WEBVTT 00:00:00.720 --> 00:00:07.020 - I'm gonna call the Board of Zoning Appeals to order on this date Thursday, March 27 00:00:07.020 --> 00:00:10.360 - 2025 can I have a roll call, please? 00:00:10.360 --> 00:00:16.920 - Ballard here Borel here Fernandez 00:00:16.920 --> 00:00:19.840 - Katsinko 00:00:19.840 --> 00:00:21.840 - Throckmorton here 00:00:21.840 --> 00:00:27.400 - We had minutes that were distributed to the team to the board 00:00:28.480 --> 00:00:30.780 - Do we have any discussion or do I have a motion to approve? 00:00:30.780 --> 00:00:41.400 - I'll move approval of minutes from February 20th 2025 meeting 00:00:41.400 --> 00:00:51.360 - Fernandez Cinco 00:00:51.360 --> 00:00:54.480 - Throckmorton, yes 00:00:55.680 --> 00:00:58.360 - We have any reports resolutions or communications 00:00:58.360 --> 00:01:02.880 - Thank you 00:01:02.880 --> 00:01:05.900 - All right, we do have some continuations 00:01:05.900 --> 00:01:11.160 - I'm sorry. So the minutes of for January 23rd, 2025 had been approved 00:01:11.160 --> 00:01:15.200 - We do have a list of petitions to be continued 00:01:15.200 --> 00:01:18.280 - To the March 20th, I'm sorry 00:01:18.280 --> 00:01:22.480 - What it says on our thing continued? It's April what? 00:01:23.520 --> 00:01:29.470 - 24 petitions that will be continued or are these the ones I want to be sure I'm reading the packet, 00:01:29.470 --> 00:01:29.840 - right? 00:01:29.840 --> 00:01:36.800 - I think I know what it means, but I I'm not going to speak for the staff 00:01:36.800 --> 00:01:42.660 - Petitions continued to April 24th. Okay 00:01:42.660 --> 00:01:47.880 - The one I'm looking at says to March 27. I want to make sure I have the right one up. So 00:01:49.680 --> 00:01:53.580 - Yeah, I think the one online says April 24th, so you might have last month's. Yep, let me 00:01:53.580 --> 00:02:06.680 - I just don't understand why we continue to have 00:02:06.680 --> 00:02:09.640 - the cutters Kirkwood 00:02:09.640 --> 00:02:14.000 - Petition on this agenda. I 00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:16.880 - mean you all I 00:02:17.280 --> 00:02:20.320 - Mean there was a subsequent petition that was approved 00:02:20.320 --> 00:02:23.280 - So this is kind of moot 00:02:23.280 --> 00:02:29.680 - But it continues to be on our agenda. So I don't know why we can't continue to continue it because 00:02:29.680 --> 00:02:31.720 - it's not an active petition 00:02:31.720 --> 00:02:35.480 - I'm happy to explain it again 00:02:35.480 --> 00:02:41.320 - Jackie Scanlon assistant director. This was the original petition from 2022 and because there was 00:02:41.320 --> 00:02:41.940 - litigation 00:02:41.940 --> 00:02:46.120 - We were told we couldn't take it off the agenda until we had an agreement from them 00:02:46.120 --> 00:02:48.160 - So we've contacted them multiple times to ask them 00:02:48.160 --> 00:02:51.320 - To acknowledge that it was being withdrawn and haven't heard back 00:02:51.320 --> 00:02:54.380 - So we're waiting for them to do that and I could check with legal again about that before next 00:02:54.380 --> 00:02:54.720 - month 00:02:54.720 --> 00:03:04.020 - Okay, all right John anything further on that 00:03:04.020 --> 00:03:14.840 - The petitions that will be continued April 24th 2025 will be a a - 17 - 22 joke camp construction 00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:17.000 - LLC and Blackwell Construction Inc 00:03:17.000 --> 00:03:21.720 - V - 27 - 22 cutters Kirkwood one two three LLC 00:03:21.720 --> 00:03:25.080 - Do I need to name those subs on there? 00:03:25.080 --> 00:03:27.360 - No, okay 00:03:27.360 --> 00:03:33.600 - Those are all right. And so there's one two, three, four or five six subs portions to that 00:03:33.600 --> 00:03:38.360 - That falls within that continuation. No, I'm so sorry. So there are 00:03:38.360 --> 00:03:43.920 - They're all separate. Okay. Yeah administrative appeal 06 - 25 00:03:44.920 --> 00:03:51.640 - That slash APPL 20 25 - oh two - zero zero three Porter land or lawn 00:03:51.640 --> 00:03:55.600 - You do not have to say the second part is what I was saying 00:03:55.600 --> 00:04:00.040 - Like if you just want to get the traditional number, that's great. They - oh seven - 25 Eli Brown 00:04:00.040 --> 00:04:04.040 - V - 13 - 25 Kara Carolina Lopez 00:04:04.040 --> 00:04:10.120 - Cu - oh eight - 25 Kamar is Aldi. I think it says or is I 80 00:04:12.960 --> 00:04:19.840 - Cu - 33 - 24 hat rentals LLC V - 10 - 25 Tabor Bruce architecture and design all 00:04:19.840 --> 00:04:22.480 - again will be 00:04:22.480 --> 00:04:24.960 - Continued to the April 24th 00:04:24.960 --> 00:04:31.720 - 2025 meeting so tonight we will be hearing in this order V - oh - - 25 Patrick Riggs 00:04:31.720 --> 00:04:34.720 - Cu - oh nine - 25 Jared Taylor 00:04:34.720 --> 00:04:41.480 - V - 11 - 25 Smith and Hayes properties LLC and we will conclude this evening with V - 12 - 25 00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:46.080 - Don Cowden Foundation, Inc. Chick-fil-a with that 00:04:46.080 --> 00:04:55.420 - We'll go to the first petition this evening and that petition again is the variance V - oh - - 25 00:04:55.420 --> 00:04:56.640 - Patrick Riggs and 00:04:56.640 --> 00:05:00.280 - May I have a report from the staff? 00:05:06.400 --> 00:05:11.920 - Good evening, I'm Gabriel Holbrough zoning planner here to present the staff report for 00:05:11.920 --> 00:05:15.280 - This portion 00:05:15.280 --> 00:05:18.680 - For this case 00:05:18.680 --> 00:05:29.480 - So this is a second hearing for this case you may remember from February 00:05:29.480 --> 00:05:32.640 - the property is 00:05:33.000 --> 00:05:37.080 - 415 West Fountain Drive, it's the property is 00:05:37.080 --> 00:05:43.810 - 1.17 acres on the west side of the intersection where North Lemon Lane meets West Fountain Drive on 00:05:43.810 --> 00:05:45.760 - the northwest side of the city 00:05:45.760 --> 00:05:53.370 - It's currently zoned a mixed-use employment ME in the comprehensive plan and it's given the 00:05:53.370 --> 00:05:54.920 - designation employment center 00:05:54.920 --> 00:06:00.320 - The existing land use is a single-family dwelling and proposed will be a single-family dwelling 00:06:00.320 --> 00:06:01.340 - with a detached 00:06:01.920 --> 00:06:04.080 - accessory dwelling unit detached ADU 00:06:04.080 --> 00:06:08.900 - Surrounding properties are characterized by 00:06:08.900 --> 00:06:16.220 - Characterized by a low density of development with a mix of residential and commercial uses 00:06:16.220 --> 00:06:20.640 - The area is also characterized by karst geology including several sinkholes 00:06:20.640 --> 00:06:25.840 - There's a compound karst feature encompassing two sinkhole depressions to the west and southwest of 00:06:25.840 --> 00:06:26.640 - the property 00:06:26.640 --> 00:06:29.440 - So this was the site plan 00:06:29.840 --> 00:06:34.920 - Shown at the first hearing generally the petitioner proposes to construct 00:06:34.920 --> 00:06:40.040 - There's there's already a residential structure on the property. The petitioner proposes to 00:06:40.040 --> 00:06:42.680 - construct a new detached single-family house 00:06:42.680 --> 00:06:48.240 - With the construction of the new house the petitioner intends to retain the existing dwelling 00:06:48.240 --> 00:06:50.080 - structure without modification 00:06:50.080 --> 00:06:55.540 - But reclassify it as a detached accessory dwelling in a detached ADU, which will be accessory to 00:06:55.540 --> 00:06:56.440 - the new