbance proposed in the conservancy area and
- The submitted hydrogeology report confirms that the septic field areas show no signs of karst
- activity as previously stated
- No signs of subsidence infiltration or soil piping
- What is important to emphasize is that the septic permit is already permitted by the authorities
- responsible for the septic systems
- It's been reviewed approved and authorized by the county
- Which applies the Indiana Administrative Code governing these systems the city staff report
- acknowledges that the city staff are not trained to interpret this
- This exact same code yet the concerns that were raised about the septic field appear to be
- Relying on future maintenance needs rather than any current violation or hazard
- And this brings me to the heart of the issue I do believe that this variance request is not about a
- clear violation
- I believe this instead reflects a complex overlap between different regulatory agencies. I
- Fully support thoughtful environmental review
- but I also believe homeowners should not be placed in a difficult position due to the differing
- interpretations between the
- between departments
- Especially when they followed all the rules and received proper permits and good faith
- One additional item I didn't dress until I saw on the board up here
- With the addition of the fact that the septic system could be placed to the west of the house
- that was actually already addressed and
- Well, I was told that could not happen because the septic field has to run horizontally across the
- slope of the lot
- It can't run vertically down the slope. So that does make it impossible to put it to the west of
- the structure
- If the board still has concerns I am indeed open to reasonable conditions to limit future
- disturbance
- for repairs or maintenance
- Even such as requiring hand tools or recording the cars conservancy easement that was mentioned
- I've made every effort to be collaborative and solution oriented throughout this process
- The site has been carefully designed professionally reviewed and adjusted multiple times to align
- with the standards in place
- I respectfully asked the board to approve the car's variance and allow this project to move forward
- in a responsible
- Environmentally environmentally respectful manner. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your
- service to the community
- Withhold the remainder of the 15 minutes and 50 seconds should you need it later?
- and I'm assuming that your expert we could call on them to answer questions if we
- Okay. Thank you
- From that questions from the board to the staff or to the petitioner or to the petitioners expert
- My question is for Gabriel so
- When you gave your report you weren't sure that the septic was
- Old or I mean existing or not, correct? You didn't know you didn't know if he was applying for a
- new septic
- Location or if it will already exist, correct?
- From mr. Riggs that it is existing. It is existing. Does that make any difference on your
- recommendation
- It does not change the staff recommendation
- Well, first of all, it doesn't change this the standards about it
- That is to say that for the septic system
- Well, let's see
- Very very very very very technically it could remain there and have a car's conservancy easement on
- it
- that seems like a bad outcome as staff I
- value that as a bad outcome because if there's a car's conservancy easement on it and
- He ever needs to go and repair it that would be violating the car's conservancy easement
- It would seem like a bad situation to set up something where normal maintenance of an important
- Piece of equipment on his property
- Requires violating an easement
- So very very technically speaking. It's already there. It can continue to be there, but that seems
- like a that seems like a bad outcome
- so
- Staffs recommendation is
- That
- That the board deny the variance for
- To have that septic field there and it possibly
- Possibly would be prudent to add a condition that the septic system be moved
- The
- Petitioner has stated that there is not other locations on the property
- So that may be a difficulty. I
- Just want to be clear that's is if it if that were this
- We can't really add that as a staff position because it was not in the
- Packet, this is what you're saying that you would suggest now
- Correct. I mean it would have to be a motion by one of you. Yes
- Exactly, we would have to introduce that
- Correct, not part of this. Thank you. I just want to make sure I'm clear on that any other
- questions for the petitioner or
- to the staff
- But let me address this you will have 15 minutes and 50 seconds if we don't ask a question of you
- the petitioner
- Hold that and then please that's when we want you to address it
- But sometimes we'll circle back during this questioning period and ask you to address it and then
- that doesn't come out of your 15 minutes
- Okay, just so you know that you'll have plenty of opportunity. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead Tim
- The discrepancy seems to be between
- Planning recommendation and in the Monroe County Health Department
- So the fact that this was a renewal you knew we knew it was not new. It was a renewal
- So that interpret that in terms means it's already there existing. So that's a given so that was
- factual
- December 5th of 2024 so
- How can we override
- The approval of a renewal on a permit by the health department this way when it's already said and
- done
- That's yes, yeah, so so as I think the way that mr. Riggs put it this is a complex overlap between
- different
- Regulating bodies. I think that's a good way to describe it
- There are all kinds of cases where different people have different rules
- And unless there's a specific exception written in the rules for that situation. You got to abide
- by both
- That that's just generally how it works when there's when there's different kinds of regulations
- that apply in a particular situation
- so in this situation in this situation, you need a
- Septic permit from the health department and you need to abide by car's geology standards
- and
- he's done one of them which is get the
- The permit from the County Board of Health and then he also needs to abide by car's geology
- standards
- One of the ways to abide by car's geology standards would be to move the septic system to be out of
- the cars
- The cars buffer another way to comply with the car's geology standards would be to receive a
- variance
- So that's one of the reasons he's here tonight
- So there's generally when there's when there's multiple regulations that apply you got to meet them
- all
- sure, I just find it interesting that the health department who's in charge of
- Approving these systems wouldn't have any clue as to what cars features are in there, but you're
- saying that's the case
- They don't have any clue about the cars features
- I wish I had enough insight into their process to be able to know whether or not they you know to
- even be able to
- Say that they missed it because I don't know and maybe maybe they know fully well about it and
- there's
- Reasons in their regulations that that's okay. I actually don't have insight into that. Thank you.
- I
- Would like to explore the idea of the difficulty
- so
- As per and this is this question is for the petitioner. So you
- you say that
- You have explored the idea of moving the septic to the west, but it's not possible to do so
- Go ahead
- due to the setback requirements from the property lines and the roads and
- The fact that the septic field has to be horizontal across the slope lot. There's simply not enough
- square footage to place the home
- Or the septic system to the west of the existing structure
- Okay, so that so that has been explored already it has and we know that this lot is a very is a
- peculiar lot that it has
- Enormous karst feature
- Represented in the portion the the small area for a buildable area is small enough
- To accommodate what you're trying to do, correct?
- Correct. Okay, so I'm just trying to figure it out. So that is a peculiar a
- peculiarity of this lot and also a difficulty I
- Would agree. Okay. Thank you
- Can you
- Pull back up the staff report and clarify for me what the changed language was
- of
- The condition or of the findings or both both you you reference that what we had in the published
- Materials before the meeting. Yeah, sure what you presented tonight. Yes
- I
- Hold on while we make this up as we go on so I'm gonna share
- I mean I could say on condition on the
- Condition the recommendation condition to the only change was a period after the code
- Udo section 20.04. It's a little more than that. Um, so I thought you said you struck the remainder
- of it the rest of it
- Yes, there's struck struck the remainder. Yes. That's why I just said sorry. Go ahead and look at
- that
- I'll address that section to so section 2 John. That's the only change on that on that second
- condition was a period after that
- Everything else was struck and then the suggestion from Gabriel was that if we were
- going to
- Approve that the language that follows
- That code might be something they would recommend for us to include
- But that that doesn't answer all your question
- That that is the question that I had I was just trying to see what was different
- So you just took the last?
- three lines essentially for starting with the word with with the following modifications
- then the other thing I just need some clarification on because I found it a little confusing is
- that
- The rationale for
- Not putting accounts or a conservation easement on the existing
- site of the septic is that they would
- violate that easement if they had to do repairs, correct
- But we're recommending
- Deceptive system system already exists in that location
- So yeah, I don't see why we would want to put an easement
- over that side if
- There's ever the potential to have to repair it even if they didn't even move forward with this
- project
- Yes, so to get to what you're asking about
- This is
- So I just created this
- With the following conditions the first condition is the same in the staff report and we're
- recommending now the second condition
- so it begins the same prior to issues of a certificate of zoning compliance for any building
- construction on the property the property owner shall record a
- car's conservancy easement in a form approved by the planning and transportation department and in
- accordance with uds section 20.04.0 30f and
- Staff is recommending period ending there. What was in the staff report and what you
- What you may wish to consider if you may wish to consider?
- approving the septic field
- there is
- With the following modifications regarding the easement location in other words
- We're modifying what would otherwise be required in the udl for the easement location
- the easement shall cover all land on the lot that is both a
- five feet beyond the outer dimensions
- Spelling correctly of the septic field as shown on the seminet site plan and be either less than
- 866 feet in elevation or within 25 feet horizontally from the 866 foot contour line so what we get
- there is that the b
- Part is what would ordinarily be required by the udl
- The a part is except around the septic field if that makes sense
- Do you have a diagram of that I mean
- I think I've fallen
- You're gonna want the contour map, it's another question. Yeah, sorry
- So based on everything we heard from the petitioner and we've read
- You're still saying that
- in the
- Proposed findings under a karst geology that there has been no evidence presented
- That the septic system cannot be located to the west of the residences. Is that the staff's current
- position?
- Well, no because there has been evidence presented
- so
- We're going to need to amend the findings or staff would recommend some of them instead of findings
- no matter what?
- if we if we get to that point we might on the fly staff would recommend something on the fly to
- Say that
- You know
- We think there it still can be to the west or something like that
- If you want to make a motion for it for denial, but one way or another we're gonna have one way or
- another staff would recommend
- amending those findings a little bit
- Depending on how the board wants to wants to move
- Got it. Yeah, we won't get ahead of ourselves, but I'd like to hear from the hydrologist
- Okay, this is a question for the hydrologist if you could come forward
- I need you to sign in though for me, please and then when you're done signing and give me your
- first and last name
- Jason Crowthy and do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth I
- Do and then what I'm going to just suggest is that you address this question in that one that you
- wanted to talk about
- Say that for the follow-up. Okay. Thank you
- So my question is in your expert opinion of what you've looked at
- Do you see any concerns with the existing?
- Septic in the location in the existing location. I didn't observe anything in the field to give me
- any concern
- my biggest concern to
- To the septic would be moving it or putting a new one
- Just because the biggest impacts to water quality and karst areas would be during like land
- disturbance
- So if you're digging up a new site for the septic to me, that's a bigger concern than
- Using the existing one if that makes sense and do you see any concerns with?
- possible maintenance
- Trucks
- Going by I you know
- I mean
- I mean if you're if you're if you're looking at it where it currently is versus on the west side it
- again
- It's it's a little bit arbitrary as far as how it would impact the sinkhole
- I mean, it's I don't see it being any different as far as if you'd have to provide maintenance to
- the west or to
- Where it currently is?
- Neither one gives me a particular concern
- I
- Have a question about there's multiple mentions of future effects
- And it's not just about the septic it's about future properties as well
- Can you explain that a little bit more when it says like there's a chance for?
- adjacent properties to be effective
- Is that for the petitioner for the staff, I'm sorry staff, sorry
- the findings so so, you know one of the one of the three criteria for
- For variances that it won't harm adjacent properties
- so we necessarily have to be thinking about impacts energy some properties and the proposed finding
- is that
- The inclusion of the septic field and all feature maintenance required
- May affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner meaning that
- It it could increase the risk of water contamination and increase the potential drainage flow
- Through the cars feature, let me let me amend that
- So the language in the proposed finding is a little vague but to explain what we're trying to get
- at
- The petitioner statement and staff sees no reason to disagree that that all the drainage is going
- toward the cars feature anyway
- That's not changing. So it's not and adding this
- No, I'm thinking on the fly I apologize
- It will the septic system compared to if there were the opportunity for sewer which was not but it
- would increase
- drainage flow through there because that's the the the
- Set the set the septic water is going to the I mean it's going through the ground
- it's filtering through the septic system and all that and
- But there there's water that is there's more water that's going into the cars feature
- Then would be if there was if there was zero septic system whatsoever
- so there's that more water means that there's more chance for the piping for
- For to create the the fissures to create subsidence. I mean, that's you know, how cars features
- work
- So some more water means more subsidence potentially in the future
- And then the other thing is the water quality. So septic systems are designed so that at the end
- It's as you know, clean enough. It's it's not polluting the water. That's that's that's how they
- that's their function
- But they do fail that that can happen
- And so that's a potential adverse impact of having that septic system in the car
- So that's the staff recommendation about those two things
- Put up the
- overview of the page 14 proposed
- the existing home in the proposed residence worry
- This is for the for Patrick the petitioner
- I just I want to be just really really clear because we it's been said kind of back and forth, but
- I
- just want to go from
- This page correct that one. Yes, is it possible zoom in just to the
- from
- the septic field
- to the road
- And just go right from there
- Okay, I just want to be sure working from the roadway from the existing house Patrick. So
- Right behind the existing home. There's the what's called the proposed new septic tank
- Now I want you were talking about some things are already there some things aren't so I just want
- to make sure that I've got
- It clear in my head. Does that tank currently exist?
- Thank you. Then the next one to its left says proposed that would be for the new ADU. That would be
- a new one
- Okay, and then further is the outline for the proposed septic field that would be nude
- That is where no that's the same general location as the field for the existing tank. Okay
- So the reason I just want to make sure that we're all clear and looking at it while we're talking
- about it
- but one thing that John said did kind of
- Concerning that if we just kind of abandon that field, let's say that that's what happens abandon
- it
- It could still end up closing a risk because it's not being used on a on a it's not being used on a
- regular basis
- nor maintained
- so we could end up so
- For you Patrick we could end up having a problem with that field if it's not maintained and
- Used if we just let it go and left it alone and make try to do something else on that property
- It benefits you to make sure that it's being used and maintained, right? I
- Would believe so if I understand your less likely that there would be an unaddressed problem that
- no one would notice
- Down the road that would that could lead to adverse effects on the property and the properties
- adjacent
- Korea if we abandoned it in your yes in Europe correct, okay, and and Gabriel do you feel the same
- way or?
- If it were simply abandoned, yeah, I know I'm using that I'm using that as an extreme
- I mean I
- May be I don't understand enough about subject systems
- But I don't think that would be a concern because there wouldn't be there wouldn't be water
- There wouldn't be sewage flowing into it. So you just it would just be pipes in the ground
- I mean, it's it effectively is trash at that point in the ground, but it's trash. That's not
- particularly harmful
- Okay, so you'd be the opinion there probably be no adverse effects if it was if it were in fact
- abandoned
- Yes with the caveat that I'm not a specialist in subject. Okay, that's all I wanted to hear. Thank
- you
- Questions for the petitioner staff are there any other questions from the board concerning
- procedural issues
- Anything like that? Okay, if not, it's going to if you'll have see Patrick. We're gonna go to the
- public for comment
- Is there anyone either online who would like to make comment or anyone in chambers who would like
- to come forward and speak to?
- this petition
- None online
- All right
- All right with that then back to Patrick or to your
- Expert you do have 15 minutes and 50 seconds if you want to address anything
- That came up to this point you have that time and you can do that now
- I
- Don't have anything else to add, but I would just like to say that Jason Kroethe my professional
- did have to step out for a
- Honor thing for his daughter at school, so that's
- So if he had something else he wanted to say I was personally unaware of what it was so I can't
- speak for him
- Okay, thank you. Thank you
- It's back to the board for action
- Further discussion or I will accept a motion. I
- Mean I'd like to figure out a way to get an approval for the septic because I think the expert the
- geologist who spoke is
- The bottom line they know the most more than staff more than us and they're saying it's neither
- here nor there
- Whether we make them put it to the West which they can't or if it stays where it is
- And it's actually worse if we try to remove the system. So
- That's my line of thinking. I think this is a great plan for a great house. They're getting the setbacks
- We need more houses like this. So
- That's that's where I'm at
- Any further comments or discussion otherwise we we seek a motion
- So we
- If we want to
- As part of the motion if we go in Tim's direction, we'll have to amend a
- couple of the findings
- So I would propose the following
- That we
- The changes I'm not sure how to put this in the form of motion, but in the proposed findings
- number one under cars
- Geology in the second to the last sentence
- Which currently reads however location of a septic field in the cars features in
- Juris of the public health safety and general welfare of the community. I
- would
- Strike is injure injurious and replace it with maybe
- injurious and
- Then in
- The findings number three I
- Would delete
- It is the third to the last sentence, however, there has
- Been no evidence presented
- That the septic system cannot be located to the west of the residences. I would just strike that
- entire sentence and
- Then in the recommendations I
- Would
- Change deny to approve the karst geology variance
- And then add in the original language in condition number two
- That was very very comprehensive. Thank you. Do I have a second?
- Second
- Okay, we have a motion and second. Is there a further discussion or questions that we need to have
- answered before?
- We take a vote and we will come back to staff in just a moment to see if they have anything to add
- to the
- findings
- anything from the board I
- Mean I would just make a comment. I mean, I definitely appreciate
- You know some of the challenging issues that the staff's trying to wade through on this one, I
- think we would generally
- prefer not to have
- septic systems in karst
- photography
- closest sinkhole
- This one has pre-existed there doesn't appear to be any evidence of failings or problems and
- You know the County Health Department signed off on it and I think we ought to give them deference
- since it's their jurisdiction
- So with that Gabriel, would you like to make comment on that motion?