house 00:06:57.240 --> 00:07:01.100 - So this was the previous version of it. You can see the 00:07:01.100 --> 00:07:04.480 - Existing structure is on the right 00:07:04.480 --> 00:07:10.280 - Toward the top so this is in this view north is to the right 00:07:10.280 --> 00:07:15.000 - so the existing structures of the north end of the property along Fountain Drive and you can see 00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:16.700 - the proposed new house in the 00:07:16.700 --> 00:07:19.740 - previous version of the site plan was 00:07:19.740 --> 00:07:26.900 - Down and toward the middle in other words toward the southeast from there 00:07:27.460 --> 00:07:32.100 - But that was within the required cars buffers. We'll get into 00:07:32.100 --> 00:07:38.360 - So the new site plan that was submitted with this hearing the location of the new 00:07:38.360 --> 00:07:42.540 - House has moved up to sort of the the center 00:07:42.540 --> 00:07:49.940 - Between the east-west property east and west property lines, but still set back a little bit from 00:07:49.940 --> 00:07:55.180 - The north property line along Fountain Drive, which is to the right 00:07:55.380 --> 00:07:57.820 - So so they it's moved a little bit 00:07:57.820 --> 00:08:06.200 - So this is the existing structure on the 00:08:06.200 --> 00:08:11.820 - On the property that is proposed to become an ADU 00:08:11.820 --> 00:08:18.960 - So in order to to accomplish building the new house the petitioner is requesting two variances 00:08:18.960 --> 00:08:24.640 - The first I'll go over briefly again. We discussed it last month 00:08:25.260 --> 00:08:27.260 - But I guess not all of you were here. So 00:08:27.260 --> 00:08:33.500 - The first variance request is a variance from the front setback standard for an ADU 00:08:33.500 --> 00:08:36.260 - so the the structure is compliant with all the 00:08:36.260 --> 00:08:43.220 - Standards in the unified development ordinance the UDO for an ADU except for the required front setback 00:08:43.220 --> 00:08:49.120 - So what what is that setback the UDO requires that it's attached ADU not extend closer to any 00:08:49.120 --> 00:08:51.220 - street than the primary dwelling structure 00:08:51.580 --> 00:08:55.380 - So the the existing ADU is set back 00:08:55.380 --> 00:08:59.700 - Approximately eight feet from the front property line on Fountain Drive 00:08:59.700 --> 00:09:05.820 - But the proposed house is going to be about 45 feet back and as you can see that dashed 00:09:05.820 --> 00:09:08.740 - Black line that just appeared on there 00:09:08.740 --> 00:09:14.970 - That's approximately the setback of the proposed house and the existing structure that will become 00:09:14.970 --> 00:09:17.220 - the ADU is closer to Fountain Drive than that 00:09:18.900 --> 00:09:25.510 - But even if the new structure were relocated to the minimum front setback of 15 feet, you can still 00:09:25.510 --> 00:09:26.300 - see that the 00:09:26.300 --> 00:09:31.220 - existing structure that will become the ADU is closer to Fountain Drive than that 00:09:31.220 --> 00:09:33.540 - so 00:09:33.540 --> 00:09:37.780 - there's a request for a variance to allow that so that location to 00:09:37.780 --> 00:09:40.540 - to continue 00:09:40.540 --> 00:09:44.640 - Some other background information the transportation plan 00:09:45.100 --> 00:09:48.760 - Calls for a 60 foot right-of-way width for this segment of Fountain Drive 00:09:48.760 --> 00:09:53.460 - The existing width of the public right-of-way is at least 16 feet less than that 00:09:53.460 --> 00:09:56.100 - Estimated at 40 feet wide 00:09:56.100 --> 00:10:00.570 - So if the Fountain Drive right-of-way were ever widened to the full 60 feet called for in the 00:10:00.570 --> 00:10:02.740 - transportation plan the existing structure 00:10:02.740 --> 00:10:06.460 - Would encroach encroach at least slightly into the public right-of-way 00:10:06.460 --> 00:10:12.640 - There is no requirement that this property that this property dedicate additional right-of-way at 00:10:12.640 --> 00:10:13.520 - this time 00:10:13.520 --> 00:10:18.130 - And the city is not currently pursuing acquisition of additional right-of-way on this street 00:10:18.130 --> 00:10:18.540 - segment 00:10:18.540 --> 00:10:22.480 - And there's no expectation that the right-of-way will be widened in the near future 00:10:22.480 --> 00:10:29.230 - Because Fountain Drive is classified as the neighborhood residential street typology the front setback 00:10:29.230 --> 00:10:30.180 - standard in the UDO is 00:10:30.180 --> 00:10:36.060 - Supposed to be measured from the edge of the existing right-of-way not the proposed right-of-way 00:10:36.060 --> 00:10:39.420 - So that was just some background about right-of-way, but we're left with the same 00:10:39.980 --> 00:10:46.280 - Variance request to allow the existing location of that building to continue when it becomes an ADU 00:10:46.280 --> 00:10:48.980 - So the second variance request 00:10:48.980 --> 00:10:54.140 - Has to do with a variance from karst geology standards 00:10:54.140 --> 00:10:58.100 - So there is a compound karst feature 00:10:58.100 --> 00:11:01.660 - That is present in the area 00:11:01.660 --> 00:11:08.700 - The UDO requires so when building a building on a property subject to karst geology standards 00:11:09.140 --> 00:11:15.440 - The UDO requires that a karst conservancy easement be established for all area within 25 feet 00:11:15.440 --> 00:11:20.540 - Horizontally from the last closed contour around the karst feature in this case 00:11:20.540 --> 00:11:25.940 - It's a compound one. It has two you can see there's sort of a north part and a south part 00:11:25.940 --> 00:11:31.340 - And then the orange line highlighted is the elevation contour at 00:11:31.340 --> 00:11:35.020 - 866 feet above sea level which is the last 00:11:35.420 --> 00:11:40.260 - Closed completely closed contour. This is a map provided by the 00:11:40.260 --> 00:11:48.420 - Provided by the petitioner that shows that highlights that is the last closed contour our GIS 00:11:48.420 --> 00:11:54.220 - That we have as staff shows the last closed contour is 00:11:54.220 --> 00:11:59.580 - 868 so it's a it's a slight difference 00:12:00.820 --> 00:12:06.740 - The the strict language of the UDO says that we follow the staff's information unless we have 00:12:06.740 --> 00:12:08.060 - reason to doubt it in which case 00:12:08.060 --> 00:12:12.740 - We can follow other information in this case. This is this seems to be reliable 00:12:12.740 --> 00:12:15.900 - There's no reason to the staff does not feel there's any reason to doubt it 00:12:15.900 --> 00:12:21.100 - So we're comfortable going with the 866 as the last closed contour around the karst feature 00:12:21.100 --> 00:12:26.420 - So to back up a little bit the conservancy easement needs to be 25 feet 00:12:26.420 --> 00:12:30.340 - Horizontal from that from that from that orange line you see there 00:12:30.540 --> 00:12:32.540 - So where does that come on the site? 00:12:32.540 --> 00:12:35.780 - That's the 00:12:35.780 --> 00:12:38.820 - 866 contour line crossing this part of the site 00:12:38.820 --> 00:12:44.280 - 25 feet from it approximately here and where the building has been relocated is outside the area 00:12:44.280 --> 00:12:46.700 - that will have to be in a karst conservancy 00:12:46.700 --> 00:12:47.980 - easement 00:12:47.980 --> 00:12:53.980 - But there's also what for the UDO prohibits structures within 10 feet of the easement 00:12:53.980 --> 00:13:00.300 - Meaning that effectively a building can't be built within 35 feet of the last closed contours 00:13:00.700 --> 00:13:04.460 - Is over here. So the the proposed building location is 00:13:04.460 --> 00:13:10.060 - Within that 10-foot buffer. So the variance is still required for the building 00:13:10.060 --> 00:13:17.020 - The buildable area on the site that is completely outside these is 00:13:17.020 --> 00:13:22.020 - All the stuff that's to the right to the north of that line 00:13:22.020 --> 00:13:24.700 - Proximately highlighted in yellow here 00:13:25.260 --> 00:13:30.260 - This is so even though this is a fairly large property because of the compound karst feature 00:13:30.260 --> 00:13:34.500 - There's not not as much buildable area as you would think so this is 00:13:34.500 --> 00:13:39.420 - Approximately what the what the buildable area is beyond all the karst buffers 00:13:39.420 --> 00:13:44.820 - There's also a septic field highlighted here in the in the light green 00:13:44.820 --> 00:13:47.720 - Which is completely within 00:13:47.720 --> 00:13:49.580 - the 00:13:49.580 --> 00:13:51.820 - The area that has to be in a karst conservancy 00:13:52.820 --> 00:13:56.740 - easement, it's worth highlighting that it's 00:13:56.740 --> 00:14:00.860 - It's not clear to staff possibly the petitioner can clarify whether this 00:14:00.860 --> 00:14:06.980 - Septic field already exists or is proposed to be constructed. I 00:14:06.980 --> 00:14:14.060 - Should also say that there is no sewer available here. This is confirmed by CBU and by the 00:14:14.060 --> 00:14:14.820 - applicant 00:14:14.820 --> 00:14:22.240 - There is a private sewer main but the owner of that private main has declined to allow a connection 00:14:22.240 --> 00:14:22.480 - so 00:14:23.120 --> 00:14:27.200 - The UDO allows a septic field as long as it you know abides by other standards 00:14:27.200 --> 00:14:33.440 - Including that the UDO requires that it not be in a set in the karst conservancy easement 00:14:33.440 --> 00:14:38.620 - And more specifically the way that the UDO requires that it not be in the karst conservancy easement 00:14:38.620 --> 00:14:40.320 - is because there cannot be any 00:14:40.320 --> 00:14:46.600 - Within the karst conservancy easement any man-made change of the land surface including removing 00:14:46.600 --> 00:14:50.960 - vegetative cover removal of trees excavating filling and grating 00:14:50.960 --> 00:14:52.960 - are 00:14:52.960 --> 00:14:57.400 - All land-disturbing activities which are prohibited as well as 00:14:57.400 --> 00:15:03.340 - Permanent or temporary structures or the placement of any fill material so if it's an existing septic 00:15:03.340 --> 00:15:04.600 - field you could argue 00:15:04.600 --> 00:15:06.680 - They're not doing any land disturbance, right? 00:15:06.680 --> 00:15:09.280 - They're just maintaining it they're just keeping it 00:15:09.280 --> 00:15:14.680 - But if any of the the pipes in there break or need to be replaced there's going to have to be some 00:15:14.680 --> 00:15:15.280 - excavation 00:15:15.280 --> 00:15:17.360 - So it just there there couldn't 00:15:18.520 --> 00:15:21.480 - Functionally, you couldn't have a septic field in there if it doesn't exist yet 00:15:21.480 --> 00:15:26.410 - Certainly you couldn't create one because creating one involves digging up the soil putting on the 00:15:26.410 --> 00:15:28.560 - piping and then putting backfill over it 00:15:28.560 --> 00:15:31.560 - so 00:15:31.560 --> 00:15:36.120 - They need a variance for having the septic field within the required 00:15:36.120 --> 00:15:41.360 - karst conservancy easement those are the two variances the 80s front setback and the 00:15:41.360 --> 00:15:44.200 - karst 00:15:44.200 --> 00:15:46.200 - geology standards 00:15:47.160 --> 00:15:50.240 - So we'll go to staffs recommending criteria and findings 00:15:50.240 --> 00:15:56.430 - What we have on the screen here are bullet points from them the complete proposed findings are in 00:15:56.430 --> 00:15:57.320 - your packet 00:15:57.320 --> 00:16:03.720 - And some of them are going to be the same as what we presented last month 00:16:03.720 --> 00:16:06.320 - Some of them are going to be a little different. I'll highlight those as we go along 00:16:06.320 --> 00:16:11.760 - So first of all the first criterion that the approval will not be injurious to public health safety 00:16:11.760 --> 00:16:14.480 - morals and the general welfare of the community 00:16:15.320 --> 00:16:20.620 - Same as last month staffs recommendation regarding the adu front setback is that it will not be injurious 00:16:20.620 --> 00:16:25.800 - The structure is stood in its current location for nearly a century with no known adverse impacts 00:16:25.800 --> 00:16:29.930 - And there's no reasonable expectation that the existing right-of-way will be widened in the near 00:16:29.930 --> 00:16:30.360 - future 00:16:30.360 --> 00:16:33.520 - for the karst geology standards 00:16:33.520 --> 00:16:40.280 - Based on the board's deliberations last month some new information from the petitioner staff is amending 00:16:40.280 --> 00:16:42.660 - our proposed finding for this one 00:16:43.640 --> 00:16:46.600 - Constructing a house within the required buffer will not be injurious 00:16:46.600 --> 00:16:49.520 - the large 00:16:49.520 --> 00:16:53.710 - size of the compound karst feature means that the proposed development is relatively far from the 00:16:53.710 --> 00:16:55.840 - parts of the karst feature that are 00:16:55.840 --> 00:17:02.080 - Experiencing some sidings and water infiltration as so shown in the provided karst survey report 00:17:02.080 --> 00:17:06.900 - There are no signs of soil piping or subsidence in the proposed footprint of the new house and no 00:17:06.900 --> 00:17:08.840 - impacts to existing drainage volume 00:17:08.840 --> 00:17:10.840 - To the sinkhole are expected 00:17:11.440 --> 00:17:17.180 - However, the location of the septic field in the karst feature is injurious to the public health 00:17:17.180 --> 00:17:22.420 - The Monroe County Health Department reviewed plans for the proposed septic system. However, city 00:17:22.420 --> 00:17:25.260 - Bloomington karst regulations are not part of their review 00:17:25.260 --> 00:17:30.960 - For the second criterion that it won't harm 00:17:30.960 --> 00:17:33.300 - neighboring 00:17:33.300 --> 00:17:35.680 - the use and value of neighboring properties 00:17:35.680 --> 00:17:39.240 - For the edu front setback. This is the same as 00:17:39.920 --> 00:17:41.920 - last month 00:17:41.920 --> 00:17:46.000 - Proposed finding is that will not substantially affect the use and value of neighboring properties 00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:50.960 - The structure is stood in its current location for nearly a century with no known adverse effects 00:17:50.960 --> 00:17:52.520 - for the karst geology 00:17:52.520 --> 00:17:53.960 - This is a little bit new 00:17:53.960 --> 00:17:57.630 - Constructing a house within the required buffer will not affect adjacent properties in a 00:17:57.630 --> 00:18:00.320 - substantially adverse manner 00:18:00.320 --> 00:18:04.680 - The proposed house development will not significantly 00:18:04.680 --> 00:18:09.600 - Increase the risk of water contamination or the potential drainage flow through the karst feature 00:18:10.600 --> 00:18:15.420 - However, the department cannot determine that inclusion of a septic field and all the future 00:18:15.420 --> 00:18:16.240 - maintenance that 00:18:16.240 --> 00:18:18.760 - That it requires 