- I was just gonna
- Volunteer I can put anything up on the screen if you want it up there
- please it it might be helpful because you might notice that
- Even with your amendments, there are still things in there that sound like they're for denial, but
- if you wanted to be for approval, so
- let's
- Know let's make sure that we're clear. I'm sorry. Excuse me for that that we're clear on this
- We're
- Focusing primarily on the second record the second point after the the recommendation
- So just to recap John tell us again what you said there on that as far as changing the language to
- approve
- Let me go to let me go to the the packet instead because yes, this is just bullet put in my thank
- you just a moment
- Yeah, I'm sorry I was reading off of the packet version
- If you can read this, this is the the proposed findings for the first criterion so
- Sorry to make you go running around this would be easier if it were in word and not in not a PDF
- So let me pull that up just a moment
- And
- While you're doing that just for the those that are here in chambers with us
- if we are going to
- approve something that goes against the
- Recommendations the city we do have to present alternative alternate findings
- That explain why we're providing either variants
- Either approving or denying
- we always have to come up with a
- Valid explanation for the rationale for our decision. So it's just not a matter of saying we're
- either for it or against it
- And that's what we're doing here. So this tends to take a little bit of time
- So I just want to explain that to folks that I understood what we're trying to do here
- All right, apologies for that.
- So here we are.
- These are the proposed findings, and the motion in the one about karst geology was to take
- - however, the location of the septic field in the karst feature may be injurious.
- And then in the third -- the findings for the third criterion, we have however there's
- been no evidence presented, we strike the sentence.
- And then in the recommendation it would be and approve, and the second condition would
- include the underlying language.
- So that's -- as I -- so first question, Mr. Fernandez, is this what you had in your motion?
- Yes.
- So if we go back to the finding number three, so there's the sentence that was struck out,
- as you can see there in the strikeout, then granting variance for the proposed location
- of the house will relieve the obvious practical difficulty.
- The next sentence, however, no information has been presented that indicates it -- okay.
- It may be helpful to clarify in the remaining sentence, sandwiched between those, granting
- variance for the proposed location of the house and septic field, for example, might
- be -- I think that addresses what you were saying, Flavia.
- Yeah.
- All right.
- And the -- so up at the top -- on the screen is the recommended finding for the second
- criterion.
- The final sentence, however, the department cannot determine that the inclusion of a septic
- field in all the future maintenance that are required will not affect adjacent properties.
- That would seem to lead toward denial.
- You may want to amend that one as well.
- I mean, is that -- is that addressed, John, by deferring to the Monroe County Health Department
- for findings?
- Do we have to raise a practical difficulty, or does it have to --
- No, for this finding, this one's about effect on adjacent properties.
- No, I know the number two, but for number three, do we have to propose a practical difficulty
- there?
- Well, I think it stated that there are plenty of practical difficulties mentioned related
- to the house.
- And I think the rephrasing said it relieves a practical difficulty.
- Yes.
- It relieves it.
- Okay.
- Thank you.
- Anything else, Gabriel?
- This is a matter of opinion, so I just want to be clear that I want to defer to the board
- - my personal opinion is that if you're going to recommend approval, leaving something in
- there about maybe injurious -- if you want to recommend approval, maybe you want to have
- a finding that's a little stronger, like not injurious, but definitely don't -- that's
- totally your --
- Well, that's a good point.
- But again, it does go back, John, to deferring to the Monroe County Health Department, because
- they're the ones who did not find there to be an issue.
- Gabriel, that would -- I mean, that would allow us to just strike it, right?
- Because --
- That's your decision, yes.
- I want to leave it to John, though it's his motion.
- Yeah, I mean, I think it's generally -- as I said earlier, I think that there are concerns
- with having septic fills in a karst area close to a sinkhole.
- The way it was written, it was definitive that it is injurious.
- I'm just saying it might be, but in this case, we're not saying definitively that it is,
- because you're not saying a location of this septic field, you're saying a septic field.
- So I was reading that as a fairly general kind of statement, but I'll defer to others
- if you want --
- What I'm saying is it doesn't need to be amended.
- It was a question from staff as to whether we wanted to be more.
- But I do think I have no issue voting on a motion with that language, because it does
- indicate to someone in future deliberations that they're looking at something that we
- did go into it realizing that there could be a problem.
- We're not saying it definitively.
- So I would feel comfortable with that.
- I think that's why I asked my question as well to the staff was that seeing repetitive
- - it was a definitive statement how it reads.
- And so that would potentially sway my vote, depending on is it truly injurious, is today,
- is in the future, or is it -- it could be.
- What if we added under the second to last sentence the Monroe County Health Department
- reviewed plans for the proposed septic tank -- septic system and renewed septic permit
- with no issue?
- Because again, I would want to -- they have a role in this, too, and we need to use to
- me their expertise, not ours, as they gave the okay to it.
- So maybe that's something we could add.
- Are you agreeable to that, John?
- Can you just repeat your words again, and I'll type them up?
- Yes.
- So just adding in after system and gave permit renewal for septic system -- or, yeah, for
- septic permit --
- Existing.
- Existing, yeah.
- Yeah.
- Granted.
- They granted that.
- Yeah.
- I agree, Tim.
- That, you know, just makes a better record.
- Yeah.
- Yes.
- Do we feel comfortable with this motion as announced, and we do have a second, correct?
- Well, I do have a question on the last condition of the recommendation, because you're recommending
- that the property only shall record a car's conservancy easement in the form of approved
- by the Planning and Transportation Department, according to the UDO.
- Do we have to add a five feet beyond the outer dimensions of the septic field as shown as
- submitted in the site plan?
- That's for you.
- Yeah.
- For you.
- I'm sorry.
- Can you repeat the question?
- Yes.
- So they are going to have to record a car's conservancy easement in order to get this
- completed.
- Correct?
- Correct.
- It's a condition.
- Do they have, do we have to add your condition number A that the easement shall cover all
- land on the lot that is both five feet beyond the outer dimensions of the septic field as
- shown in the submitted plan?
- I would recommend that because without that language in your condition, the condition
- would be saying you got to follow the UDO and the UDO says, the plain language says
- you got to put a car's conservancy easement over the septic system at which point, well,
- maybe he got a variance but we're still tying him up.
- Correct.
- And that's what I'm concerned because I want him to have all the legal paperwork to do
- what he needs to do.
- So the A section there is saying that the car's conservancy easement doesn't cover the
- septic system.
- Correct.
- So there would be room to walk around it, basically.
- Yes.
- Is that what you agree?
- Any other comments or questions?
- My question then to staff is do we need, is there a need for us to restate this motion
- and second it or do we feel that we're all in agreement?
- If you all feel that you're in agreement, I think because it's recorded, like, we'll
- be fine to be able to pull it out if you all feel that you're John is the motion maker.
- You okay with that?
- I'm also comfortable since it's here on the screen and it's in a document that will forward
- this to our staff and writes the minutes and writes the approval letter.
- Thank you.
- Gabriel.
- Any other discussion or comments?
- If not, I see none.
- Call the question, Fernandez, cut some cow, Throckmorton.
- Yes.
- I would like to say, Patrick, that as a board, we do want to thank you for taking the extra
- time addressing some of the concerns and coming back.
- That's the way we feel something like this can happen.
- It was a collaborative process and I want to thank the city for all the hard work.
- This has been a really interesting case and I appreciate it on both sides.
- Congratulations and good luck with that and again, to the city, thank you for that.
- Okay.
- You can stay if you'd like because it's going to be really exciting.
- With that, we will go to the next petition, conditional usage, CU-09-25.
- This is Jared Taylor and if I could please have a staff report.
- So once again, I'm Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner for the city of Bloomington.
- This is a request for conditional use approval to allow an increase in the number of bedrooms
- within an existing structure of a lawfully existing dwelling, common duplex, in the residential
- medium lot, that's the R2 zoning district.
- So the key parts here are that it already exists, but it doesn't yet have a conditional
- use, but they're adding bedrooms.
- The properties approximately a half acre at the northwest corner of North Meadowlark Lane
- and East Post Road in the Grandview Hills neighborhood.
- It's about a half acre.
- It's zoned R2 and the comprehensive plan, it's neighborhood residential.
- Existing land use is a duplex and the proposed land use is a duplex.
- It was, structure was built in 1970 or thereabouts and it was designed for use as two separate
- dwelling units.
- As originally designed and constructed, each unit had two bedrooms and other living areas
- on the main floor.
- And then on the lower floor was a garage and a finished basement area, but no bedrooms.
- The southern unit, which is to the left as you can see when viewed from Metal Arc Lane
- uses the address 655 North Metal Arc Lane.
- The northern unit on the right uses 657.
- It's been continuously two separate dwelling units since 1970.
- The zoning rules have changed over the years when it was built.
- This was allowed.
- I'm not sure how it was classified exactly, but it was allowed.
- In intervening years, it became not allowed, but could continue as a lawful nonconforming
- use.
- And then today, it would be allowed -- you can construct a new duplex in the R2 district
- as you've seen from other cases, but it requires a conditional use approval.
- But this one so far hasn't needed one because it's just continued as a lawful nonconforming
- use.
- But as part of a regular inspection cycle for a rental occupancy permit in December, an
- inspector from the hand department, Housing and Neighborhood Development, observed a third
- basement bedroom had been added to each unit.
- The third bedroom in 667 on the right had existed for at least a few years, but the
- third bedroom is 665 -- sorry, those numbers are incorrect.
- 657 and 655.
- The bedroom in 655 on the left was recently constructed and not yet occupied.
- So adding the bedrooms increases habitable space and needs to have it be legitimized
- with the conditional use approval.
- So that's why we're here.
- So if we look at it, you'll recall that the use specific standards for a duplex in these
- districts that are part of what you look at for a conditional use approval include that
- the design of the structure is compatible with other residential structures on the same
- block.
- So here's some photos of it.
- It's built in 1970.
- It looks like it.
- It looks a lot like the other houses on the street.
- This is from Meadowlark Lane.
- This is the south side.
- You can see the upper level there and then the lower level.
- I believe that this at one time was a garage door.
- It's long since no longer, and that's leading toward where the bedroom is.
- There's not an attached garage on this side of it.
- So here's the rear view from the west, and here's a view from the northwest.
- You can see the north side of the house and a little bit of the rear again.
- This is the layout of it.
- This is the upstairs.
- You can see there's master bedroom and bedroom on one side and then two bedrooms on the other
- with the kitchen and living area.
- You go downstairs, and what they're proposing are -- or what's there actually are bedrooms
- down there.
- So each unit will have three bedrooms, total of six bedrooms in the whole thing.
- Here's a photo of the newer bedroom on the 655 side.
- So the criterion findings, for this conditional use, there are a few different -- feel different
- criteria.
- Again, these are bullet points if you -- the full one -- the full recommended findings
- are in the staff report.
- So the proposed finding is that it meets all these specific standards for duplex dwelling
- in the R2 zoning district.
- Neither the property owners Michael and Marissa R.C. nor the hand-registered agent Jared Taylor
- of superior management have any notices of violation on file in the planning and transportation
- department.
- Each unit has its own separate exterior entrance facing metal arc lane.
- The duplex structure was constructed in the same era and with a similar design style as
- the other houses on metal arc lane.
- Consequently, the roof pitch, front porch width and depth, front building setback and
- vehicle parking access for the duplex dwelling are similar in general shape, size, and design
- with a majority of other single family or duplex structures on the same block face.
- The duplex structure contains six bedroom total which does not exceed the maximum of
- six.
- The property has maintained a hand rental occupancy permit since at least 1999 and is
- in the process of renewing the permit for another cycle so it's abiding by our rental
- occupancy permit program.
- The duplex will use existing approved utility connections and there are no known prior approvals
- for the site that apply.
- There's also a finding that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable
- plans.
- The recommended finding is that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive
- plan.
- The comprehensive plan identifies this area as the neighborhood residential land use category.
- The comprehensive plan states that the neighborhood residential area contains a mixture of densities,
- housing types and curvilinear street network of local low traffic volume streets and this
- property is located on a dead end street that's shared by a few single family houses.
- The comprehensive plan provides guidance for land development and neighborhood residential
- areas including that quote redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing structures or new
- infill development of single lots or developments less than one acre should complement the context
- of surrounding land uses.
- The proposal uses an existing residential structure that is already a complementary
- part of the existing context.
- Comprehensive plan policy 5.3.1 encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment
- across Bloomington with consideration for increased residential densities, complementary
- design and underutilized housing types such as accessory dwelling units and duplexes.
- So this location is served by existing services and utilities.
- Then there's a finding that it provides adequate public services and facilities.
- In this case, the site has existing utility connections.
- No issues have been identified.
- There are findings that it minimizes or mitigates adverse impacts, including that the proposed
- use and development will not result in excessive destruction, loss or damage of any natural
- scenic or historic feature of significant importance.
- The recommended finding is that there are no natural scenic or historic features that
- will be impacted.
- The proposed development shall not cause significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties
- and/or create a nuisance by reason of noise, smoke, odors, vibrations or objectionable
- lights.
- The recommended finding includes that no significant adverse impacts are expected from the addition
- of two bedrooms within the existing duplex structure.
- No changes to outside lighting, or excuse me, so then just continuing on about minimizing
- or mitigating adverse impacts.
- The hours of operation outside lighting and trash and waste collection must not pose a
- hazard, hardship or nuisance to the neighbourhood.
- Recommended finding is no changes to outside lighting or to trash and waste collection
- are expected.
- And then related to minimizing adverse impacts, the petitioner shall make a good faith effort
- to address concerns of the adjoining property owners in the immediate neighbourhood as defined
- in the pre-submittal neighbourhood meeting for the specific proposal if such a meeting
- is required, and the petitioner invited members of the -- the petitioners offered multiple
- occasions to meet with interested parties to discuss and address any concerns about
- the project.
- The petitioner invited members of the Grandview Hills neighbourhood association to neighbourhood
- meetings in the form of open houses at the property on February 25th and March 10th,
- 2025.
- Not in the findings, but you will see in the packet there was an email from a neighbour
- in support.
- Then there's consideration of -- if there's a phasing plan, is it rational, recommended
- finding is there -- no phasing is proposed.
- The department recommends that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve CU-09-25
- and other numbers with the following condition.
- This conditional use approval is limited to the exterior design and interior floor plans
- shown and discussed in the packet.
- Thank you.
- >> Just as a point of order here, the start of our packet listed Jared Taylor on the CU,
- but later it's listing Marissa.
- Is there a problem with there being two different names there?
- >> I would not think that there would be a problem.
- To clarify, Marissa Arcee is the owner.
- Jared Taylor is a property manager who is working on the owner's behalf.
- >> Which one actually applied for the -- >> The signature on the bottom of the application
- form was Marissa Arcee.
- I have not corresponded directly with the owner at all.
- I have corresponded completely with Mr. Taylor.
- I just wanted to be clear about who's doing what.
- With that, it's time to go to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative to present
- the petition.
- Is either Marissa or Jared here this evening?
- We'll do the same thing.
- Sign in and say your first and last name and I'll swear you in.
- Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth?
- I do.
- And to restate, you'll have 20 minutes.
- Whatever time you don't use, you can use again before a motion is taken from the board.
- Thank you.
- Please.
- I'd like to thank the board for your time and consideration in this.
- It's been a process.
- But with that said, I wanted to make a few points.
- The property was bought and purchased in 2021.
- At that time, 657 already had the third bedroom in the downstairs, and it had already been
- through one hand inspection where that was on their radar.
- As for 655, that was put in in 2022, and then during the recent hand inspection, it was
- found that it couldn't be upgraded because the property was R2 zone and was grandfathered
- in.
- The reason why we would like to, other than monetary reasons, to have the third bedroom
- is it is a very quiet neighborhood.
- We get along great with our neighbors there.
- Most of our tenants that we like to appeal to are grad students, and most of the neighbors
- are not wanting young college students in there who are partying at night and staying
- loud.
- They want somebody in there.
- Currently, we have a tenant that is working at IU on the 657 side, and the last couple
- tenants have been grad students going to IU, but that's really all I have unless you have
- any questions.
- >> Thank you.
- >> At this point, we'll come to the board for any questions you may have for the staff
- or the petitioner, and I see none.
- With that, we will go to the public who might want to comment.
- Is there anyone in chambers who would like to speak to this petition?
- If not, is there anyone online?
- If so, please raise your hand.
- Seeing none, then it comes back to the petitioner for additional comments if you have any.
- And do I see nothing further to add?