00:18:18.760 --> 00:18:22.890 - Will not affect adjacent properties. So in other words the department cannot determine that it will 00:18:22.890 --> 00:18:24.320 - not affect adjacent properties 00:18:24.320 --> 00:18:28.260 - There's a chance that it will affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner 00:18:28.260 --> 00:18:31.200 - going on to the third 00:18:31.200 --> 00:18:33.080 - criterion 00:18:33.080 --> 00:18:38.590 - Having to do with practical difficulty and peculiarity of the property. This is slightly amended 00:18:38.590 --> 00:18:39.080 - for the 00:18:39.360 --> 00:18:42.880 - Proposed findings are slightly amended from last month for the adu front setback 00:18:42.880 --> 00:18:47.560 - It is infeasible to move the existing structure because of its structural condition 00:18:47.560 --> 00:18:52.480 - Even if relocation to elsewhere on the property were feasible the limited buildable area on the 00:18:52.480 --> 00:18:54.320 - property due to the karst geology 00:18:54.320 --> 00:18:59.690 - In need for a septic system pose practical difficulties to find room for both a detached adu and a 00:18:59.690 --> 00:19:01.480 - primary dwelling structure 00:19:01.480 --> 00:19:06.520 - For the karst geology this is this is a new proposed finding 00:19:07.560 --> 00:19:13.400 - Even compared excuse me even compared to other properties adjacent to karst features 00:19:13.400 --> 00:19:16.360 - The karst standards is applied to this property are peculiar 00:19:16.360 --> 00:19:21.630 - Those peculiar areas include the distance between the individual sinkholes and the compound karst 00:19:21.630 --> 00:19:24.000 - feature results in a peculiarly large 00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:28.740 - Karst buffer the centers of the individual sinkholes and the compound karst feature are more than 00:19:28.740 --> 00:19:30.880 - 300 feet from each other and not even on 00:19:30.880 --> 00:19:32.320 - the petition property 00:19:32.320 --> 00:19:36.960 - The idea is required easement distance from the karst feature renders a significant portion of the 00:19:36.960 --> 00:19:39.640 - property unbuildable and the size and shape of the 00:19:39.640 --> 00:19:44.880 - Remaining buildable area outside required setbacks from karst and property lines further restricts 00:19:44.880 --> 00:19:47.120 - what can be built to a peculiar degree 00:19:47.120 --> 00:19:53.290 - The buildable area is roughly triangular making it difficult to locate features in the corners of 00:19:53.290 --> 00:19:53.880 - the area 00:19:53.880 --> 00:19:58.000 - The lack of sewer service to the property is another peculiar feature 00:19:58.600 --> 00:20:04.980 - These peculiar features will result in practical difficulties to find room for the existing adu and 00:20:04.980 --> 00:20:05.640 - new house 00:20:05.640 --> 00:20:12.430 - However, there's no evidence presented that the septic system cannot be located to the west of the 00:20:12.430 --> 00:20:13.060 - residences 00:20:13.060 --> 00:20:17.980 - Granting a variance for the proposed location of the house will relieve the obvious practical 00:20:17.980 --> 00:20:18.700 - difficulty 00:20:18.700 --> 00:20:23.740 - However, no information has been presented that indicates a practical difficulty 00:20:24.240 --> 00:20:28.820 - Requiring issuance of a variance to allow the location of the septic system in an environmentally 00:20:28.820 --> 00:20:30.600 - sensitive location on the property 00:20:30.600 --> 00:20:34.280 - So if you're following along you'll see that 00:20:34.280 --> 00:20:40.720 - based on these proposed findings the department recommends that the board adopt the findings and 00:20:40.720 --> 00:20:44.520 - approve the requested setback variance for the adu 00:20:44.520 --> 00:20:49.880 - approve the karst geology variance as it relates to the new primary structure and 00:20:50.380 --> 00:20:54.340 - Deny the karst geology variance as it relates to the septic system 00:20:54.340 --> 00:20:57.820 - With that we recommend two conditions the first 00:20:57.820 --> 00:21:02.340 - Just clarifying that the front setback variance is for the existing 00:21:02.340 --> 00:21:07.280 - 760 square foot residential structure in its current location only 00:21:07.280 --> 00:21:13.030 - If the existing structures move the new location must comply with the political applicable setback 00:21:13.030 --> 00:21:13.440 - standards 00:21:13.440 --> 00:21:17.340 - Any new additions new structures or replacement structures on the property must comply with 00:21:17.340 --> 00:21:18.940 - applicable setback standards 00:21:18.940 --> 00:21:23.480 - And then secondly the the second condition was printed 00:21:23.480 --> 00:21:30.190 - Incorrectly in the packet meaning that what's in the packet does not match with what staff actually 00:21:30.190 --> 00:21:31.920 - wants to recommend for this condition 00:21:31.920 --> 00:21:34.500 - So this is I'll read this full text here 00:21:34.500 --> 00:21:38.400 - This is our this is staffs recommended 00:21:38.400 --> 00:21:45.320 - Second condition on this approval prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance for any 00:21:45.320 --> 00:21:46.080 - building 00:21:46.480 --> 00:21:51.540 - construction on the property the property under shell record a karst conservancy easement in a form 00:21:51.540 --> 00:21:52.740 - approved by the Planning and Transportation 00:21:52.740 --> 00:21:58.520 - Department and in accordance with the ud o section 20 dot oh four dot oh three oh f 00:21:58.520 --> 00:22:03.360 - Period in the packet. There was some further language 00:22:03.360 --> 00:22:05.920 - about 00:22:05.920 --> 00:22:10.270 - Carving out so the septic system is not part of the karst conservancy easement if you were 00:22:10.270 --> 00:22:11.160 - interested in 00:22:11.160 --> 00:22:16.000 - approving a variance to allow the septic system to be in 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:19.360 - In the karst buffer you might want to add that language back 00:22:19.360 --> 00:22:23.200 - But because staff is recommending denial of that portion of it 00:22:23.200 --> 00:22:27.160 - We recommend taking off that other language and just ending it as it's shown here 00:22:27.160 --> 00:22:29.760 - with that 00:22:29.760 --> 00:22:31.760 - That's the staff report. Thank you 00:22:31.760 --> 00:22:37.690 - We have a representative from the petitioner or the petitioner or a representative, please come 00:22:37.690 --> 00:22:38.060 - forward 00:22:38.060 --> 00:22:42.600 - It will only be one person speaking you we've done this before just you 00:22:42.840 --> 00:22:44.840 - Okay 00:22:44.840 --> 00:22:49.880 - Well go ahead and come forward I'll go ahead and swear you in 00:22:49.880 --> 00:22:52.960 - Go ahead and sign in 00:22:52.960 --> 00:22:56.400 - What will happen here is the petitioner will have 20 minutes to speak 00:22:56.400 --> 00:23:01.530 - Whatever time is not used at the initial presentation will be reserved for later before votes taken 00:23:01.530 --> 00:23:02.240 - by the board 00:23:02.240 --> 00:23:07.800 - And when you're ready you can give us your first and last name 00:23:10.320 --> 00:23:15.390 - I'm Patrick Riggs and do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the 00:23:15.390 --> 00:23:16.160 - whole truth and nothing 00:23:16.160 --> 00:23:19.520 - But the truth I do okay again up to 20 minutes 00:23:19.520 --> 00:23:23.840 - And if someone else needs to come forward, we'll stop the timer swear them in and then continue. 00:23:23.840 --> 00:23:24.620 - Thank you 00:23:24.620 --> 00:23:28.120 - Okay, I appreciate your time 00:23:28.120 --> 00:23:32.590 - Good evening members of the board. My name is Patrick Riggs and I appreciate the opportunity to 00:23:32.590 --> 00:23:33.720 - speak again this evening 00:23:34.960 --> 00:23:39.940 - First I would like to thank the city staff for their thoughtful review and recommending approval of 00:23:39.940 --> 00:23:41.040 - the setback variance 00:23:41.040 --> 00:23:46.800 - I do truly appreciate the recognition of preserving and repurposing the existing structure 00:23:46.800 --> 00:23:49.760 - I believe it adds value to both the property and the neighborhood 00:23:49.760 --> 00:23:55.960 - Tonight I will focus solely on the second variance the karst variance as it relates to the septic 00:23:55.960 --> 00:23:57.800 - system since that seems to be the 00:23:57.800 --> 00:23:59.800 - only resolved unresolved issue 00:24:01.360 --> 00:24:06.600 - To clarify the septic system is not new it has served the existing home for years 00:24:06.600 --> 00:24:14.600 - The septic system in the provided site plan is in the same exact general location as the existing 00:24:14.600 --> 00:24:15.240 - system 00:24:15.240 --> 00:24:22.960 - While the existing septic system was undocumented before my ownership. I have since located and 00:24:22.960 --> 00:24:24.860 - documented the system location 00:24:24.860 --> 00:24:27.920 - Including adding a clean out to the tank 00:24:28.840 --> 00:24:34.440 - For maintenance, I have photos available if needed for that that weren't included with the packet 00:24:34.440 --> 00:24:42.300 - The Monroe County Health Department has reviewed the system and issued the repair permit 00:24:42.300 --> 00:24:48.360 - Allowing a modest expansion to accommodate the new residents. This permit was granted based on the 00:24:48.360 --> 00:24:50.640 - field's existing location and function 00:24:50.640 --> 00:24:53.080 - This is a repair permit not a new permit 00:24:54.280 --> 00:24:59.400 - The word the use of the word proposed on the site plan simply reflects 00:24:59.400 --> 00:25:04.560 - How my septic installer labeled the permitted work not an indication of new construction? 00:25:04.560 --> 00:25:08.960 - there is no new land disturbance proposed in the conservancy area and 00:25:08.960 --> 00:25:14.800 - The submitted hydrogeology report confirms that the septic field areas show no signs of karst 00:25:14.800 --> 00:25:17.120 - activity as previously stated 00:25:17.120 --> 00:25:21.000 - No signs of subsidence infiltration or soil piping 00:25:22.520 --> 00:25:27.560 - What is important to emphasize is that the septic permit is already permitted by the authorities 00:25:27.560 --> 00:25:29.400 - responsible for the septic systems 00:25:29.400 --> 00:25:33.420 - It's been reviewed approved and authorized by the county 00:25:33.420 --> 00:25:39.100 - Which applies the Indiana Administrative Code governing these systems the city staff report 00:25:39.100 --> 00:25:42.040 - acknowledges that the city staff are not trained to interpret this 00:25:42.040 --> 00:25:47.560 - This exact same code yet the concerns that were raised about the septic field appear to be 00:25:49.520 --> 00:25:55.840 - Relying on future maintenance needs rather than any current violation or hazard 00:25:55.840 --> 00:26:02.730 - And this brings me to the heart of the issue I do believe that this variance request is not about a 00:26:02.730 --> 00:26:03.840 - clear violation 00:26:03.840 --> 00:26:09.680 - I believe this instead reflects a complex overlap between different regulatory agencies. I 00:26:09.680 --> 00:26:13.040 - Fully support thoughtful environmental review 00:26:13.160 --> 00:26:18.010 - but I also believe homeowners should not be placed in a difficult position due to the differing 00:26:18.010 --> 00:26:19.600 - interpretations between the 00:26:19.600 --> 00:26:22.160 - between departments 00:26:22.160 --> 00:26:25.480 - Especially when they followed all the rules and received proper permits and good faith 00:26:25.480 --> 00:26:31.800 - One additional item I didn't dress until I saw on the board up here 00:26:31.800 --> 00:26:36.160 - With the addition of the fact that the septic system could be placed to the west of the house 00:26:36.160 --> 00:26:39.320 - that was actually already addressed and 00:26:40.120 --> 00:26:45.060 - Well, I was told that could not happen because the septic field has to run horizontally across the 00:26:45.060 --> 00:26:46.380 - slope of the lot 00:26:46.380 --> 00:26:50.840 - It can't run vertically down the slope. So that does make it impossible to put it to the west of 00:26:50.840 --> 00:26:51.580 - the structure 00:26:51.580 --> 00:26:58.150 - If the board still has concerns I am indeed open to reasonable conditions to limit future 00:26:58.150 --> 00:26:59.220 - disturbance 00:26:59.220 --> 00:27:02.400 - for repairs or maintenance 00:27:02.400 --> 00:27:09.400 - Even such as requiring hand tools or recording the cars conservancy easement that was mentioned 00:27:10.320 --> 00:27:15.800 - I've made every effort to be collaborative and solution oriented throughout this process 00:27:15.800 --> 00:27:21.130 - The site has been carefully designed professionally reviewed and adjusted multiple times to align 00:27:21.130 --> 00:27:22.660 - with the standards in place 00:27:22.660 --> 00:27:27.370 - I respectfully asked the board to approve the car's variance and allow this project to move forward 00:27:27.370 --> 00:27:28.280 - in a responsible 00:27:28.280 --> 00:27:33.060 - Environmentally environmentally respectful manner. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your 00:27:33.060 --> 00:27:34.220 - service to the community 00:27:37.080 --> 00:27:41.760 - Withhold the remainder of the 15 minutes and 50 seconds should you need it later? 00:27:41.760 --> 00:27:47.620 - and I'm assuming that your expert we could call on them to answer questions if we 00:27:47.620 --> 00:27:50.480 - Okay. Thank you 00:27:50.480 --> 00:27:59.240 - From that questions from the board to the staff or to the petitioner or to the petitioners expert 00:28:06.120 --> 00:28:08.420 - My question is for Gabriel so 00:28:08.420 --> 00:28:15.000 - When you gave your report you weren't sure that the septic was 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:22.240 - Old or I mean existing or not, correct? You didn't know you didn't know if he was applying for a 00:28:22.240 --> 00:28:22.920 - new septic 00:28:22.920 --> 00:28:28.120 - Location or if it will already exist, correct? 