- Okay.
- Then we'll come to the board for action or additional comments, questions, or discussion.
- >> I'll move to adopt the proposed findings and approve CU-09-25/USC 2025-02-0074 with
- the following condition.
- This conditional use approval is limited to the exterior design and interior floor plans
- shown and discussed in the packet.
- >> Do I have a second?
- >> Second.
- >> We have a first and a second.
- Is there further discussion?
- Seeing none, we'll call the question.
- >> Kusumkow?
- >> Yes.
- >> Throckmorton?
- >> Yes.
- >> Ballard?
- >> Yes.
- >> Burrell?
- >> Yes.
- >> Fernandez?
- >> Yes.
- >> Thank you.
- >> And the petition passes unanimously.
- Congratulations.
- Good luck.
- Thank you.
- >> Okay.
- We will be going to V- -- let me ask this.
- It's been an hour and a half.
- Do we need a five-minute break?
- Are we okay?
- Three-minute break?
- Five-minute?
- Are we okay?
- Okay.
- So we're going to V-11-25, page 55 of the packet.
- This is Smith and Hayes Properties LLC.
- If I could have a staff report, please.
- >> Thank you.
- This is Eric Rulick, development services manager.
- >> Can we turn him up?
- One second, Eric.
- >> Eric, Mr. Rulick, can you turn your -- I don't know.
- You're very quiet.
- Let me see here.
- Okay.
- Try again.
- >> Can you hear me now?
- >> Very good.
- Thank you.
- >> Okay.
- Sorry.
- I'll speak louder.
- This is a request from Smith and Hayes Properties for a site at 300 West 6th Street.
- The petitioners are requesting a variance from use specific standards to allow for ground
- floor dwelling units within 20 feet of the first floor façade for a location within
- the mixed use downtown and within the downtown core overlay district.
- So this particular petition was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 2023 for the same
- request and it was denied by the board.
- So the petitioner has slightly modified the request to create a interior wall that's about
- a foot and a half from the front of the building along Morton Street.
- But in essence, the petition is the exact same.
- There have not been any changes to the property, to the property lines, or the adjacent streetscape.
- So per the Board of Zoning Appeals rules and procedures, there is language that governs
- certain situations where a petition has been denied by the board and the petitioner is
- coming back with the exact same petition.
- And in this case here, the rules and procedures say that in this situation of the rehearing
- of a zoning petition that was previously disproved by the board, the board may require the petitioner
- to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in order to hear the petition.
- So in this case here, as I mentioned, the only change has been the addition of an interior
- wall and there have not been any changes to the building itself on the outside, have not
- been any changes to the right of way, have not been any real substantive changes whatsoever
- to the petition as a whole.
- And so the city, the department, with the advice of the legal department does not feel
- that this does warrant a material change in circumstances regarding the petition itself.
- And so it would be appropriate for the board to vote on whether or not they want to hear
- this petition since it was previously denied.
- So the decision on whether or not there has been a material change should be based exclusively
- on whether or not there has been any material change in circumstances or facts which induced
- the prior denial.
- So that meaning any new information that has come to light that was not available at the
- time that the first petition was heard.
- And so we also had the legal department on call as well if there are any questions for
- them but as I mentioned the board it would be appropriate for the board to even to vote
- whether or not to even hear this petition.
- So with that we should go to the board for any questions before I proceed further.
- Thank you Eric.
- If I could have the petitioner or the petitioners represented please come forward and sign in
- first please and state your first and last name.
- Bill Beggs Bunger Robertson law firm here in Bloomington.
- I'm sorry say that again Bill.
- My name is Bill Beggs Bunger Robertson law firm here in Bloomington.
- Thank you.
- And do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth
- and nothing but the truth.
- I do.
- You have 20 minutes.
- Any unused time will be reserved for you to use again before the board takes action.
- Thank you.
- 20 minutes for what I'm sorry you all need to decide whether or not I'm sorry I was following
- our procedure.
- We do.
- We actually I'm sorry.
- Bill.
- Give us a moment.
- We have to actually have that they have demonstrated material difference.
- Thank you for that.
- So well let's leave that to the board.
- Let's see.
- Yeah.
- Would be like additional information before making a decision about continuing if so we
- can speak to the petitioner petitioners argument on why work and let's restrict that to five
- minutes please.
- We'll give you five minutes to make that case please.
- May I comment that I would like to I would like specifically to hear about the changes
- not why we should hear it but the changes the physical changes that were made that might
- warrant this hearing.
- Okay.
- So to be clear the board is asking you to provide us information about what changes
- we will be hearing specifically and not to address the need to hear this again I will
- but I want to point the board to the U.D.O. twenty point oh six point no no no we need
- you to address our question or else we'll move on.
- So please tell us what's different please.
- Could I just make my record as to what your no you you will have an opportunity if we
- hear it to put that into the record that's that you will have an opportunity with your
- twenty minutes to put that into the record we're asking you to provide us with the information
- before we move forward.
- Okay.
- So thank you the the difference in the petition you're hearing tonight versus what was heard
- roughly a year and a half ago is that there was a concern at the time in August or so
- of twenty twenty three that there would be a compromise or a harm to the pedestrian experience
- along Morton Street particularly.
- And so what the change to the project or the petition is this time is to preserve the or
- rather to enhance or speak to the pedestrian experience along Morton Street by creating
- a shop window experience so to speak we don't have that term in our in our ordinance but
- a shop window experience in in this property that would enhance or speak to or benefit
- the pedestrian experience yet would also accommodate this partial request for a variance.
- The other difference is that there is less of a variance is a it's a smaller or shorter
- variance being sought than the full 20 feet which was the request back in August of 2023
- and I appreciate Mr. Throckmore your comment but changes that are in this yeah we thank
- you so we'll come back to the board and we want to make a motion to hear this petition.
- I would move that we hear the petition to have a second call the roll please cut some
- cow Throckmorton. Yes. Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now
- with that Jackie we should be at the petitioner portion since we have heard the report or
- do we need to go back. Yes. Let's check with Mr. Grulick because I don't know that he's
- actually given the full report he was just doing the pre. Thank you. Yeah exactly so
- I should step through the entire presentation report and findings you know as I mentioned
- the first. So what we'll do here then is for the petitioner if you go ahead and have a
- seat we're going to pick it up from the beginning now and thank you for that and sorry for the
- for jumping over that procedure. So what we'll do is we'll start with the staff report and
- then the petitioner is already sworn in. We'll be able to move forward right into his presentation.
- Please Eric. Thank you. So this as I mentioned is a variance request from the use specific
- standards to allow for ground floor dwelling units within 20 feet of the first floor facade.
- This is for property at the northwest corner of West 6th and North Morton Street. The property
- is within the mixed use downtown has been developed with a mixed use building. It has
- a dentist office on the south and kind of west side. There are some interior apartments
- that were added in the north northwest corner of the building approximately two years ago.
- And then there was another building multifamily building not shown in this site photo that
- was also recently constructed about three years ago on the north side of the site. So
- here is the floor plan of the existing building. So as I mentioned there is a dentist office
- a commercial space that occupies the majority of the ground floor. There is a dwelling unit
- that is on the north side of the building and then you can see here the multifamily
- building that was constructed on the north portion of the site. So the east portion of
- the building has two spaces that had initially started to be converted into dwelling units
- without a building permit. We noticed that that activity was happening and contacted
- the building department and issued a stop work order. That prompted the petitioner to
- come forward with a request to allow for that space that had initially started to be converted
- into dwelling units to be legitimately permitted and approved. However, there is a use specific
- standard for ground floor dwelling units within the downtown that they have to be 20 feet
- back from the front of the building. So there are many standards that govern ground floor
- uses within the downtown. One of those at this location is at a minimum of 50% of the
- ground floor has to be non-residential space. So the petitioner meets that with the presence
- of the dentist office. So this petition is not about, you know, what percentage of the
- ground floor has to be non-residential, but deals with where within a building can dwelling
- units be located. And so there is a use specific standard, as I mentioned, that requires ground
- floor units to be 20 feet back from the front. You know, the purpose of that is many fold.
- But you know, in essence, you know, we are here as part of the criteria for a variance
- that somebody has to demonstrate why they can't meet a law, not why the law doesn't
- necessarily make sense or shouldn't apply, but that there's something unique here. So
- what has changed since this petition was last heard, as I mentioned, was the creation of
- this one and a half foot deep dead space that I'm going to call that fronts and separates
- the dwelling units from the facade along Morton Street. So the petition has, at least right
- now, shown that to be filled with kind of signage for the dentist office. There are
- different problems with that in regards to signage even being in this location because
- there is no commercial space that's adjacent to that. So these would just be windows staring
- at the backside of a wall, in essence, but that's not necessarily part of the petition.
- They're just creating this dead space to separate the units from the streetscape along there.
- So as is required with all variance requests, there are three findings that we have to step
- through. You know, the first of that is that the approval will not be injurious to the
- public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To that regard, there is no negative
- impact from that. This variance is not altering the safety of the building in any regards.
- Second, the use and value adjacent to the area will not be affected in a substantially
- adverse manner. With this, though, there is a very significant depth to this because the
- reason that we don't want ground floor dwelling units deals with the pedestrian experience
- and how ground floor units interact with that streetscape and the pedestrian experience.
- So there are certainly lots of situations in the downtown where you have ground floor
- space that is right along the sidewalk that folks would love to be able to convert into
- dwelling units and staff is working on language changes to the UDO that might allow for certain
- situations where that might be appropriate, but that hasn't happened yet. So the language,
- the law that we have now says that dwelling units have to be 20 feet behind the front
- of the building. So that reasoning is to create an active space there. Non-residential commercial
- space gives a lot more interaction. Ground floor dwelling units don't really do that.
- Due to privacy concerns, a lot of times folks are just putting down their blinds. And there's
- a difference when you design a commercial space versus a residential space along a sidewalk,
- it's just designed differently, it looks differently. So there are lots of reasons why we have the
- law in place. You know, and as I mentioned, in this situation here with a variance, somebody
- has to demonstrate that there is something unique about the property that doesn't allow
- it to meet code. So within this particular building, the petitioner has created a ground
- floor dwelling units. There are places within the ground floor that dwelling units could
- be located and have been located legitimately and appropriately. So not granting this variance
- does not deprive the property of any reasonable use. You know, there's nothing unique about
- this that prevents them from having dwelling units somewhere else in the in the building,
- they would just like to have them somewhere else. And so you know, this is a very typical
- example of, you know, a disagreement with what the law should be, which is different
- than something that prevents you from meeting the law, which is what the criteria is for
- the variance. And so we do not find that there are any practical difficulties that are peculiar
- to this property that are different than any other property in the downtown that don't
- allow these dwelling units to be located further back within the building in the space that
- would be required. So to that effect, we did not make positive findings for the second
- or the third criteria, which were the same criteria findings that the board adopted previously.
- And again, we recommend that the board adopt these findings and deny this variance request.
- And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Eric. Now it's time for us to go to the
- petitioner already sworn in 20 minutes. And again, whatever's not used now, we will come
- back to you and you can use that time before the board takes action.
- Good evening again, members of the board. And thank you very much for hearing us tonight.
- With me tonight on behalf of Smith and Hayes Properties LLC are David Hayes. You'll be
- hearing from him. Doug Bruce, architect, you'll be hearing from him and Krista Huttenlocker
- from Hoosier Choice Properties, who's also done a great deal of research about this petition
- in supporting this. I don't ever like to disagree with the staff
- on something, but I am going to disagree on something here. They were not here because
- of a disagreement with the law. That's not what brings us here. We're here tonight because
- this property, and everybody knows the site, it's the Hayes Market building just a block
- south, but the building falls in sort of a crack in the ordinance. It falls into sort
- of a no-persons land within the UDO, and that's what gets us here. We tried to pay close attention
- to the comments and concerns of the staff from August of 2023 when this petition was
- heard before, and so we tried to come back with a concern for revisions that would address
- those concerns and solve those problems or solve those concerns. I said a few moments
- ago that the proposal would be along the lines of a shop window. I think there's probably
- a better phrase for that, but on the screen here in a moment will be a rendering of what
- we expect this would look like, and the idea, while that's loading, the idea is to bring
- about the very commercial look, commercial feel, commercial activity that the staff and
- the UDO prefer for the streetscape. So that's what we've prepared for you to see tonight.
- We reiterate this is not a request for a full relief. We're not asking for the 20-foot relief
- from this. In fact, it's quite a bit less than that when you consider, under the definitions
- of the ordinance, the awning that sticks out onto the sidewalk counts, and then the width
- of the wall, and then the one foot nine or so, almost two feet in this space that would
- be the new shop window experience in the downtown. The reason the property falls into the crack,
- and you'll hear more about this in a moment, but the property falls into sort of a crack
- because it's a designated historic property, meaning it's not a property that we can readily
- make changes to the outside or the appearances of, so it can't look different. The hoped
- for active, busy streetscape won't happen anyway on this site unless we were to take
- out windows, take out or create openings into this site that we're bound under the historic
- preservation ordinance to not do, at least not without permission and being able to show
- good reasons for doing so, and so the request we make to you really isn't a change from
- what it can be due to its historic designation. The other thing that we want to make sure
- we point out to you, and you're going to hear from this, but the UDO favors an active pedestrian
- experience, which in this case, and the crack this property falls into, the active pedestrian
- experience here is the Beeline Trail, and Krista will talk to you about research that
- she has performed, and those of you who can remember or picture the site when you're down
- there, it's an extraordinarily for the downtown area, it's an extraordinarily or unusually
- narrow sidewalk, it's got parking meters in it, and so it isn't the same pedestrian experience
- that the UDO contemplates when it imposes the 20 foot from the front facade rule. Here's
- another one that might be... So the peculiar position here that we find
- ourselves in is a preference for an active pedestrian experience, a sidewalk that isn't
- a normal size for pedestrians, and an enormously successful beeline trail that is where the
- pedestrian experience happens anyway, so we're stuck with nowhere to go in terms of the
- requirements
- of the ordinance, and Crystal will talk to you about that. The competing factors are
- what bring us here, it's unusual, it's peculiar to this site, and so given that fact, I wanna
- make sure... Oh, I wanna mention one other thing that you'll hear about and I'll show
- you photos of here in a moment are... So the preference of the UDO to send residential
- use off the, in this case, Morton Street side of the property, meaning send it back to the
- backside or the beeline trail side of the property, leaves us with yet another peculiar
- situation for this property because since the days of the construct, the very construction
- of this building, since the very days of the railroad usage back there, the utilities that
- serve the building have entered the building through that beeline trail side or back side
- of the building. And so because of this preference for the 20 feet from the front facade, that
- would require that the utilities either be placed on the Morton Street side, the sixth
- street side, or at this point, the north side, which was an alley, but now is a nice courtyard
- and a developed space. And so it leaves the property with the peculiar problem of in order
- to satisfy the ordinance, we'd have to ignore the larger part or a significant portion of
- the utility service that goes back there. Right now you're going to see a photo of the back
- side or the beeline trail side, not that everybody in this room hasn't been there. I understand
- that, but hopefully it will be helpful. Last thing I want to point out to you in terms
- of the peculiarities of this property is the fact that the door to this building is and
- has been forever that we know of. I just was looking on old black and white pictures of
- the building now on the southeast corner of this building. This isn't a property for which
- there has been an entrance and exit on the Morton side, nor really on the sixth side,
- but is really on that corner. That governs or directs or dictates where the pedestrian
- experience, the in and out, so to speak, for this particular building is going to be. I've
- brought with me tonight alternate findings that we think recognize the unusual characteristics
- of this property, particularly as they relate to the 20 feet from the front façade requirement.
- Right now, what I'd like to do is ask that David Hayes come forward and talk to you a
- little bit about, on behalf of Smith and Hayes, about the property itself and the history
- of the property and where we find ourselves now.
- Thank you. Could we stop the clock here? David, come forward and give us your first and last
- name and please sign in. David Hayes. And do you affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give will be the truth of the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. We're
- going to start the clock then, please. Please. Okay. Well, thank you for these late nights.