00:28:31.400 --> 00:28:37.400 - From mr. Riggs that it is existing. It is existing. Does that make any difference on your 00:28:37.400 --> 00:28:40.600 - recommendation 00:28:40.600 --> 00:28:44.960 - It does not change the staff recommendation 00:28:44.960 --> 00:28:49.700 - Well, first of all, it doesn't change this the standards about it 00:28:49.700 --> 00:28:54.280 - That is to say that for the septic system 00:28:54.280 --> 00:28:56.920 - Well, let's see 00:28:56.920 --> 00:29:03.560 - Very very very very very technically it could remain there and have a car's conservancy easement on 00:29:03.560 --> 00:29:03.780 - it 00:29:03.780 --> 00:29:09.000 - that seems like a bad outcome as staff I 00:29:09.000 --> 00:29:14.760 - value that as a bad outcome because if there's a car's conservancy easement on it and 00:29:14.760 --> 00:29:19.680 - He ever needs to go and repair it that would be violating the car's conservancy easement 00:29:19.680 --> 00:29:25.440 - It would seem like a bad situation to set up something where normal maintenance of an important 00:29:26.120 --> 00:29:28.660 - Piece of equipment on his property 00:29:28.660 --> 00:29:33.120 - Requires violating an easement 00:29:33.120 --> 00:29:39.820 - So very very technically speaking. It's already there. It can continue to be there, but that seems 00:29:39.820 --> 00:29:41.800 - like a that seems like a bad outcome 00:29:41.800 --> 00:29:45.360 - so 00:29:45.360 --> 00:29:48.880 - Staffs recommendation is 00:29:48.880 --> 00:29:53.680 - That 00:29:53.920 --> 00:29:56.640 - That the board deny the variance for 00:29:56.640 --> 00:30:01.720 - To have that septic field there and it possibly 00:30:01.720 --> 00:30:10.980 - Possibly would be prudent to add a condition that the septic system be moved 00:30:10.980 --> 00:30:15.040 - The 00:30:15.040 --> 00:30:21.680 - Petitioner has stated that there is not other locations on the property 00:30:23.280 --> 00:30:25.280 - So that may be a difficulty. I 00:30:25.280 --> 00:30:33.000 - Just want to be clear that's is if it if that were this 00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:39.200 - We can't really add that as a staff position because it was not in the 00:30:39.200 --> 00:30:42.760 - Packet, this is what you're saying that you would suggest now 00:30:42.760 --> 00:30:46.280 - Correct. I mean it would have to be a motion by one of you. Yes 00:30:46.280 --> 00:30:49.400 - Exactly, we would have to introduce that 00:30:50.000 --> 00:30:54.620 - Correct, not part of this. Thank you. I just want to make sure I'm clear on that any other 00:30:54.620 --> 00:30:56.140 - questions for the petitioner or 00:30:56.140 --> 00:30:58.960 - to the staff 00:30:58.960 --> 00:31:07.330 - But let me address this you will have 15 minutes and 50 seconds if we don't ask a question of you 00:31:07.330 --> 00:31:08.340 - the petitioner 00:31:08.340 --> 00:31:12.400 - Hold that and then please that's when we want you to address it 00:31:12.400 --> 00:31:17.790 - But sometimes we'll circle back during this questioning period and ask you to address it and then 00:31:17.790 --> 00:31:19.660 - that doesn't come out of your 15 minutes 00:31:19.740 --> 00:31:23.820 - Okay, just so you know that you'll have plenty of opportunity. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead Tim 00:31:23.820 --> 00:31:27.340 - The discrepancy seems to be between 00:31:27.340 --> 00:31:31.820 - Planning recommendation and in the Monroe County Health Department 00:31:31.820 --> 00:31:37.620 - So the fact that this was a renewal you knew we knew it was not new. It was a renewal 00:31:37.620 --> 00:31:43.650 - So that interpret that in terms means it's already there existing. So that's a given so that was 00:31:43.650 --> 00:31:44.260 - factual 00:31:44.260 --> 00:31:46.780 - December 5th of 2024 so 00:31:48.100 --> 00:31:50.100 - How can we override 00:31:50.100 --> 00:31:57.390 - The approval of a renewal on a permit by the health department this way when it's already said and 00:31:57.390 --> 00:31:57.820 - done 00:31:57.820 --> 00:32:06.530 - That's yes, yeah, so so as I think the way that mr. Riggs put it this is a complex overlap between 00:32:06.530 --> 00:32:07.440 - different 00:32:07.440 --> 00:32:10.220 - Regulating bodies. I think that's a good way to describe it 00:32:10.220 --> 00:32:13.860 - There are all kinds of cases where different people have different rules 00:32:14.500 --> 00:32:20.120 - And unless there's a specific exception written in the rules for that situation. You got to abide 00:32:20.120 --> 00:32:20.660 - by both 00:32:20.660 --> 00:32:26.940 - That that's just generally how it works when there's when there's different kinds of regulations 00:32:26.940 --> 00:32:28.700 - that apply in a particular situation 00:32:28.700 --> 00:32:31.080 - so in this situation in this situation, you need a 00:32:31.080 --> 00:32:37.580 - Septic permit from the health department and you need to abide by car's geology standards 00:32:37.580 --> 00:32:39.780 - and 00:32:39.780 --> 00:32:42.140 - he's done one of them which is get the 00:32:42.900 --> 00:32:48.490 - The permit from the County Board of Health and then he also needs to abide by car's geology 00:32:48.490 --> 00:32:49.180 - standards 00:32:49.180 --> 00:32:54.270 - One of the ways to abide by car's geology standards would be to move the septic system to be out of 00:32:54.270 --> 00:32:54.800 - the cars 00:32:54.800 --> 00:33:00.500 - The cars buffer another way to comply with the car's geology standards would be to receive a 00:33:00.500 --> 00:33:01.220 - variance 00:33:01.220 --> 00:33:03.740 - So that's one of the reasons he's here tonight 00:33:03.740 --> 00:33:07.290 - So there's generally when there's when there's multiple regulations that apply you got to meet them 00:33:07.290 --> 00:33:07.540 - all 00:33:07.540 --> 00:33:12.580 - sure, I just find it interesting that the health department who's in charge of 00:33:13.060 --> 00:33:18.020 - Approving these systems wouldn't have any clue as to what cars features are in there, but you're 00:33:18.020 --> 00:33:19.420 - saying that's the case 00:33:19.420 --> 00:33:22.020 - They don't have any clue about the cars features 00:33:22.020 --> 00:33:26.300 - I wish I had enough insight into their process to be able to know whether or not they you know to 00:33:26.300 --> 00:33:27.100 - even be able to 00:33:27.100 --> 00:33:30.900 - Say that they missed it because I don't know and maybe maybe they know fully well about it and 00:33:30.900 --> 00:33:31.340 - there's 00:33:31.340 --> 00:33:36.400 - Reasons in their regulations that that's okay. I actually don't have insight into that. Thank you. 00:33:36.400 --> 00:33:36.540 - I 00:33:36.540 --> 00:33:41.480 - Would like to explore the idea of the difficulty 00:33:42.320 --> 00:33:43.880 - so 00:33:43.880 --> 00:33:49.160 - As per and this is this question is for the petitioner. So you 00:33:49.160 --> 00:33:51.920 - you say that 00:33:51.920 --> 00:33:58.800 - You have explored the idea of moving the septic to the west, but it's not possible to do so 00:33:58.800 --> 00:34:00.760 - Go ahead 00:34:00.760 --> 00:34:06.040 - due to the setback requirements from the property lines and the roads and 00:34:06.360 --> 00:34:11.520 - The fact that the septic field has to be horizontal across the slope lot. There's simply not enough 00:34:11.520 --> 00:34:13.520 - square footage to place the home 00:34:13.520 --> 00:34:16.000 - Or the septic system to the west of the existing structure 00:34:16.000 --> 00:34:23.840 - Okay, so that so that has been explored already it has and we know that this lot is a very is a 00:34:23.840 --> 00:34:25.720 - peculiar lot that it has 00:34:25.720 --> 00:34:29.520 - Enormous karst feature 00:34:29.520 --> 00:34:35.400 - Represented in the portion the the small area for a buildable area is small enough 00:34:36.080 --> 00:34:38.080 - To accommodate what you're trying to do, correct? 