- My first time here. Yeah, so my granddad, my great-grandfather started the Hayes Market
- in 1941, originally was in the Blooming Foods building. Shortly thereafter moved to the
- corner of 6th and Morton and he died in 1971 and my grandpa, Uncle Paul, Aunt Mary took
- the store over at that point and Aunt Mary was the last one standing in 1996 when they
- closed the store and thankfully Tim Hincky purchased the store and renovated it and leased
- it to Irwin Union Bank and then Tim and I worked out an arrangement for me to acquire
- it in around 2000. So it's set as a bank for many, many years. Ultimately CASA moved
- in upstairs. I was on the board of CASA for 13 years and the bank ultimately left to move
- up the street first, financial at the time. So we moved CASA downstairs and yeah, and
- we had just a good old building, Hayes Market building. It was pretty cool. But then as
- 2018-2019 and some budget issues with CASA, I suggested that we find alternate space for
- them that was less expensive. So we got with Jim Murphy and negotiated a really nice lease
- in the shower space and that's where they are now. So that space went dark and I actually
- had a meeting with Mayor Hamilton and his group to find out what they wanted me to do
- with that space. Not what I wanted to do, but what they would like for me to do. And
- they were pretty excited about improving the space. In fact, they said if you don't ask
- for variances and don't do anything, you'll get a tax abatement for 10 years. So anyway,
- we decided to build the Q tower on the parking lot and renovate the building and really make
- it something cool along the beeline trail murals on the side that Adam long painted
- that depict the old six old Sixth Street and the modern Morton Street. So extremely proud
- of that and wanted to maintain the integrity of the building. So we did well we were in
- the middle of we were in the middle of cove it at the time and the contractor that that
- I hired to do the to do the the work on the bottom floor after after the original apartments
- had been built in the upper floor had been remodeled. We started going and the tax abatement
- didn't work out because we didn't know the exact order that you had to do things we didn't
- know you could actually start a project and still get your tax abatement. I learned that
- the hard way. So anyway that that be told we just moved on. Ultimately thankfully we're
- able to secure Cummins Dental to come into the space and they did and we then were building
- out the backside of the building. Well the contractor I had his name was David Howard
- and you know I it's not what I do for a living I'm just hired him to do his job. Well two
- years ago March he took his own life and I was in the midst of you know kind of reeling
- with that and anyway so after he did what he did we got with the city and found out
- he actually had no permits so that is addressed Eric's question about why we didn't have permits
- it wasn't we were trying to do anything behind anyone's back. So everything kind of got put
- on hold and then you know it just became it's just become a disaster so you know we just
- want we never asked for anything we did exactly what we said we would do and to Bill's point
- the pedestrian experience if that's to hold up the the beeline trail is fabulous right
- I mean that's it's a it's a community treasure it's what everyone uses and Krista will tell
- you no one walks down that sidewalk unless they live there. I don't go there often but
- when I do is need to greet the people to live there and that's who walks down that trail
- or that that little sidewalk there it's not people going to you know the farmers market
- or anything like that so we tried really hard to take a step back and say that we're never
- going to be able to make this office space it's not practically there's no way the only
- way it could be a potential office would be walk into that private gate which the parents
- of the kids to live there love the fact that we have three levels of security for them
- they would have to enter through the north side of the old building down a hallway which
- there's again residential right there and then they slip into two to two spot it just
- isn't practical at all the door that you've seen off of Morton go straight upstairs the
- apartments upstairs there's really no other practical use than to allow someone to live
- there and I think the demonstration to set back create the experience of the dental office
- on the entire corner would be satisfactory of addressing the pedestrian pedestrian experience
- if there was even pedestrians there.
- So when I take a step back and I remember talking with Mayor Hamilton about it that
- no one wanted to maintain the integrity of that building more than me and to Bill's point
- even if it was allowed to cut a big hole in the side of that building on Morton Street
- side to create some resemblance of a storefront I wouldn't do it so if you have any questions
- for me feel free to ask them but I'm again appreciative of your time and got some really
- great people here to go through the details.
- That's our time now Jackie could we have that displayed 535 okay and could we stop the clock
- for a minute and if you'd sign in please and you said 535 right.
- Thank you for your time this evening I will be brief so Christa can come up with a few
- things here but I wanted to add a few things architecturally I had some notes here I don't
- want to repeat everything that David or Bill had said but architecturally what I'll say
- is peculiar about this building if you look at the site plan this building was built historically
- has always been entered on the corner of 6th and Morton it was a it was a grocery store
- for decades and and if you look it has a 27 foot wide sidewalk along 6th Street now the
- sidewalk here along Morton where the building sticks out the facade that you see here that
- is in question I walked by there on my way here tonight just to measure something there's
- a couple of things that are particular about it first off there's no curb there the road
- and the and the sidewalk are flush with each other so the cars that pull up and park there
- at an angle if you can imagine this isn't perpendicular parking they're parking at an
- angle their bumpers are sticking out over the sidewalk so when you take the sidewalk
- that's only six feet wide it's flush with the street cars pull up there's parking meters
- in it what I measured on my way here is anywhere from four foot eight to four foot ten from
- a bumper to the building now to me that's particular in our downtown it's not a six
- foot sidewalk it's not an eight foot sidewalk so even if we were to put a door here someone
- in a wheelchair going along Morton Street the ADA says we need a sixty inch turning
- circle we don't have it with the cars there so this is this little section of this building
- is not going to be a pedestrian experience but what we are trying to do is by putting
- some graphics in the windows and stepping this back Eric mentioned something about the
- UDO did not want people walking by and seeing people with their blinds open well you're
- not going to see that here because we've created this this inner wall and if you look
- at the south side of this building where the dental office is now there's already graphics
- in some of the other windows for the exam rooms and all of those so we're just going
- to duplicate what they've done here so you're not looking into somebody's bedroom and trying
- to use the space so it's not a wide space you couldn't put a sandwich board out there
- and people get by so there's no real way for anybody to access this space comfortably and
- then on the other part about putting the bill the the units to the back so this building
- and the dentist uses it you saw the picture of all the utilities along the beeline the
- electric everything all went down that alley when it was a well when it was a railroad
- track and all of those come into mechanical rooms there the dentist office has his gases
- all of those the bathrooms for him everything is back there and and so do at a great expense
- could you relocate all that along Morton Street I I what I say is that this is that what we're
- proposing tonight the pedestrian experience is not going to be any different and anyone
- walking down the sidewalk is not going to know whether there's commercial in there or
- residential in there so I hope that leaves enough time for Krista to come up I appreciate
- your time just over two minutes so if you'd like to come forward sign in please and once
- you've signed in if you would state your first and last name for me please
- Krista Hutton locker and do you affirm that the truth the whole truth and nothing but
- the truth yes I do okay we'll restart two minutes 15 seconds I have a written statement
- I would like to introduce if it's if it's okay get we've run out of time we've not done
- a great job of managing our time obviously so we're gonna reserve okay you have two minutes
- left then we'll reserve two minutes for you to address other issues thank you
- Jackie's gonna pass to you crit miss Hutton locker statement that she just identified
- and then we will also have asked if she could pass a letter of support from Cummings dental
- and then I've got proposed findings as well as let me let me ask you of the staff is is
- Krista on the part of this petition or is she yes okay part thank you all right with
- that then before going to the public city yeah is there are there any questions from
- the board to the staff or to the petitioner at this point that we can address thanks to
- the board any questions of the petitioner or the staff we've heard from the petitioner
- talking a lot about the pedestrian experience but we have not addressed the 20 feet 20 feet
- setback requirement from the front facade as required that is the one part that is on
- both proposed findings two and three that is in question correct so I would like to ask
- eric grulick to address if you can address if with with these new drawings of the interior
- wall or window experience window shop experience that they are talking about that if that resolves
- the 20 feet setback requirement from the front facade no so the udio says it dwelling units
- and that would be any portion of a dwelling unit has to be within has to be 20 feet back
- from the front of the building so it's not you know the bedrooms have to be 20 feet back
- or anything like that it's that any portion of the dwelling unit has to be 20 feet back
- is there argument that the front of the building is on sixth street and this is a side of the
- building but this is a corner lot so when it's a corner lot yeah yeah so it's a corner lot
- so very clearly you know the udio says that any portion of a lot that abuts a public street
- is a front you know so there's not a differentiation of you know this is a more important front
- than this is you know they're both important they're both streets they both have vehicles
- they both have pedestrians have the same requirements thanks for clarifying that thank you question
- this this findings of the board zoning appeals that was handed to us is this from the this
- is a draft of the petitioner okay it should be it should be so noted so that we know that
- one is handed to us thank you any other questions do we have any others we will have another
- opportunity after public comment shall I move on okay we'll go to the public for comment
- is there anyone in the chambers who would like to come forward and speak to this petition
- is there anyone online if so please raise your hand use the function please to raise
- your hand no one on zoom okay thank you now with that we will go back to the petitioner
- you do have an additional two minutes now to address now and it's a use it or lose it
- so the two minutes need to be used so use all of it please and then we'll come back
- to the board for additional questions I want to understand the question about the 20 feet
- that's why we're here is to seek a variance from that 20 foot requirement it's not a full
- or complete relief that we seek but only partial by virtue of the placement of the shop window
- we were trying to solve a problem solve an issue with respect to the bind that the property
- is in in between the beeline and Morton and sixth the other thing we want to make sure
- we've at least pointed out I think everybody knows this is that very block has been has
- had ground floor commercial space empty since it was built in 2019 if you walk by there
- you look in and you see gravel where they've never even finished the floor of that other
- property and so in terms of use of the property and vibrancy and activity of the of the block
- we are we believe we're bringing more to that rather than less and so from the standpoint
- of your question Ms. Burel about the 20 feet we are asking for partial relief meaning not
- the full 20 feet but actually more amongst about 13 or so feet obviously we would prefer
- to have neither request me we prefer to have complete 20 foot relief but we don't we're
- not asking that because we knew what happened in August of 23 to the extent there is going
- to be a point made Eric by Eric about whether it's contiguous and whether this shop window
- space would be contiguous to the to the existing tenant it is it is contiguous it's a it's
- a narrow it's a small contiguity but it is in fact contiguous and so it meets the ordinance
- in that respect as well thank you and please allow me to clarify my earlier comment towards
- this document was sent to us my point was that the petitioner should have noted that
- this was from the petitioner because it does look like an official document it can be confusing
- that's what I meant I sorry I did not mean to imply I was criticizing the it just helps
- us understand what we're looking at that's okay I just also for the record this was entered
- all right and so it's now been changed so I appreciate that okay so with that business
- we're back to the board for action we will either take a motion we will entertain any
- questions comments or any further questions directly to the petitioner or to the staff
- I mean one quick point I'll make is along the commercial lines with commercial space
- is being vacant I think we're gonna see I think this is probably the beginning of more
- of these to come because I think that's where where property owners are getting to they're
- not able to fill spaces so do we allow that to continue to happen or do we fill it with
- something viable such as dwelling units I'm I'm on the side of wanting dwelling units
- I think they've presented a lot of peculiarities you know to this property for reasons to grant
- the variance that's just my thought you know I for one I'm listening to the the petitioner
- you know I'm inclined to separate the argument of the beeline in this in the streetscape
- because the the beeline is is not discussed in this UDO that I'm looking at on the page
- page 40 section 4a it is talking about the storefront and the storefront faces the street
- the beeline doesn't indicate that it's a it is not mentioned in here as being something
- as a storefront on it it was a repurposed railroad line that had buildings that had
- services that faced it so I do want to separate those two as we look at this a streetscape
- is a streetscape it's it's not a trailscape so as we consider this but are there any other
- comments or questions for this yes John I'm still needling this one around because this
- is a really hard one but little context I will confess that the original changes to
- the zoning code that started the requirement for ground floor commercial as part of the
- residential projects that started back in the dark ages when I was a mayor but you have
- to it seems that the context is so different back then I mean there was a tremendous concern
- about vibrate see and pedestrian experience etc. but it's just my opinion I know it's
- not the purview of the bza but you know what was a very targeted concept has become this
- mass applied is a you know rule now that I'm glad to hear I think I heard earlier from
- Eric that the planning departments planning to take a look at that because it does very
- little good for vibrancy and for our economy to have every apartment building in Bloomington
- have commercial space downstairs and it ends up becoming economic waste with all of these
- vacant parts or pieces of buildings all over the city so I'm really glad that the staff
- and and others are taking a look at that you know I think this is kind of peculiar in the
- sense that you've got a historic building which creates some challenges in terms of
- how you can change it structurally you know I work downtown really close to this building
- and walk through there quite a bit it is kind of funky I usually don't walk on that sidewalk
- I take the beeline so to your point Joe it's kind of interesting that it's not considered
- a streetscape along the beeline yet we're encouraging people to think about how they
- build along the beeline to provide that kind of access so I assume that's something else
- that planning professionals will have to think through as part of any changes at the UTO
- could we kind of want to encourage that you know we've heard so much about bike pad you
- know as a key transportation mode then you know that's a different kind of quote unquote
- thoroughfare so I'm really struggling with this I don't you know I mean the way the building
- set up with the access to these two units whether they're offices or whether they are
- residential it just doesn't strike me as being material to the pedestrian experience I mean
- because you're going to be entering through that courtyard whether it's an office retail
- or an apartment so I just don't you know if I'm walking by a building you know it's just
- not going to change anything as far as I'm concerned it seems like the you know it's
- just not going to have any kind of material effect on the pedestrian experience so that's
- why I'm kind of struggling with this because I don't know how to reconcile some of the
- stuff that's in the code which is you know needs to be followed with just sort of the
- practical realities of a very unique building and to Mr. Hayes man I'm old enough I remember
- going in that grocery store I was sad when it closed because I lived downtown so anyway
- that probably means nothing and it was just ramblings of an old guy so sorry about that
- particular because that is that is an issue and you do see other businesses along there
- who are repurposing and are converting the backside and I understand the petitioner did
- address that by saying there would be a large cost associated with that but they are adapting
- to that that beeline as more of a we'll call pedestrian right now even though it's just
- much more than pedestrian I think though that what we have is it in order for us if I understand
- this clearly for us to grant a variance we would have to somehow have a finding that
- would allow us to waive that setback that's that's really the issue here not because I
- think most of certain agreement that it's interesting idea you've done something to
- try to make it look commercial but you know we we will have to have some kind of finding
- to do so so depending on what kind of motion is brought forward by the board one for approval
- of the various or want to deny they will be need to be in the case of a approval and approval
- there will need to be a conditional finding for that too that for that particular one
- that's where I am focusing on yeah well I'm yes so what I'm focusing on here is the pedestrian
- experience you know that that is something that the it's in our comprehensive plan but
- when it comes to the UDO we have to follow the UDO and we are here we are the defenders
- of the UDO regardless if we agree or not I was the person that requested from the plan
- commission to do a study on how to reduce the size of the commercial first floor in
- the buildings because we have so many requests coming forth and I do know that there is a
- problem and we need to fix it and I and and we haven't been able to fix that problem yet
- so I understand both sides but still I don't have a you're pretty adept at do you have
- the UDO in front of you page 40 John I don't but I'll pull it out so but let me read it
- because because Flavia there might be something here let's consider what it says under section
- a the mixed use downtown courthouse square character areas intended to maintain the historic
- character the downtown by providing a diverse mix of traditional commercial retail uses
- at the street level to capitalize on maintain and enhance the pedestrian activity I want
- to focus on that maintain and enhance the pedestrian activity individually define the
- sidewalk edges with interesting buildings that respect the established context of traditional
- commercial storefront buildings now I'm not saying I'm for against this but when I'm
- asking John since you're better at this is is the language in there enough to allow us
- to say what was done by creating the illusion of business by putting the wall in making
- it look like a commercial establishment helping define the sidewalk is that enough to allow
- us to override the setback that's my question please John think about is the precedent we're
- creating with all the other buildings that will come up with creative solutions to pretend
- like there's a commercial use so they can use the space for rent this is why I think
- you're bringing a really good question looking again at the purpose correct and do we feel
- that that's that that's an interpretation that we are going to want to try to pursue
- or do we feel like it's just not really the right way to go because we will eventually
- have to figure out how to overcome the setback no I was just I agree I think we and I kind
- of said at the beginning we open a can of worms here potentially for everybody in this
- area who can't fill their commercial space to come to fill it with a facade and put departments
- in there I can understand wanting the need to fill the space I was coming I appreciate
- I'm gonna call you Krista so I don't butcher your last name but I appreciate what she kind
- of put together here because when we're talking about like what kind of data are we seeing
- to support this I mean she's talking about a three to one ratio of the pedestrian traffic
- and I think to me that's the peculiarity stands out as this sidewalk how they said they couldn't
- put up a sandwich sign and still be able to walk around these these parking meters I mean
- I think this really supports how this is not the pedestrian experience that is defined
- by the UDO and encouraged by the UDO it's the beeline in this particular case and I
- think that's a peculiarity that that stands out and it would make for an argument as to
- why we grant the variance just to your I think a couple of points that the other board members
- make I think they're and I'm very mindful of you know the precedent issues etc but this
- is a lot different than new construction I mean I'd probably have a different reaction
- if every you know new construction project that has vacant retail came in and just wanted
- to put up some something in the window this is a historic building on a challenging lot
- and I respect Eric's point about what the code says but you know the the entrances building
- was the corner you know that's where the building fronted you went in through the corner so
- it's not like the Morton Street side of the building was ever you know the front of the
- building so I think there are some elements to this specific project that are very unique
- and not necessarily as precedential as if it was you know one of the one of the other
- new construction buildings that doesn't have any of these kind of you know funky traits
- to it and the 20 you know as I understand the way that the code reads on the 20 foot
- setback from I guess the front of the building or the streetscape I mean I kind of get that
- but again I mean these folks would have a difficult time getting I mean it just doesn't
- well never mind I mean that's the point of getting a variance right is that there's something
- unique about the the property that warrants variance from strict application of the code
- so to your point I mean that's that's what this is about are we willing to you know provide
- a variance from that 20 foot setback or yeah I have two questions and this may go to you
- for step for to staff for so the the tenants experience is not changed whatsoever is that
- correct or is the tenant going to have now windows is so the wall facade can you help
- explain the wall facade and like is so it's does the residential apartment lose a window
- because of decals on it if that's a question for staff I guess I can try to answer that
- for you so the the wall that's being created on the inside you know it does not have windows
- that can see to the outside so this this is a flat wall so from the residents experience
- they're just staring at walls and so I want to go back to something here I think that
- I touched on earlier that is important to mention that that these decals this signage
- is not allowed there is no commercial space that is adjacent to this so these have to
- be transparent windows and you know creating this dead space is not an improvement for
- the streetscape you know it just creates this dead wall there with windows that you're you're
- staring at nothing so in terms of the interior experience with the residents you know they're
- just staring at a wall with even no windows if that I think answers your question well
- also Eric just in and again precedence is not precedence but we had the same discussion
- with building across the street when we were discussing the recruitment center because
- of the issue of putting up those posters in order to provide a barrier because of concerns
- about safety for those working inside so this to follow up on what you're saying there again
- this has come up before this has been an issue about what to do about you using that strategy
- of putting up essentially posters I know that some of the buildings in this area are given
- the ability to put up art in display it but I think that's done through the planning process
- rather than you know coming in and asking for a variance but yeah art art is certainly
- different than signage you know in signage is in windows is very carefully regulated
- you can't take up more than 25 percent of a window pane but again because there's no commercial
- use behind this no commercial use adjacent to this no signage would be allowed in these
- windows at all it would have to be trend they have to be transparent so you're just staring
- at a blank wall you know as I said I we do not feel like that's certainly an improvement
- for the pedestrian experience but to be clear could the petitioner put up public art in
- that space they could put up art sure and that and that would if we were to grant variance
- on the setback that would that would be acceptable it could be yeah you know and again I and
- we hear you know we hear the the conflict the within the board members of you know wanting
- to activate space not wanting spaces that empty you know and challenges with where the
- law is written and then you know what the variance is based on you know and just want
- to point out you know this space had always been commercial you know there was commercial
- use in here when the bank was here so you know there's nothing that prevents this space
- from being commercial or non-residential you know they they had apportioned this off because
- they started to create dwelling units there without a permit so those spaces weren't even
- available to the dentist office when they were moving in there so some of this is a self-created
- hardship from the petitioner do we have any other questions or comments I mean I I know
- that corridor there and I know that there's some commercial space that's open along that
- corridor and it's it's the same issues that we've had before we had the same issue over
- on it was a third street with that building across from Brueberger where we talked about
- they've constantly been trying to change that into a residential those types of things so
- we've had these questions come over and over and over again so I do know that it's frustrating
- but at the same time I know as a small business owner myself that there is a very high demand
- for affordable office space in those areas too now I can't speak to that being the issue
- but I do want to at least voice the concerns of small business owners where we are looking
- for affordable square footage in the downtown but we've been priced out of that I would
- like to say to speak a little bit to the precedent just so for the record I know that all the
- board members already know this but you don't actually set precedent right so each variances
- its own thing but speaking of the two previous ones or that one that you mentioned on third
- street or one we did with actually with mr. Howard on South Walnut those have both turned
- to uses since they requested a variance to use them as residential and were declined
- it does sometimes take time but we have seen those that those spaces do turn over and like
- miss Borel mentioned you know one time when we brought one of those forward miss Borel
- and mr. Ballard asked us to do a survey of the downtown and we did and it was a six percent
- vacancy rate which was low and you know there are some spaces that are harder to fill than
- others and as mr. Grulick pointed out to mr. Fernandez his point this is a historic building
- the shell is historic and it has you know only so many entrances but the inside was
- gutted and they chose to split it up in this way that isn't allowed by code you know whether
- that was done you know inadvertently or not they that was that was self-created and so
- now coming back you know it's kind of hard to to fix that problem and a final comment
- on the president for the public for those watching those here we can't say because of this this
- every every case is individual that's the point of that we're using those in order as touchstones
- for us as we consider how do you attack these problems but they are not precedents and they
- are not precedent setting any other questions or comments or motions questions can go to
- staff can go to the petitioner I make a motion for the board of zoning appeals to adopt the
- proposed findings and deny the dash eleven dash twenty five of a motion for denial of
- the dash eleven dash twenty five. Do I have a second. I'm sorry. I have a second. Is there
- any discussion for the question is called. Any comments positions. Then I'll call the
- question. A yes vote is to deny. Yes. Ballard. No. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Hudson cow. Okay.
- The motion passes three to two. No the motion failed. I'm sorry. Two to three. I misspoke.
- I meant that it was successful. Sorry. Successful three to two. Thank you. We'll move on to the
- next. I'm so sorry. Only two people voted to deny it. The motion failed. We need a new
- motion. The motion was for denial. It was two to three. Right. Yep. So in other words
- I'm sorry let me be clear. I need a positive motion please. Yeah we need a new motion so
- either to approve or continue. Yep. And then while we're discussing that the
- reason this is hard is because we will have to have findings. We can't just make a motion
- that's the opposite. And as Mr. Grulick pointed out you can't approve what they've submitted
- as submitted. You can't approve any of that signage. They would need a variance for all
- of that. So you'll have to be specific about what you're approving I would say. So where
- we stand now is the motion to deny failed. We are looking for a new motion which could
- also be another motion to deny but with other conditions or one to approve the variance.
- And if it's to approve we will need to discuss conditional language.
- I have a question. What's the difference between the 15 feet and the 20 feet? I guess I'm trying
- to understand where the 20 foot comes from and is there a technical reason or a structural
- reason for that or is it just an experience and that's why it's 20 feet.
- So the reason for the 20 foot and that is a number that's used in a couple different
- situations in the zoning code. One of those deals with the language regarding where ground
- floor parking can occur within a building and that's required to be 20 feet back. So
- 20 feet in general is designed to try to make sure that there is active usable space there.
- And so as I mentioned earlier this is not a situation where they're required to have
- 50 percent ground floor commercial and we're arguing about what amount of space is viable
- for commercial use. But this is to have space in there that is actually usable. So whether
- it's for studying, whether it's for recreation, whether it's an exercise room, doesn't matter.
- But the 20 foot gives space for something viable to occur within.
- This is for the petitioner. So it looks like the 20 foot setback is not an option, or I
- guess potentially if you're the architect, if the 20 foot is not an option and how I'm
- getting caught up with the 15 versus the 20 and why is the 20 necessary? Because to me
- as a renter, it looks like it's actually prohibiting the experience of the tenant by creating this
- space. And so I'm trying to wrap my head around, I guess my question would be for one of the
- four of you. So I'll try to answer that. So certainly the
- UDO states residential use in this area can't, has to start 20 feet behind the facade. Okay.
- So and the UDO definition that our attorney came up or looked at said that it starts with
- the canopy. So there is a couple of canopies in that area. So what we were trying to do
- again also to be different from the August 23 proposal was to set it back to try to get
- out of the 20 feet as much as we could. Now would we love to have it right up against
- the you know and not need that at all? What we were trying to do is at least give something
- a space and again the idea of the art or something. And we looked at the south side of the building
- where the dentist that already leases the 50% commercial has graphics in his windows and
- so then we thought well we could do the same thing here and you won't know that there's
- a residential use behind it or not. So we just used enough space. We left enough space
- to be able to put graphics or something there or art if that's what we need to do. I mean
- I think he would love to do that. But these units, the unit of the two units, the unit
- on the north end of the building has windows facing the courtyard. So that unit doesn't
- change as much. The unit that will have the wall and will have a very high transom glass
- that you won't see. It won't be something they'll be able to look out. But it's a studio
- unit. And studio units typically have a living room, bedroom that's kind of, it doesn't have
- a window. It doesn't have to. There are plenty of units like that in town. So we were trying
- to do something to kind of get us to meet the 20 foot as close as we could. So that's
- why we have it. Would we remove that wall if possible? Sure. Do we think we've presented
- enough information to say this is peculiar to this building? That's what we hope we've
- done tonight. Sure. Okay. This is, well, this will be for either the petitioner or, or the
- staff. Yeah, I see that there's two units, a studio apartment in the one bedroom apartment.
- Isn't that code that you have to have two egresses? And, and it looks like there's definitely
- one egress for the studio apartment. The other one looks like it's going through the some
- other, is that part of the, is that a bedroom that opens onto the stairwell as a second
- egress? So that's how we, that's how we, we also changed this. If you look at the, if
- there was a floor plan from last year. So yes, the, the unit to the north is a one bedroom
- unit. To, to the north? Well, there's two units there, side by side. The one I'm looking at
- says a studio apartment. Okay, so, so it has a window that, that the second exit, you have
- an entrance into the unit and then you have a window facing the courtyard on the north.
- So that's its second egress for code. The southernmost unit of these two has, its, its
- main entrance from the hallway is its first egress and its second egress is the door we
- would be adding into that stair area. That's right. It says existing door, but the one
- inside would have to be added. That's right. That's right. Thank you. Yeah. So again, for
- us to vote to approve this request for variance, we would need the language. And Jackie, were
- you suggesting our option is to continue it until we could figure it out? Yeah. I mean,
- I think those are like deny, continue, approve. It sounded like there might be an opportunity
- to rethink a little bit of this wall with the art versus stickers. And I don't know.
- It just feels like there may be a way to kind of improve this a little bit. Yeah. We've seen
- other petitioners that have had an opportunity to rethink and brought us something that was
- happening. Yeah, I will. When is our next meeting? Sorry. Next means April 24th is April 24th.
- Is that correct, Jackie? Yeah. I want to make a motion that we continue this petition until
- the April 24th meeting. Do I have a second? Okay. So I have a motion to continue the meeting
- that continue this petition until April 24th meeting. A vote of yes will continue it. I'm
- going to try to keep my mind straight. A vote of yes will continue and a vote of no will
- vote it down and we will then have to go back to the board for additional action. I have
- a first and a second. Yes. Discussion, please. Yeah. I mean, I think I'm with John on this.
- I think there's there's ways to enhance. We're talking about this pedestrian experience.
- You guys can come back with very pointed things that are going to enhance that experience
- rather than just talking. We realize we didn't tell you to prepare for that. I think that'd
- be very helpful because I think you're on the right track. Again, I want to find a way
- to support this, but I think we need just more details of what the exterior is going
- to look like and in relation to the pedestrian experience. Any further discussion? If not,
- there's a motion in front of the board and I'll call the question. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
- Yes. Yes. Yes. So the motion 50 passes to continue this petition to our next meeting
- April 24th, 2025.
- And I would please advise the petitioner to consider what was presented by our board about
- bringing back specific information. Thank you. Okay, we're at 8.15. We have time to
- hit the last petition. Again, I'll ask do you guys need a quick break? Are you good?
- Anyone? Okay, so we're on page 68 of the, is that right? Yeah, page 68 of the packet.
- This is the petition V variance dash 12 dash 25, Don Cowden Foundation, Inc. Do I have
- a staff report, please? Everyone's left.
- Thank you. Eric Rulick again, Development Services Manager. So this is a request from
- Don Cowden Foundation, Inc. for properties that are located at 2500 and 2506 West Third
- Street. So the petitioners are here tonight to request a variance from parking maximums,
- parking setback standards to allow parking between the building and the street, entrance
- and drive standards to allow drive aisles between a building and the street, maximum
- impervious surface coverage, minimum landscape area and loading service and refuse standards
- to allow for the construction of a new restaurant use in the mixed use corridor zoning district.
- So this petition site is located at the northwest corner of West Third and Kimball Drive. There
- are two properties that are involved with this petition that are within the city jurisdiction
- and then another property that is just to the north of this that is located in the county's
- jurisdiction. So this site has been developed with a restaurant use and parking lot as well
- as a multi-tenant center and parking lot and then the property to the northeast that is
- in the county is currently undeveloped. So the property is about 1.18 acres in size.
- As I mentioned, it has been developed with a restaurant and multi-tenant center. So the
- petitioners would be removing both structures and parking areas to allow for a new Chick-fil-A
- restaurant. So with that, they would be removing the drive cuts off of 3rd Street as the UDO
- only allows on quarter lots access to come from the lower classified street. So the access
- would actually come from the northern property that is in the county. That property would
- have a parking lot and then serve as the stacking distance for the drive-through lanes. So you
- can see here in the site plan, there are two drive-through lanes that are shown on the
- east side of the site that then circle around along Kimball Drive and along 3rd Street and
- then access the building that is in the southwest corner of the site. So the petitioner is
- requesting a variety of variances in order to allow for this site plan. One of those
- is from the maximum number of parking spaces that are allowed. So the UDO for restaurant
- uses allows for a maximum of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of indoor seating area
- plus five spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor seating area. So the indoor seating
- area is based on, I'm sorry, the parking for the indoor seating is based on how much
- seating is within the building. So you can see that on the right side here of the floor
- plans as I mentioned is about 1,100 square feet. And so that would allow for 11 parking
- spaces. They've got about 800 square feet of outdoor seating area that would allow for
- four spaces. So the maximum number of parking spaces that would be allowed by the UDO is
- 15 parking spaces. The indoor seating area would accommodate approximately 74 customers
- and the petitioner expects between 10 to 13 employees per shift. So to help justify their
- maximum parking number of variance, the petitioners have submitted parking studies from three
- different locations. One of those was the other Chick-fil-A location on the east side
- of town. Another was the Chick-fil-A in Terre Haute and then another was one up in Indianapolis.
- All three of those were kind of standalone facilities so that they can gauge how much
- parking is present at each of those locations. And so they've included that parking study
- and that is in your packet as well. So it did find, certainly as the board can see with
- the number of seats and number of employees, the need for this use is much more than 15.
- When you look at the studies from the other locations, you can see certainly parking ratio
- is much higher in the 30s for similar size restaurant sizes. So the study that they submitted
- does help justify the request for the maximum parking number. One of the other requests
- that they are requesting is for the parking setback. So the UDO requires parking spaces
- to be located 20 feet behind the front of the building. So as a result of the building
- being at the southwest corner of the site, there are several parking spaces that are
- on the east side of the building, and then on the north side of the building as well,
- that are within that parking setback area. So they've requested a variance in order to
- allow for all of those spaces to be there. There's another section of the code that deals
- with the location of entrances and drives, and does not allow for entrances and drive
- to be located less than 45 degrees between a building and the street. So because they
- have two drive-through lanes that are between the building and Kimball Drive, those require
- variances as well. The petitioner is also requesting a variance from the maximum impervious
- surface coverage. Within the MC zoning district, 60 percent is the maximum impervious surface
- coverage that is required. The petitioners have shown some of the parking spaces with
- permeable pavers that are still at that 67.4 percent impervious surface coverage, so that
- does require a variance. However, the UDO does state that in situations where parking
- is provided over the maximum, all of those have to be constructed of permeable pavers.
- So if the board granted the parking maximum number, there is a condition of approval that
- says that those extra spaces would have to be constructed out of impervious material.
- So if that were to happen, that variance would come off because they would be able to meet
- the maximum impervious surface coverage number. However, one of the other standards, the minimum
- landscaped area, which is 40 percent, would not be affected by the use of permeable pavers.
- So the petitioners are requesting a variance to allow 32.5 percent minimum landscaped area.
- And then one of the other variances being requested is in regards to loading service
- and refuse. The zoning code says that these areas should be located away from public streets
- to the maximum extent possible, shall not be highly visible. So the dumpster locations
- are shown on the east side of the site and is certainly very visible. It's only separated
- by the street by two drive-through lanes. There's certainly a lot of locations on the
- site that the dumpsters could have been located at that would be much less visible. So we
- do not feel that it had been located to the maximum extent practical. And so that would
- require a variance as well. So the landscape, the petitioner has submitted a landscape plan.
- They are not requesting a variance from the landscaping requirements. There are a few
- changes or additions that need to happen for some additional landscaping to meet this.