00:34:38.080 --> 00:34:44.440 - Correct. Okay, so I'm just trying to figure it out. So that is a peculiar a 00:34:44.440 --> 00:34:48.320 - peculiarity of this lot and also a difficulty I 00:34:48.320 --> 00:34:51.920 - Would agree. Okay. Thank you 00:34:51.920 --> 00:34:59.400 - Can you 00:34:59.400 --> 00:35:05.100 - Pull back up the staff report and clarify for me what the changed language was 00:35:05.100 --> 00:35:07.100 - of 00:35:07.100 --> 00:35:15.340 - The condition or of the findings or both both you you reference that what we had in the published 00:35:15.340 --> 00:35:21.220 - Materials before the meeting. Yeah, sure what you presented tonight. Yes 00:35:21.220 --> 00:35:23.220 - I 00:35:23.220 --> 00:35:43.060 - Hold on while we make this up as we go on so I'm gonna share 00:35:43.060 --> 00:35:49.500 - I mean I could say on condition on the 00:35:50.180 --> 00:35:55.780 - Condition the recommendation condition to the only change was a period after the code 00:35:55.780 --> 00:36:01.900 - Udo section 20.04. It's a little more than that. Um, so I thought you said you struck the remainder 00:36:01.900 --> 00:36:02.660 - of it the rest of it 00:36:02.660 --> 00:36:06.770 - Yes, there's struck struck the remainder. Yes. That's why I just said sorry. Go ahead and look at 00:36:06.770 --> 00:36:07.000 - that 00:36:07.000 --> 00:36:12.310 - I'll address that section to so section 2 John. That's the only change on that on that second 00:36:12.310 --> 00:36:14.240 - condition was a period after that 00:36:14.240 --> 00:36:19.600 - Everything else was struck and then the suggestion from Gabriel was that if we were 00:36:20.400 --> 00:36:22.040 - going to 00:36:22.040 --> 00:36:24.540 - Approve that the language that follows 00:36:24.540 --> 00:36:30.800 - That code might be something they would recommend for us to include 00:36:30.800 --> 00:36:34.320 - But that that doesn't answer all your question 00:36:34.320 --> 00:36:42.100 - That that is the question that I had I was just trying to see what was different 00:36:42.100 --> 00:36:44.920 - So you just took the last? 00:36:45.520 --> 00:36:50.480 - three lines essentially for starting with the word with with the following modifications 00:36:50.480 --> 00:36:55.630 - then the other thing I just need some clarification on because I found it a little confusing is 00:36:55.630 --> 00:36:56.120 - that 00:36:56.120 --> 00:37:01.400 - The rationale for 00:37:01.400 --> 00:37:07.580 - Not putting accounts or a conservation easement on the existing 00:37:07.580 --> 00:37:12.240 - site of the septic is that they would 00:37:13.760 --> 00:37:18.840 - violate that easement if they had to do repairs, correct 00:37:18.840 --> 00:37:23.720 - But we're recommending 00:37:23.720 --> 00:37:32.360 - Deceptive system system already exists in that location 00:37:32.360 --> 00:37:38.040 - So yeah, I don't see why we would want to put an easement 00:37:38.040 --> 00:37:41.000 - over that side if 00:37:41.440 --> 00:37:46.590 - There's ever the potential to have to repair it even if they didn't even move forward with this 00:37:46.590 --> 00:37:47.160 - project 00:37:47.160 --> 00:37:53.600 - Yes, so to get to what you're asking about 00:37:53.600 --> 00:37:58.520 - This is 00:37:58.520 --> 00:38:01.800 - So I just created this 00:38:01.800 --> 00:38:06.810 - With the following conditions the first condition is the same in the staff report and we're 00:38:06.810 --> 00:38:08.460 - recommending now the second condition 00:38:08.760 --> 00:38:13.530 - so it begins the same prior to issues of a certificate of zoning compliance for any building 00:38:13.530 --> 00:38:16.240 - construction on the property the property owner shall record a 00:38:16.240 --> 00:38:19.870 - car's conservancy easement in a form approved by the planning and transportation department and in 00:38:19.870 --> 00:38:23.520 - accordance with uds section 20.04.0 30f and 00:38:23.520 --> 00:38:30.520 - Staff is recommending period ending there. What was in the staff report and what you 00:38:30.520 --> 00:38:34.040 - What you may wish to consider if you may wish to consider? 00:38:34.040 --> 00:38:37.120 - approving the septic field 00:38:37.640 --> 00:38:39.600 - there is 00:38:39.600 --> 00:38:43.960 - With the following modifications regarding the easement location in other words 00:38:43.960 --> 00:38:48.040 - We're modifying what would otherwise be required in the udl for the easement location 00:38:48.040 --> 00:38:51.480 - the easement shall cover all land on the lot that is both a 00:38:51.480 --> 00:38:54.800 - five feet beyond the outer dimensions 00:38:54.800 --> 00:39:01.020 - Spelling correctly of the septic field as shown on the seminet site plan and be either less than 00:39:01.520 --> 00:39:07.810 - 866 feet in elevation or within 25 feet horizontally from the 866 foot contour line so what we get 00:39:07.810 --> 00:39:08.520 - there is that the b 00:39:08.520 --> 00:39:11.220 - Part is what would ordinarily be required by the udl 00:39:11.220 --> 00:39:17.560 - The a part is except around the septic field if that makes sense 00:39:17.560 --> 00:39:22.840 - Do you have a diagram of that I mean 00:39:22.840 --> 00:39:24.840 - I think I've fallen 00:39:24.840 --> 00:39:39.720 - You're gonna want the contour map, it's another question. Yeah, sorry 00:39:39.720 --> 00:39:46.320 - So based on everything we heard from the petitioner and we've read 00:39:46.320 --> 00:39:49.240 - You're still saying that 00:39:49.240 --> 00:39:51.400 - in the 00:39:51.400 --> 00:39:56.940 - Proposed findings under a karst geology that there has been no evidence presented 00:39:56.940 --> 00:40:04.580 - That the septic system cannot be located to the west of the residences. Is that the staff's current 00:40:04.580 --> 00:40:05.280 - position? 00:40:05.280 --> 00:40:10.640 - Well, no because there has been evidence presented 00:40:10.640 --> 00:40:13.360 - so 00:40:13.360 --> 00:40:18.280 - We're going to need to amend the findings or staff would recommend some of them instead of findings 00:40:18.280 --> 00:40:19.040 - no matter what? 00:40:20.120 --> 00:40:25.840 - if we if we get to that point we might on the fly staff would recommend something on the fly to 00:40:25.840 --> 00:40:27.960 - Say that 00:40:27.960 --> 00:40:28.800 - You know 00:40:28.800 --> 00:40:31.880 - We think there it still can be to the west or something like that 00:40:31.880 --> 00:40:37.880 - If you want to make a motion for it for denial, but one way or another we're gonna have one way or 00:40:37.880 --> 00:40:39.260 - another staff would recommend 00:40:39.260 --> 00:40:41.960 - amending those findings a little bit 00:40:41.960 --> 00:40:46.160 - Depending on how the board wants to wants to move 00:40:46.160 --> 00:40:52.660 - Got it. Yeah, we won't get ahead of ourselves, but I'd like to hear from the hydrologist 00:40:52.660 --> 00:40:58.000 - Okay, this is a question for the hydrologist if you could come forward 00:40:58.000 --> 00:41:02.150 - I need you to sign in though for me, please and then when you're done signing and give me your 00:41:02.150 --> 00:41:03.040 - first and last name 00:41:03.040 --> 00:41:13.570 - Jason Crowthy and do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole 00:41:13.570 --> 00:41:14.920 - truth and nothing but the truth I 00:41:15.400 --> 00:41:20.420 - Do and then what I'm going to just suggest is that you address this question in that one that you 00:41:20.420 --> 00:41:21.040 - wanted to talk about 00:41:21.040 --> 00:41:23.720 - Say that for the follow-up. Okay. Thank you 00:41:23.720 --> 00:41:29.740 - So my question is in your expert opinion of what you've looked at 00:41:29.740 --> 00:41:34.320 - Do you see any concerns with the existing? 