- However, the petitioner is fully expecting in order to be able to meet all of the landscaping
- requirements. So they have also submitted some elevations. Again, there are some minor
- modifications that need to happen to the elevations. But the petitioner expects to be able to be
- compliant with our architectural requirements. And so there are no elevation variances that
- are being requested tonight as well. So with this, obviously, there are a lot of criteria
- that have to be evaluated for each variance request. Each of these variance criteria are
- evaluated separately in and of themselves. So in regards to the maximum parking number,
- we did not find that the granting of the variance would be injurious in any regards. It would
- allow for parking to be accommodated on the site that would be appropriate for this use.
- You know, it's been well documented in their parking study through the information of the
- number of employees and the seating capacity that there is a need for it. So we did not
- find any injurious to the public health safety or general welfare of the community as a result
- of the granting of the parking maximum number. The next two, though, I'm just going to kind
- of talk about together because they're both related. You know, the front parking setback
- and the entrance and drive. The reason for these criteria, the reason for these standards
- in terms of the front parking setback, the parking has to be located twenty feet behind
- the front of a building and the prohibition of entrance and drives goes to just a general
- overall site design that is desired and envisioned by both our comprehensive plan and then all
- of the standards within the zoning code that were written to accomplish that. So as the
- board is probably aware, you know, just through many different petitions, you know, our goal
- through the comprehensive plan and the UDO was to create building forward design on a
- site to promote walkable communities by placing buildings along the street rather than parking
- between buildings in the street to encourage pedestrian activity, again to improve the
- streetscape experience and the pedestrian experience and to de-emphasize vehicles and
- parking from the predominant visual aspect of a site. So we did find that there would
- be injuries to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare because these things
- are related to the general welfare of the community, you know, to promote walkable communities,
- to improve the visual and community aesthetics along corridors. So we did find negative findings
- for that. Maximum and previous surface coverage, the petitioner does expect to be able to meet
- all of their stormwater requirements. And as I mentioned, if the parking spaces over
- the maximum are all constructed as permeable paper, then this variance would not even be
- required as well. Again, with the minimum landscaped area requirement, assuming that
- they're able to meet all the requirements of the utilities department for stormwater
- drainage, as well as all the landscaping requirements, then we did not find a negative impact from
- the granting of the variance for the minimum landscaped area. And the loading of service
- and refuges, you know, we did not find that there would be any injuries to the public
- health, safety, morals, or general welfare as a result of that variance. In regards to
- the use and value adjacent to the area, we did not find any adverse impacts to the use
- and adjacent use and value of the surrounding properties as a result of granting the maximum
- parking number. Again, this would allow for parking to be provided on the site that would
- serve the needs here, so that would reduce any possible impacts to adjacent properties
- by being able to provide appropriate parking on this site. In regards to the parking setback
- and maximum impervious surface and the entrance and drive, you know, we did not find any adverse
- impacts on adjacent properties from any of those aspects. However, for the loading service
- and refuse areas, we did find a negative adverse impact as a result of having the dumpsters
- in the front on adjacent use and value because it does promote a negative visual aspect along
- the street and the pedestrian experience of having these trash and refuse areas located
- along the front, so we did make negative findings in that regard. And then lastly, the, you
- know, obviously the most difficult of all of these things is that the strict application
- of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property and,
- you know, most importantly that the practical difficulties are peculiar to the property.
- So in regards to maximum parking area or parking number, you know, we did find that there is
- a practical difficulty related to the use of this property and that the UDO would not
- allow for parking that would be appropriate to serve this use. They have demonstrated
- that there is a need for maximum parking number, and so that has been well justified, so we
- did make positive findings in that regard. However, for the next two, for the front parking
- setback and entrance and drive, we did not find any practical difficulties in the use
- of the property or that there was anything peculiar about the property that did not allow
- for the entrance and drives and parking to be located in a way that it would meet all
- of the requirements of the UDO. This is a very large property. It's over an acre. It
- has several hundred feet of frontage on both streets, so it is very wide. It has been developed
- with commercial uses now, and so the denial of this variance would not deprive the use
- of this property for a wide range of uses that the UDO allows for. That is very important
- to keep in mind as you're evaluating these criteria is that you're looking at it from
- a perspective that without the granting of the variances, this property would not be
- able to be developed in a manner consistent for which it's zoned. You know, it's not that
- every site plan has to fit on every site, but that a property has an inherent peculiar condition
- about it that is unique to that property that presents a practical difficulty in its development.
- And so in that regard, we did not find anything that prevented parking setbacks from being
- met or the entrance and drive. While we certainly understand that the petitioner has a high
- customer volume in relation to the drive through and why that is important to them, the impacts
- of that are very significant and are very important and are emphasized heavily in our
- comprehensive plan and our UDO. And again, as I mentioned, you know, the site is developable
- for a wide range of uses. So the denial of that variance does not deprive the use of
- the property. For the maximum previous surface coverage, as I mentioned, you know, if they
- utilize the additional spaces over the maximum with permeable pavers, that parking area or
- that variance wouldn't be required. But even if the board does not require that, we did
- not find that there would be any negative impacts in that regard. Likewise, with the
- minimum landscape area, that, you know, they would not be able to, they could still meet.
- You know, the application of the UDO does not prevent the site from being developed
- and meet the minimum landscape area requirements. You know, as I mentioned, it's a very large
- property. It's over an acre in size. And so it does not present any inherent challenges
- with meeting the minimum landscape area requirement. Again, with the loading service and refuse,
- you know, the property is very large. There are lots of places that the dumpsters could
- have been located rather than along the front, along Kimball Drive. And, you know, certainly
- we do not feel that the dumpster and refuse areas have been located appropriately to place
- them in an area not visible from the public street. So with that, we are recommending
- that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the variance from maximum parking
- spaces and deny all other variances with the three conditions that are listed in staff's
- report. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. We have the petitioner or petitioner's
- representative. If so, come forward. Sign in, please. Yeah, if there's something that
- was unclear, we can do that right now. Go ahead and sign in.
- Eric, just a quick question. I think it's the diagram on page 74. I'm trying to wrap my
- mind around where's the county jurisdiction in all of this? Is it the white area north
- of the site? Yeah, I will pull that up for you real quick.
- I think it's along like South Kimball to the I guess. Is it before after the schematics?
- So it's so you can see it here on this exhibit. So the dashed property that is on the north
- is the property. It's in the county. And then the two properties that have been developed
- with the cozy table and the multi-tenant center in the city. And so is all that land to the
- I guess going I'm getting turned around here on directions. So all of those I guess white
- parcels. Those are all in the county. Yes. But the shaded ones are in the city. Correct.
- Wow. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the clarification. State your first and last name please. Brian
- Kaiser Brian if do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth or
- truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Again you have 20 minutes any time unused will be
- given to you at the end before we make any decisions. Please. Thank you. I would ask
- can staff pull up the site plan again please. As Eric just mentioned we find ourselves in
- a pretty unique situation with this parcel. As he said we are you know the intention is
- to develop these three lots into a Chick-fil-a store. Just for your reference this site is
- located about 500 feet away from Interstate I 69 on the east side of town. We are we find
- ourselves in a very highly trafficked commercial area that parcel on the north side of our
- site is located within the county. As a result of that and staff can we go to the very last
- page of this PDF please. As a result of that parcel being within county jurisdiction we
- find ourselves in a unique situation in that this site plan varies heavily from what Chick-fil-a
- would consider their ideal site plan. The city you know not being allowed to take on
- voluntary annexations at this point in time has put us in a position we don't really want
- to be in as far as what the site plan looks like. I also have the landlord here tonight
- I'll let them speak a little bit to that as well. I'm going to run down the list of variances
- I'm not going to touch on everything Eric did a good job of explaining what we're asking
- for. I will point out we are sitting on a count on a corner lot. Eric made a mention
- that the intention of the comprehensive plan and UDO is to promote a building forward environment
- for the streetscape and for pedestrian experiences as a result of our conversations with the
- planning department up to this point we have modified our site plan to do what we feel
- best aligns with the intention of the UDO and the comprehensive plan while still functioning
- in a way that works for a Chick-fil-A restaurant. We have placed the building forward on the
- higher classification street being Third Street in a normal Chick-fil-A site plan. That's that
- drive through would wrap around all three sides of the building and we have made an
- intentional modification to our site plan to place that building as close to Third Street
- as we are allowed to place it. And the intention is going to be for us to meet the UDO and
- provide the enhanced pedestrian entrance as well as a part of the UDO requirements. We
- are also required to install a ten foot sidewalk along Third Street and an eight foot tree
- plot that will also be included along the Third Street frontage. Kimball Street frontage
- as well that one has a five foot sidewalk and a six foot tree plot that will allow us
- just to kind of help you know improve the pedestrian experience and you know make everything
- look a little bit better like Eric was asking for. As far as the dumpster goes I want to
- make a critical point that was not made in the staff report. If you look at the northwest
- corner of our proposed site plan what you will see directly north of the site are mobile
- trailer homes. There are people living in the trailer homes for rent directly north
- of our site. We have placed the dumpster very intentionally on our parcel knowing that we're
- going to need a variance but we did that in order to place that dumpster as far away as
- we could feasibly get it from the residential properties directly adjacent to our site in
- a what I would call a normal situation for us if we had commercial to the north that
- dumpster would be on the north side of the site but we have moved it in order to you
- know behoove the residents up there not place this dumpster effectively in their backyards
- there is a PDF in the flash drive that I had sent you it should be the elevations for that
- dumpster should be that first one yes so the dumpster that Chick-fil-a uses on all of their
- sites and this one included if this project moves forward is not an open exposed dumpster
- if you've been to the cozy table restaurant what's currently sitting out there is an old
- rumkey dumpster that is rusting with a plastic lid that is falling apart and it doesn't look
- good what Chick-fil-a makes very intentional on all of their sites both for you know adjacent
- property value but also for customer experience is to place that dumpster within a brick masonry
- you know enclosure so that the dumpster is not inherently visible you know it's still
- apparent that you know it is a structure that houses the dumpster but I want to make it
- clear that we have made efforts to hide that dumpster and I would also argue that there
- are sections of your U.D.O. that make provisions for dumpster enhancements and placements when
- that dumpster cannot be connected to the building as desired by the comprehensive plan in the
- U.D.O. and we have gone above and beyond these sections of the U.D.O. that make those provisions
- you know this is an eight foot tall dumpster enclosure the you know the brick masonry that's
- on there matches the design of the primary structure there's a movable gate those gates
- have been placed so that they face into the site and don't face the street frontages and
- that was also done intentionally so that the dumpster is not opening facing you know our
- pedestrian experience that we're trying to create a long third street other than that
- staff if we can go back to the site plan please.
- Eric made a made a great point about permeable pavers on this site and our impervious coverage
- variance I just want to make sure that we are clear our intention is going to be to
- install as many permeable pavers as needed to meet the impervious coverage requirement.
- So while the plan originally submitted to staff is short of that requirement Eric has
- told us that we need to you know effectively add four spaces worth of permeable pavers
- in order to meet the requirement and we will be doing so.
- Other than that the only thing I want to hit on is just the landscape plan and then I will
- get out of your hair Eric mentioned that we are you know roughly 8 percent short of the
- minimum required landscape area and he is correct but I would like to point out that
- you know the UDO makes provisions for the amount of plantings and you know there's some
- other landscape pieces to this and we are able to meet the landscape code you know everywhere
- else as needed we're going to have the required number of minimum plantings I mean it is going
- to look and feel like a Bloomington landscape plan for a commercial site.
- It's just 8 percent short of the typical and part of the reason that was done was because
- of the parking spaces and you know we've got a larger a large parking lot certainly larger
- than the UDO allowed for and you know again it's a Chick-fil-A it's a high traffic store
- we like I said we're 500 feet from the interstate you know this is the only Chick-fil-A located
- between Indianapolis and Evansville and you know this is going to see a large number of
- interstate traffic so we have intentionally designed the site with a longer than normal
- drive-through you know parking spaces that go well above the UDO because we we feel that
- this is going to be a high traffic store and we want to make sure that we're providing
- the best customer experience on site with that I'm going to sit down I'll let the landlord
- speak if they want to I'm going to reserve some time for after questions but thank you
- do we have someone else from this going to speak to this okay come forward and sign please
- thank you I know say your first and last name please Tom Orman do you affirm that the testimony
- you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes
- I do okay we'll restart the clock and you still have at least 12 minutes I'll go quick
- because you guys might have questions for him but anyway we have an opportunity here to
- take to 1970 buildings down and and bring a new Chick-fil-a to our west side of Bloomington
- I think that that's great for everybody there's probably not a tree on this site right now
- I think I also want to bring up another important important point cozy table restaurant is getting
- relocated to a new you know we didn't just kick them out I think that's really important
- because we're all about you know local business so I wanted to bring that point up and you
- know we do actually Cowden Enterprises owns the trailer park right behind it and it is
- unique and Chick-fil-a they can speak on their behalf but they've been looking for a west
- side location probably two to three years and they've worked really hard with Eric and
- I think Eric's worked hard with them as well to try to make this work and so we really
- didn't like to come here with all these variances but we appreciate your time and your effort
- and support and if you got any questions he'd be the man thank you questions to the board
- from the board to the staff or the petitioners just one for the petitioner can you go back
- and Jackie do you mind bringing up the dumpster slide and can you just orient me pointing
- to where that is and then how those gates will will open up did you say yes so the gates
- open up they open out so it's you know like it like a normal door they open out this way
- that's yeah and then they face to the west side of the site so if you're standing on
- Kimball you're looking at the back of the dumpster which is that very north picture
- the the gates will be facing interior to the site okay so that's the view off Kimball would
- be the top yes and then if you're if you're standing inside the site looking at Kimball
- you would see the second picture down on the right side you'd be looking at the gates okay
- got it thank you for that clarification for the staff I'm just kind of trying to wrap
- my head around how do we make land use decisions for property that's not in our jurisdiction
- so that so that the county's property is not part of this petition we did not factor that
- in for any capacity whatsoever so they have to work separately with the county I did reach
- out to county planning and talk to them they did a preliminary review on this and said
- that the parking lot and what was shown at least at a conceptual stage a few months ago
- would be allowed but overall it was not factored into our petition in any way so I guess before
- they would pull a building permit they'd have to get sign off from both the city and the
- county planning yeah so they would have to go through whatever process county planning
- has for that section of the property that is in their jurisdiction you know we have
- dealt with this situation a couple times you know where there is a petition coming forward
- that has landed both the city and the county and in essence it's just a hard line of where
- the city county boundary is and everything on our side of the line has to meet on our
- side of the line and anything on the county side has to meet their requirements interesting
- any other questions I have another question I guess for this is for Eric I mean I can
- fully appreciate the the advantages of a site this close to I-69 but I guess my I'm just
- a little certain about there there's if if the traffic is coming from I-69 the turning
- lane you know at 3rd Street that aligns with with Kimball seems like a fairly it was designed
- for I don't know it just doesn't seem like a very large shoot there I mean are you concerned
- about traffic back up on West 3rd well so the UDO like I mentioned requires access to
- come from the lower classified Street so they'd be turning from 3rd North onto Kimball you
- know whether they were coming from the West or East on 3rd Street they would be going
- north into Kimball and then you know circling into the site however John I think the question
- is legitimate because you can see on the east side how the backup spills out of their property
- into the target parking lot roadway surface so I think what you really what I'm hearing
- is yes you have those two lanes but it's going to come down Kimball and on to end it's going
- to be backed up right to third as people try to turn in is that is that fair to say
- how many to the petitioner then how many cars can fit into those two lanes
- to just for clarification for those two drive-through lanes if they are completely full if you're
- operating them both as full service drive-through lanes they would hold about 40 cars and at
- your peak what's your normal traffic peak as far as like total traffic to store total
- traffic say say your peak hour how many cars go through that drive-through in a peak hour
- I would say we can typically serve between 120 140 cars in an hour typically yes it always
- depends because I mean you know it's it's operation specific I mean if well I'm sorry
- you're saying that's how many you can you can service I'm asking how many do you typically
- yeah get in line yeah typically we can serve about 140 120 cars and that's how many are
- in line or how many you can serve how many we can serve okay so there could be more that
- that in other words in that hour you can still have backup that you don't serve but can still
- be in line that's what I'm asking yes in theory yep okay just just if I can I mean operationally
- I mean this isn't a criticism at all because I think I've seen all kinds of case studies
- on Chick-fil-a and just how phenomenal they are with the efficiency but it just seems
- like most of the customers are drive-thru is that correct yes and I mean they will be you
- know as as I had mentioned earlier we are very close to i69 so there's going to be a
- high percentage of cars that are coming off the interstate and going through this drive-thru
- and and eric I mean the the east side chick-fil-a has a similar situation doesn't it as it relates
- to the um the location of the drive-thru in terms of the the proximity to east third street
- uh yeah certainly they are they are right on third street um but you know I'll just point
- out that the the restaurant location on east third the chick-fil-a does meet all of our
- requirements for setbacks and drive-through lanes and and parking setbacks um so that
- was a site um very similar building size uh it's got less on-site parking um but it did
- you know it is possible to do these arrangements and meet our requirements
- it's certainly true john that the u-shape drive-thru away from the building is the exact
- layout I believe of the one on the east side where it uses the same approach yeah I'm just
- going to say that to be clear it's just that the setback is met is that what you're saying
- eric the setbacks met on the east side yes so the setbacks and entrances and drives not
- between the building and the street are met on both sides um and that's a corner location
- as well yes any other questions for the staff or petitioner at this point we will have further
- discussion available if you'd like to wait okay what we'll do then is go to the public
- anyone wanted to comment is anyone here who'd like to speak to the petition anyone in chamber
- hello yes my name is sean walker wait a second we're checking on chambers here so those that
- are online if you would please just raise your hand and we'll call on you in a second no
- one here jackie how many people do we have online uh looks like just the one okay all
- right very good so do you have a name there uh yep sean walker okay you can go now sean
- sean can you hear us i can hear you okay do you affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give will be the truth the whole truth and that's meant the truth yes sir all right
- you have up to five minutes thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight i'm
- sean walker principal development lead for chick-fil-a in the midwest region and i just
- want to let you know i am here i am listening erica's done a wonderful job so has brian
- i'm not sure i have much to add brian has done a great job to clarify the positioning
- of our dumpster i'm just here to answer any operational questions that you may have i
- know there were questions about traffic and just some comparisons between the subject
- property and the other property on each third street but there are some unique differences
- that are applicable to the sites um one of which for the traffic circulation i just want
- to point out that uh the east bloomington location does front uh other retailers like
- target and whole other centers and apartment complexes so i think there was mention about
- potential backup on east third street or turning into the site so i just want to make sure
- that we we see that there are distinct differences between the density and the uses and the
- residential
- units and the the major retailers that are along east um on the east side versus where
- we're going in the west um i think the distance the density is not the same so i just want
- to make sure that we're comparing apples to apples um separately i'll make one other
- point about the positioning of our building on the east side is yes we do have a similar
- layout here for the subject property however the main road and the intersection is on the
- opposite side so south kingston drive which is where the intersection is or the main intersection
- entering to the east bloomington location allows for a proper positioning of our building closest
- to the intersection and allows for an elongated drive-through in comparison to what we're
- dealing with on this west side property um for for kimball street to be the main access
- to the property we tried to utilize if you go back to our site plan we tried to utilize
- the longest um or the length of the site so we can have access and elongate the drive-through
- to a company or to accommodate the drive-through traffic that we will have and so what you
- see with the subject property today we've gone through a number of plans maybe five
- six seven or eight just to accommodate make sure we can um have a lengthy drive-through
- as well as sufficient parking and those are things that will run for or allow us to run
- an efficient operation um we've heard comments and we've heard things from other jurisdictions
- across the country and we try to take all of that information and really optimize our
- site and so again i don't want to restate all the things that brian mentioned but i just
- want to you know note those two distinct points so we do have similar layouts to east bloomington
- but the position of the traffic signal and the main access points are different which
- kind of drives decisions on how we lay out the site so that may not be important to you
- but uh that is important to us and it is a distinct difference um another point i wanted
- to make was for every site we do engage um we do engage with local officials as well
- as uh traffic experts to make sure we're fully optimizing our sites um i think brian mentioned
- up to 120 140 cars that we can accommodate on average and i just want to make sure we
- know for any other sites the peak times are usually during lunch and dinner so maybe between
- 12 to 2 and 5 to 8 and so we're not talking about a constant flow of traffic in and out
- on our site throughout the day there's specific peak volumes that we have accounted for with
- the design of our site i think that will do it for now if y'all have any other questions
- about our operations but but hopefully that clarifies some of the distinct differences
- between the two all right i'll do a little housekeeping here um the the the uh board
- was calling for comments from the public that was clearly someone who was involved with
- the petitioner those comments should have been included in the presentation however because
- the next portion of the board meeting would be for us to hear again from the petitioner
- though that time has now come off of what you had left so you have an additional five
- minutes if you would uh like to make any final comments i do apologize um if i have it's
- so it's okay i'm just so passionate about our sites and thank you thank you thank you
- that's my fault thank you thank you guys for staying late i mean as late as you have i
- mean it is a 9 p.m and we're still sitting at a bza meeting so i appreciate y'all staying
- as late as you have um as shawn mentioned uh this store over on the east side it's sitting
- on the southwest corner of the of the corner lot um so while eric is correct that we are
- also sitting on a corner lot like they are the the fact of the matter is it's a different
- corner um and if you know we the reason we can't place our building directly in the corner
- of our lot is because if we did so our drive-through would be positioned in such a way that we
- are delivering food to the passenger side of the car which doesn't really work for a
- drive-through i mean if you can imagine somebody in a mcdonald's drive-through window trying
- to pass food to somebody who's on the opposite side of a car it doesn't work and that's part
- of the reason why we have placed the the drive-through in the location that we have and have not
- placed the building in the south east corner of the lot as the planning department had
- requested um other than that um i don't really have anything else to present so i'll i will
- yield the remainder of my time but thank you for agreeing to hear a petition tonight um
- and i guess i'll add one more quick thing um we are open to considering improvements
- to third street if need be we're happy to work through that for this with the city you
- know if it requires us to pay for extra long-term lane improvements whatever that might be we
- can we're happy to work through that with the city even if that if it's as a condition
- of tonight's approval so thank you thank you back to the board for action that would include
- a motion or continued discussion or questions to either the staff or the petitioner at this
- point i just want to say if you think you're going to talk about this for a while we do
- have to stop by nine so you will have to someone will have to make a motion we'll have to vote
- if you would like to continue past nine so you have about five minutes well we should
- do that now while we're at that point we're at a break can i have a motion for continuing
- the meeting past the nine o'clock cutoff so moved second second call borrell yes fernandez
- yes kudson cow yes throckmorton yes ballard yes thank you and back to the board for action
- well i'm not sure about the whole thing but i guess i would just say that on the findings
- the one that i i guess i don't really agree with it relates to the dumpster in the trash
- location i thought the petitioners rationale for the location was pretty reasonable and
- it looks pretty consistent to you know the east side chick-fil-a as well and i think
- the fact that it's you know got an entire structure around it i i just don't see how
- that's injurious to the public any other comments or questions to the petitioner or to the staff
- quick question on the i guess for eric on the landscaping use they're 8 short is that
- what would that quantify to like plant wise or well so it's you know it's not in relation
- to the number of trees or shrubs but it's just in relation to the amount of open space
- that occurs on a property so the minimum landscape area number you know it's just supposed to
- serve as one of those checks and balances on a property for how much is developed and
- how much is just left open as undeveloped space you know that undeveloped space serves
- a wide range of things you know area for landscaping stormwater infiltration you know habitat
- somewhat
- so it's not necessarily the and like i said they're meeting the number of trees and shrubs
- um it's just the amount of space that's not developed um is what that is specifically kind
- of relates to i think for me on that one i mean looking at the site right now i think
- they're right there's a tree the rest of its pavement so yeah i think even being eight
- percent sure this is vast improvement landscaping for that corner especially
- i got a question on impervious surface coverage and this is for the petitioner so the petitioner
- said that you would meet the maximum impervious surface coverage that is correct our intention
- will be to add pavers for whatever amount of spaces is needed to meet the impervious surface
- coverage requirement i believe eric specified it was four spaces worth of papers in the staff
- findings okay so eric do we remove that from i mean they are not looking for a variance on that
- then yeah so if they're willing to do that then you would just have a condition of and and there
- is a condition of approval now um and and that's why i left i put this condition of approval on
- there and certainly if the board did not feel that they wanted them to do those permeable pavers
- then
- they would approve the variance if the petitioner is willing to do that um then the board would
- keep
- the condition on there that all parking spaces over the fixed 15 must be constructed of permeable
- pavers and the variance then for maximum impervious surface coverage would go away
- that would not be required if that condition is there and they're agreeable to that
- the condition is added to the recommendation well it's on there now it's condition two
- two yes okay get it
- any other comments questions
- so i guess the only uh issue that we're having here is the front parking setback
- because if we if they're gonna if they're gonna do the maximum impervious surface coverage
- that is a moot point and the minimum landscape you're thinking eight percent is minimum the
- loading and service and refuse they came up with a plausible location because of the
- the residential area so the only point i think we need to talk about is the front parking setback
- can you elaborate on that uh steph yeah so so those are those are obviously the two big ones
- the front parking setback for the parking spaces and also the entrance and drive aisles
- those are those are two huge standards within the udio and it was a very cognitive shift several
- years ago when we introduced these standards to shift the paradigm of thinking in site design
- to emphasize buildings and de-emphasize parking having buildings at a corner frame or you know
- along a street improves pedestrian accessibility to that and it places the emphasis on buildings
- and not vehicles it increases the streetscape along there so you know this is a big shift
- from the thinkings of 30 years ago when sites were designed with the building in the far end
- of the parking lot and a sea of parking or all of the parking between a building in the street
- it creates a very negative experience along the street for pedestrians and vehicles and so that
- was a very cognitive shift in all of our documents the comprehensive plan which talks about
- improving
- walkability and walkable communities our streets design that talk about a complete streets design
- where buildings are along the street everything is pedestrian oriented you know the placement of
- the
- building at the far southwest corner of the site puts the main visual element of this property
- as parking and drive-through lanes and that is that is just extremely counter to all of our
- documents laws and comprehensive plan and as i mentioned in my report you know what you have
- to make findings for is that there is some practical difficulty that is peculiar to this property
- that does not allow them to meet code you know what what is unique about this property that does
- not allow it to be developed without the granting of the variance and you know we and we deal with
- this a lot of a situation where here is a site plan that site plan just might not work on this
- property that doesn't mean the property is undevelopable it just means this one specific
- site plan doesn't work here and and that's a fine line but that's what our criteria are is that
- there is some practical difficulty that is peculiar to this property and this property is over an
- acre
- it's got businesses on it you know you can certainly think of a wide range of properties
- that are this size that have been developed according to code and so it is possible to
- develop property and meet all of our code and you know this particular site plan with the
- arrangement of all of the parking and the drive-through lanes between the building and the street
- you know really really is counter to so many of our adopted documents and plans and you know so
- that's that's that's that's the challenge and why we were not able to make any findings here
- is because there aren't any inherent practical difficulties about this property
- that don't allow it to be developed without the granting of a variance.
- Yeah I tend to argue that the the practical difficulty here I don't think it's the site per
- se but it's the operational the mode of operation of this business because this is not a typical
- restaurant that you go when you sit down and you go in and you sit with your family it's it
- regardless of what it is everybody gets in their car and they go through the drive-through and
- then they get out and if you're traveling on I-69 that's what you're going to do you just you don't
- want to even get out of the car you just want to get it and and go so I understand why this is
- designed the way it's designed so I think the practical difficulty that I can see is the mode
- of operation of this type of business this is not a typical restaurant like a you know a local
- restaurant that you we would go to it's a high traffic design for drive-through purchase so I
- understand why it's designed in that in this way yeah thank you would anyone care to put forward a
- motion so if we're stuck on the entrance and drive in the front parking setback for you guys
- to change your plans to meet code what is that going to require and what would that cost so I
- can't speak directly to costs because that's that's incredibly fluid as far as requiring changes to
- the plans you know I'm happy to pull open the PDF I've got staff over here we've got about six or
- seven different site plans that have been looked at for this site you know we've worked with staff
- on many of those Eric has seen many of those and to be honest we feel that the site plan that we
- have presented today is the site plan there there's not going to be another site plan that
- Works for Chick-fil-a and works for the city of Bloomington. We've done the works for Chick-fil-a
- site plan
- Eric didn't like it. We were happy to accommodate his requests
- Ended up where we are today
- so
- This is what we're moving forward with so this is it. This is it this works if this if this site
- plan
- If the city does not like the site plan if this does not work
- for the city if these variants don't get approved today Chick-fil-a will have to consider other
- lots in
- Bloomington and and as the landlord mentioned we've been looking for two or three years
- So that I mean, you know land on the west side of Bloomington is not easy to come by but the short
- answer
- Is that this is our site plan? Yeah, and that's where I would bring into account
- That that we now can take financial dispositions
- Into our arguments into our fat findings of fact, and I think that's a big one
- Especially with floppy saying like the thoroughfare of being 500 feet from the interstate. This isn't
- just a get-and-go
- That's all it is. Nobody's really looking observing. They're flying down west third. They get into
- the interstate or they're getting off
- but I think
- Again, this comes back to understanding what the UDO is saying and Eric I understand your findings
- but I also think it's forcing a financial disposition of
- Something that has to be taken to into account
- I
- Don't know how to quantify that but I think it should be considered
- I'll just say I want
- Since we've talked about the highway a little bit just as a note
- I mean we have seen other fast food restaurants look at this intersection, right a number of years
- ago
- What's it called Culver's did a full site plan on the south side of this intersection they didn't
- build it
- They decided not to because they thought the light they ended up thinking corporate ended up
- thinking the light was too difficult
- and so then they built the Culver's that is there now like
- Do we want people getting off the highway and flying down 3rd Street to pop into Culver's and pop
- back out to the highway
- Is that what our is that what our?
- Plans are for is that what the comprehensive plan is looking for at this part of 3rd Street
- Or is that what interchanges are for like is that what the development at the actual intersection
- of?
- 37 or 69 now and our crossroads for like how far in are we gonna let that
- that automobile focused
- You'd land use come into town people live here. I mean they said so themselves
- There are trailers immediately north of here
- Is this the the udio does not think that this type of development is appropriate here
- You may change your minds and or I mean you may have a different mind and right findings for that
- But I just want to make sure we're not like losing
- The forest for the trees we're like sometimes
- We're just really thinking about this particular group and how do we help them figure this out?
- I mean there may be a reason that it needed so many variances because the udio does not anticipate
- this type of
- Heavy vehicular use at this location in particular. Maybe it's not appropriate here
- Like I think that's what mr. Grulick was saying the udio not every use and people don't always want
- to hear that but not every use
- Is appropriate at every spot?
- And and that can be for their reasons or the udios reasons
- And so I just want to make that point publicly for I'm sure there's a bajillion people watching
- this on cats as there always are
- You know that is part of why we make the recommendations we make because the udio has been thought
- through
- Based on the comprehensive plan and maybe we don't want something this far in
- To be a drop-off for 69 and that's why it's not written that way
- Just something to think about
- To follow up on that and I'm not here to hash out how they should develop but you do have that
- That hold of development area around the lows
- Behind the lows where the big lots had closed
- It's now good, but there there is land there that that I don't I don't know the answer
- to the question, but I'm understanding where Jack is going with it is there are places there that
- are
- Actually designed to allow for some of these things to occur because Freddy's went in over there
- certainly next to Hardee's
- Etc that actually will accommodate due to the size of those parking lots, which we know a lot of
- them are empty
- especially where the old Kmart was there so
- You know, I mean that is a compelling question. It's brought up. I'm
- By by the by the staff because there is property there that would probably work
- I'm concerned about this particular location because of what Culver's did
- I was here when we did the Culver's approval and it was not a unanimous decision because we knew
- that the traffic was going to
- Be terrible and ended up being terrible
- and it still is terrible even though they tore down the
- Tool place next door the rental there was a lot of concern about that and the cars were bleeding
- out
- to the stoplight
- So I get it and I also have seen what happens over on the east side, even though, you know
- It's a little bit different issue. So I mean it's a compelling question being asked by the by the
- staff
- not to say I don't want to see something there because
- What's there now needs to be redeveloped?
- 100% sorry to be clear. We're not I just want to make sure that you're that's a force for the trees
- issue
- And yes, we would love to see redevelopment here as well. That's what that's what all the you know
- You do regulations are for there for redevelopment, but redevelopment that is in line and
- appropriate with
- Yeah, I don't mean to suggest the anti-development. It's just more of a
- It's it's clear that that space it is primed to be redeveloped quickly. Yes
- It is a permitted use yes, the issue is the site plan. Yes
- You know, and I also think on top of that John it has to do with the the type of business that is
- because
- Chick-fil-a does have a heavy
- vehicular use
- We're granting more spaces for parking yet. There's the discussion that most of the
- Customers are in a car in and out so
- You know that also has to be taken into account. I think in what we do here. Yeah
- Again, it goes back to what you just said. It's the site plan. Does the site plan make sense for
- the for what chick-fil-a?
- needs
- We're very close to pi-69 it's impossible it's gonna spill over
- you know and
- Impossible to
- To protect that area because it's just the business will come. It's the highways there
- Yeah, because there's always a built the right to build. I mean bill correct. So
- You know they can come in put in a plan there that completely meets code and the bleeding
- Can continue all the way down that corridor. Absolutely. I do think that they're responsible
- corporate citizen
- And what they're trying to say is hey, we're just trying to be you know, we're trying to use this
- It's in the right spot. We think so. There's nothing to suggest otherwise
- But I think it does go back to what has come up across the board which is is this the right
- design for that space
- Based on what we know
- The use is going to be with that with that
- That they will work with the traffic
- For possible extensions if necessary. Yeah. Well, we have the setback issue first
- Correct, right that the traffic I think if they you know, if they're meeting the code there's not
- much
- I think that we can really put on
- The petitioner, but it I think we have to deal with that that issue. Can we grant this variance?
- With what's being termed the
- Site plan. It's the site plan or are we going to say
- We're not really convinced that this is the site plan. There's got to be another look at it
- We've certainly had those decisions in the past and I'm not advocating either way here. I'm asking
- the question
- We have developers in real estate people here that know what rendition of these plans are we on?
- Yeah
- Again just the point of
- Compromise and how long it takes and and finally getting to it. This isn't the first round. They've
- been through and I
- I'm with Flavia like this is an interstate area if this was you know a mile in it'd be a different
- conversation to me
- It's not anything else going in there is gonna be a fast-paced. I mean, what do we think will go in
- there?
- That's not going to be
- To me accommodating to an interstate, you know thoroughfare
- Sure, there's somebody may take a chance on that, but you're surrounded by z-barts. You got Midas.
- You've got car shops around there
- I mean, I
- Think that's yeah
- So, you know, I'll just kind of touch on that a little bit, you know and just kind of bring it back
- a little bit
- You know
- It's it's the the board's role their job is to look at the property and say what is unique here
- that does not allow this
- To be developed without the granting of a variance, you know, not like I said
- It's not that every site plan has to fit on every site
- But what is unique here that does not allow this site to be developed without my variance?
- And and that's that's what it has to come back to
- And I think Eric that you've made the the point that this site is large enough
- That it could accommodate many things and therefore it's not injurious to to say
- You know, we can't approve this. So I think that points been made clear
- Do we have an action that anyone would like to put forth the emotion or more discussion
- Let me ask a clarifying. What is the front the issue with the front setback exactly? Eric?
- So there are two things, you know, one is that parking has to be 20 feet behind the front of the
- building
- But the biggest one is that entrances and drives can't be between the building and the street
- So entrances running less than 45 degrees can't be between the building and the street
- And so the presence of the drive through lanes between the building and Kimball Drive is is one of
- those things that does not meet as well as all of the parking spaces and the entrances, the drives
- for those parking spaces, thank you, so are you saying if they I'm not saying they want to do this,
- but if the building
- I don't know how you could do it, but if the building and the drive through were reoriented, it
- would be in line with the code if the building was close at the corner of
- and the drive through were reoriented,
- it would be in line with the code?
- If the building was close at the corner of Kimball and 3rd?
- Yeah, absolutely.
- So if the building was placed
- at the southeast corner of the site,
- then there would be a site,
- there's lots of possibilities for the site to be developed.
- And so that's one of the points that, you know,
- I guess I've been trying to hit on is, you know,
- the site does present itself to be developed
- in a wide range of areas that are compliant with the UDO.
- And, you know, there's nothing
- that prevents that from happening.
- It's just this particular site plan just doesn't fit.
- And there could be other locations
- that it could be fine and would meet,
- but at the end of the day, you know,
- this property is very large
- and there's nothing inherent about it
- that does not allow it for it to be developed, you know,
- and meet all the standards of the UDO.
- And that's the criteria.
- I don't know.
- I just had a sidebar and I'll share that with everyone.
- I mean, the possibility is
- that someone could make a motion, again, for continuous
- and allow for one month to come back with a revision.
- My comment on the sidebar was that, you know,
- there has been numerous site plans created.
- So it could be that a compromise could be reached.
- So that's also an option for the board to consider.
- I'm not putting that forward as a motion.
- I'm putting it as a consideration.
- I think for the petitioner, you know,
- obviously solving this today, I'm not asking a question.
- I'm just, yeah, sorry.
- Obviously solving this today would be ideal
- because then you have, you know,
- you have to wait for another month.
- But I think you're very, very close, so, so close.
- And I don't wanna, I really don't wanna deny this
- and lose this whole work that you have put this through.
- Put this through and maybe find a compromise
- with the city for what is necessary here.
- And we can see this on the agenda next month again.
- And work on the areas that are problematic,
- which is the front parking setback and the entrance drive.
- And so with that, I would like to propose a continuance.
- Do I have a second?
- Okay, and as we move along here,
- you certainly don't have to come back in a month.
- But what we're trying to do here is,
- what we have is a petition in front of us
- that we can't act on to provide
- all of the variance that you're asking for.
- Therefore, we think in the interest of moving forward
- to allow you to get somewhere
- that you can develop this property,
- either with a variance from us or coming into compliance,
- we're offering that as a motion
- and we will take a vote on that.
- But again, it's not going to compel you to come back.
- You can just simply walk away.
- So, I have a--
- Just to make a comment, if I can.
- I mean, I'm not saying I don't support continuum,
- but isn't it true that,
- you know, following the staff's recommendation,
- in effect, would accomplish basically the same thing?
- And that they would have to,
- with the exception of the conditions,
- you know, there's a variance on the parking.
- They would just have to build it to code, right?
- Isn't that-- - Well, item three.
- Yeah.
- I think-- - Yeah.
- I'm not saying that's the right outcome.
- I'm just saying that it's--
- Well, let's make sure that that's actually clear
- that your understanding is the same with the staff.
- Is that correct, Eric?
- Did we get to the same place?
- Yes, so you can approve variances.
- You know, typically with variances approvals,
- we do tie it to a site plan,
- just to try to make sure that things are consistent.
- But you can approve variances,
- and they can modify other standard
- or other aspects of the site to be compliant
- with the variances that were approved.
- Yeah.
- Yeah, for a second.
- I mean, I think for reference to the sake,
- it'd be better to have the site plan that,
- to have something that you're saying,
- this is what got approved.
- It's just, you know, like if we're coming back
- and they don't build it right away,
- come back in two years,
- what's the actual thing that got approved?
- It's better for you all to see the thing that gets approved.
- You can do it the way Eric is saying, you know, you--
- Yeah, with the item three there, right?
- Yeah.
- Is that right, Jen?
- Yes, well, item three is true no matter what.
- Okay.
- But--
- Yeah, and I would say, as we say sometimes, you know,
- if you do wanna do that, give them guidance.
- Like, what is the thing you think
- maybe they could work on with us?
- You know, that's always the hard part.
- Well, when I look at the design they have,
- the driver will come through the building to get the food.
- If we put the building on a southeast corner,
- the driver can't get the food.
- Well, I mean, just like they do at the ball, right?
- The car could come along Kimball, turn,
- and have the window there
- and be pulling the food out of the window.
- Yeah.
- But remember, we need a very long driveway,
- very long drive through for them.
- For setup.
- Yeah, for setup.
- They are not your normal place.
- Like, I mean, when I drive in other fast food places,
- they have, you know, six cars or maybe four cars.
- You go to Chick-fil-A anytime, I mean, in the peak hour,
- you're gonna have 50 cars there going through.
- So the design that they have is ideal.
- This design that you have proposed
- is an ideal design for their business.
- Their business is different than other fast food businesses.
- That's why I don't wanna shoot this design down.
- But how can you work with Eric till the next meeting
- that will get near or satisfy, you know,
- the front parking setback?
- And you're already saying you'll work
- with the impervious surfaces, coverage, you know,
- the landscape area and the loading and refuse.
- We already took care of that.
- So I guess focusing on the front parking setback
- in the, you know, that's it, correct?
- And would taking out some of the parking spaces
- allow there to be an adjustment?
- No, the parking spaces are gonna be there.
- He's using impervious surfaces for the parking spaces.
- So he needs the parking spaces as well.
- Well, they're over the maximum, aren't they?
- Yes.
- What I'm saying is if they cut back on the number,
- would that give them more room to move?
- Well, that's something they need to, yeah, talk to.
- So, I mean, those are exactly the types of questions,
- I think, that would have to be presented.
- Correct.
- Okay, thank you.
- John?
- So we do have a motion and a second,
- but it has not been called.
- So I would still give the opportunity to rescind
- if you wanted to reconsider,
- but otherwise we can call the question
- and vote on the continuation.
- Okay.
- Is there any objection to calling the question?
- I would just say I'm willing to give people time
- to try and figure it out.
- I think the fundamental question is gonna be
- whether or not the site can work
- given the nature of this particular restaurant.
- If the biggest issue is the setback
- and the alignment of the building
- or the placement of the primary restaurant,
- it sounds like that's gonna be a huge challenge
- from the petitioner's perspective,
- but I'm willing to give people the time to see if they can.
- But that's, I mean, just the way that their business operates,
- the way it's designed now with the primary stacking
- of the drive-thru running north and south along Kimbell,
- it's there because that is the longest distance
- north to south.
- I mean, engineers may be able to figure it out.
- It's gonna be a big challenge.
- But if that's the only way it's gonna get approved,
- then I'm willing to continue it and give it a,
- see if there's a way to get it done.
- But I suspect if I heard Eric right,
- I mean, that's gonna be the biggest issue,
- is meeting the basic code.
- Some of the other variances are probably not nearly as,
- showstoppers, at least from my perspective,
- but it sounds like to me that placement of the building
- closer to Kimball is kind of a showstopper
- from the planning department's perspective.
- So I just think that if we continue it,
- in terms of guidance,
- I think the staff knows what we're saying.
- I just, petitioners are gonna need to understand that too,
- that it's not gonna be a matter of just tweaking
- a couple of things.
- That's a pretty big fundamental requirement
- that they may or may not be able to meet,
- but that'll be a judgment for someone else to make.
- I mean, can I ask real quick,
- like out of the respect of everybody's time really here,
- is that even feasible?
- I would ask the petitioner that.
- Is it worth us giving you another month,
- or are you gonna just be deadlocked on this
- and come back and say, we couldn't do it,
- this is all we could do, that's gonna waste time?
- Or is it something you guys could take back,
- as we're saying, I'm with Flavi on this,
- I don't want to turn this down.
- I think this is an opportunity.
- I think it's unique to what you guys do and how you do it.
- I think it could fit in really well here.
- But is that feasible if we give you another month,
- where you guys be able to go back,
- give us an eighth rendition of this,
- to try to make it work?
- To be clear, we've been working on this
- since last March, this has been under development
- in Chick-fil-A's court for a year now.
- And throughout the course of this year,
- we've created six site plans,
- and most of those have gone before Eric.
- We're happy to take another month and take a look at things,
- but as Flavia mentioned, and as I mentioned earlier,
- you can't place the building in the southeast corner.
- It's not gonna work, because we can't deliver food
- to the passenger side of the car.
- I'm not gonna reach over and take food
- from somebody delivering to the wrong side of the car.
- So if you're willing to give us a month,
- we're willing to take a look,
- but I mean, substantially, the things that are gonna change
- are gonna be minor.
- The building is gonna be more or less in the same place,
- and we can work on some of the things
- like the parking setback,
- but as a whole, the site plan won't really be able
- to change probably to the degree that the board wants it to.
- Okay, thank you. - Look at page 72.
- I mean, you're talking about the front parking setback.
- That's our sticking point there.
- There are no practical difficulties
- that are peculiar to the property
- to prevent it from being developed in a wide range.
- The use of the dual lane drive-through is self-imposed.
- So I would, based on that finding by the city,
- I would respectfully suggest that you're maximizing
- that drive-through lane because that's what you do.
- That then begs the question of,
- is this the best site to develop?
- So we're in a position as a board
- that we have to have a reason and a rationale
- for overriding code.
- You've given us a self-imposed issue
- with a very large piece of property
- that makes it very difficult for us to do that.
- So where I would gently nudge back would be
- you could consider changing that drive-through lane
- a little bit so that you meet code.
- You could.
- I'm not saying, I'm not telling you to do that,
- I'm just saying that because the word could
- is viable here, you could do that.
- That doesn't give us cause to override the code
- because you could.
- I just wanna explain where we're at.
- We can't, no matter how much we love
- the idea of you developing this space,
- we still are, you know, we can't override something
- without due cause.
- So to follow up on what Tim is saying,
- I mean, the question is, do you think in a month
- you could find a way to nudge it back
- because we're not asking you to move the building?
- And is it worth us to pass that or would you rather
- just have a denial and then come back in six months
- or just find another place?
- I mean, we would certainly welcome a continuance
- and we're happy to take a look.
- You know, certainly the continuance is more favorable
- than the denial, so if you're willing to give us a month,
- we will take a look and see what we can come up with
- in collaboration with Eric in the Planning Department.
- Did I misstate that or is that fair?
- Yeah.
- 'Cause I don't wanna speak for you.
- No, no, no, I think that's very,
- I mean, I think it's, again, I think they're making
- the effort, the continuous effort here.
- We all know that sometimes we get to these places,
- it's been a year, things get frustrating.
- I mean, it's 9.30 at night, I think coming back
- in a month with a clear head and maybe you guys
- come up with something in the meantime
- is worth voting that forward.
- And I wanna dovetail off that too,
- which is we've done this a long, long time.
- And we also are quite aware, and again,
- I'm gonna stress before I say it,
- I'm not suggesting you are.
- There are petitioners who come to us and say,
- you know, I've had enough of going back and forth,
- I'm just gonna take it and try to get the variance.
- And then I'm gonna make a statement in the chambers
- to say, this is it, or else I'm walking.
- And then a month later, if we give 'em a continuous,
- they come back with a change plan that works,
- or they come back a year later.
- So we also balance that too.
- And again, I will restate it again,
- we're not saying that's your technique
- and that's what you're doing.
- We're not suggesting that.
- But we have found that pushing sometimes gets us
- to where we need to go, and we are the last stop.
- I'll suggest or ask also,
- something that the petitioner mentioned
- which was interesting was improvements to Third Street.
- So that may be something that you may ask us
- to work on with them that were this to be something
- that you were interested in.
- What kind of improvements on Third Street
- would we think would be necessary
- based on the volumes they've put out there?
- Yeah, 'cause I mean, a pullout lane or whatever,
- I think that you're gonna have a lot of traffic there.
- And I'm not saying that's bad,
- I'm just saying that I think we made a mistake
- with culvers by not being a little bit more proactive
- because that was a major problem
- until the rental shop closed and was torn down.
- And they also, I don't know how we did it,
- but they had an outlet on Third at that point too,
- which, right, they had a secondary outlet on Third
- coming out of the parking lot, Culver's does.
- So this is not an option that we have for Culver's
- right now, especially with the drive-through.
- So it's a little bit different there.
- So we have a motion. - We have a motion on the floor.
- Yeah, thank you.
- I'm sorry, John, anything further
- before we do take a vote on that?
- No, I was just gonna encourage us to act on the motion.
- Okay, so the question is being called.
- Can I have the roll?
- Again, a vote of yes will continue this
- till the April 24th, 2025 board meeting.
- (faintly speaking)
- Yes.
- (faintly speaking)
- Yes.
- (faintly speaking)
- Yes.
- (faintly speaking)
- Yes.
- (faintly speaking)
- Yes.
- Okay, so the motion will continue.
- Thank you for your patience.
- We know it's been a long process,
- but we do appreciate you accepting that.
- And we do look forward to seeing you next month.
- That's it for the petitions.
- I just had a couple, again, housekeeping for the board.
- So Jackie had given you a couple of questions
- I wanted to go ahead and have followed up.
- I'd like to know when that discussion happened
- on that People's State Bank and whether I was in it,
- because I wasn't really aware of it.
- I just wanted to get a better understanding
- of what was going on with that,
- the loss of that drive-through
- that we had a long, long discussion about.
- Yep, I'll get you on those.
- And the second is, I know that you had told me
- some information, but at some time when we had agreed
- on that parking lot across the street from the graduate,
- I'm gonna go back and pound the drum on that again,
- I could have sworn that there was contingency there
- that during construction and soon after,
- that parking lot would then be turned over for development
- and not turned into a permanent parking lot.
- And I remember specifically in that meeting saying,
- I do not wanna look down 4th Street from that corner
- towards the university and see two continuous blocks
- of parking lots.
- And so I know that that was brought up,
- so I'm a little confused as to why it's still a parking lot
- that's being used every day.
- We will pull them, I'll pull the minutes.
- I want some answers, Jackie.
- I know, I know.
- I will pull the minutes and get those for you.
- So I had that.
- So with that, the meeting is adjourned.
- Thank you. - Thank you.
- (upbeat music)
- ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)