00:41:34.320 --> 00:41:42.060 - Septic in the location in the existing location. I didn't observe anything in the field to give me 00:41:42.060 --> 00:41:43.000 - any concern 00:41:43.420 --> 00:41:45.420 - my biggest concern to 00:41:45.420 --> 00:41:49.940 - To the septic would be moving it or putting a new one 00:41:49.940 --> 00:41:56.900 - Just because the biggest impacts to water quality and karst areas would be during like land 00:41:56.900 --> 00:41:57.600 - disturbance 00:41:57.600 --> 00:42:03.080 - So if you're digging up a new site for the septic to me, that's a bigger concern than 00:42:03.080 --> 00:42:08.600 - Using the existing one if that makes sense and do you see any concerns with? 00:42:08.600 --> 00:42:11.680 - possible maintenance 00:42:12.720 --> 00:42:13.920 - Trucks 00:42:13.920 --> 00:42:15.560 - Going by I you know 00:42:15.560 --> 00:42:16.200 - I mean 00:42:16.200 --> 00:42:20.320 - I mean if you're if you're if you're looking at it where it currently is versus on the west side it 00:42:20.320 --> 00:42:20.840 - again 00:42:20.840 --> 00:42:25.440 - It's it's a little bit arbitrary as far as how it would impact the sinkhole 00:42:25.440 --> 00:42:31.540 - I mean, it's I don't see it being any different as far as if you'd have to provide maintenance to 00:42:31.540 --> 00:42:32.520 - the west or to 00:42:32.520 --> 00:42:34.200 - Where it currently is? 00:42:34.200 --> 00:42:36.520 - Neither one gives me a particular concern 00:42:36.520 --> 00:42:38.520 - I 00:42:38.520 --> 00:42:50.480 - Have a question about there's multiple mentions of future effects 00:42:50.480 --> 00:42:55.120 - And it's not just about the septic it's about future properties as well 00:42:55.120 --> 00:42:59.200 - Can you explain that a little bit more when it says like there's a chance for? 00:42:59.200 --> 00:43:02.880 - adjacent properties to be effective 00:43:04.480 --> 00:43:07.560 - Is that for the petitioner for the staff, I'm sorry staff, sorry 00:43:07.560 --> 00:43:13.520 - the findings so so, you know one of the one of the three criteria for 00:43:13.520 --> 00:43:17.360 - For variances that it won't harm adjacent properties 00:43:17.360 --> 00:43:21.980 - so we necessarily have to be thinking about impacts energy some properties and the proposed finding 00:43:21.980 --> 00:43:22.580 - is that 00:43:22.580 --> 00:43:29.040 - The inclusion of the septic field and all feature maintenance required 00:43:31.520 --> 00:43:35.720 - May affect adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner meaning that 00:43:35.720 --> 00:43:44.160 - It it could increase the risk of water contamination and increase the potential drainage flow 00:43:44.160 --> 00:43:49.800 - Through the cars feature, let me let me amend that 00:43:49.800 --> 00:43:57.010 - So the language in the proposed finding is a little vague but to explain what we're trying to get 00:43:57.010 --> 00:43:57.320 - at 00:43:59.600 --> 00:44:05.020 - The petitioner statement and staff sees no reason to disagree that that all the drainage is going 00:44:05.020 --> 00:44:06.520 - toward the cars feature anyway 00:44:06.520 --> 00:44:09.880 - That's not changing. So it's not and adding this 00:44:09.880 --> 00:44:15.720 - No, I'm thinking on the fly I apologize 00:44:15.720 --> 00:44:22.120 - It will the septic system compared to if there were the opportunity for sewer which was not but it 00:44:22.120 --> 00:44:22.820 - would increase 00:44:22.820 --> 00:44:26.400 - drainage flow through there because that's the the the 00:44:26.760 --> 00:44:32.240 - Set the set the septic water is going to the I mean it's going through the ground 00:44:32.240 --> 00:44:34.240 - it's filtering through the septic system and all that and 00:44:34.240 --> 00:44:39.920 - But there there's water that is there's more water that's going into the cars feature 00:44:39.920 --> 00:44:43.360 - Then would be if there was if there was zero septic system whatsoever 00:44:43.360 --> 00:44:48.440 - so there's that more water means that there's more chance for the piping for 00:44:48.440 --> 00:44:55.190 - For to create the the fissures to create subsidence. I mean, that's you know, how cars features 00:44:55.190 --> 00:44:55.440 - work 00:44:55.480 --> 00:44:59.160 - So some more water means more subsidence potentially in the future 00:44:59.160 --> 00:45:05.520 - And then the other thing is the water quality. So septic systems are designed so that at the end 00:45:05.520 --> 00:45:11.760 - It's as you know, clean enough. It's it's not polluting the water. That's that's that's how they 00:45:11.760 --> 00:45:12.940 - that's their function 00:45:12.940 --> 00:45:15.600 - But they do fail that that can happen 00:45:15.600 --> 00:45:22.760 - And so that's a potential adverse impact of having that septic system in the car 00:45:22.760 --> 00:45:25.880 - So that's the staff recommendation about those two things 00:45:25.880 --> 00:45:30.160 - Put up the 00:45:30.160 --> 00:45:32.900 - overview of the page 14 proposed 00:45:32.900 --> 00:45:36.180 - the existing home in the proposed residence worry 00:45:36.180 --> 00:45:39.520 - This is for the for Patrick the petitioner 00:45:39.520 --> 00:45:45.300 - I just I want to be just really really clear because we it's been said kind of back and forth, but 00:45:45.300 --> 00:45:45.540 - I 00:45:45.540 --> 00:45:48.240 - just want to go from 00:45:48.240 --> 00:45:52.260 - This page correct that one. Yes, is it possible zoom in just to the 00:45:52.460 --> 00:45:53.660 - from 00:45:53.660 --> 00:45:55.660 - the septic field 00:45:55.660 --> 00:45:58.140 - to the road 00:45:58.140 --> 00:46:00.140 - And just go right from there 00:46:00.140 --> 00:46:05.060 - Okay, I just want to be sure working from the roadway from the existing house Patrick. So 00:46:05.060 --> 00:46:11.700 - Right behind the existing home. There's the what's called the proposed new septic tank 00:46:11.700 --> 00:46:16.460 - Now I want you were talking about some things are already there some things aren't so I just want 00:46:16.460 --> 00:46:17.780 - to make sure that I've got 00:46:17.780 --> 00:46:20.260 - It clear in my head. Does that tank currently exist? 00:46:20.860 --> 00:46:26.970 - Thank you. Then the next one to its left says proposed that would be for the new ADU. That would be 00:46:26.970 --> 00:46:27.460 - a new one 00:46:27.460 --> 00:46:33.220 - Okay, and then further is the outline for the proposed septic field that would be nude 00:46:33.220 --> 00:46:38.080 - That is where no that's the same general location as the field for the existing tank. Okay 00:46:38.080 --> 00:46:42.980 - So the reason I just want to make sure that we're all clear and looking at it while we're talking 00:46:42.980 --> 00:46:43.620 - about it 00:46:43.620 --> 00:46:46.060 - but one thing that John said did kind of 00:46:47.380 --> 00:46:51.810 - Concerning that if we just kind of abandon that field, let's say that that's what happens abandon 00:46:51.810 --> 00:46:51.940 - it 00:46:51.940 --> 00:46:57.440 - 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 00:46:57.440 --> 00:46:58.260 - regular basis 00:46:58.260 --> 00:46:59.860 - nor maintained 00:46:59.860 --> 00:47:01.980 - so we could end up so 00:47:01.980 --> 00:47:10.020 - For you Patrick we could end up having a problem with that field if it's not maintained and 00:47:10.020 --> 00:47:15.740 - Used if we just let it go and left it alone and make try to do something else on that property 00:47:16.740 --> 00:47:21.220 - It benefits you to make sure that it's being used and maintained, right? I 00:47:21.220 --> 00:47:26.320 - Would believe so if I understand your less likely that there would be an unaddressed problem that 00:47:26.320 --> 00:47:27.420 - no one would notice 00:47:27.420 --> 00:47:32.170 - Down the road that would that could lead to adverse effects on the property and the properties 00:47:32.170 --> 00:47:32.780 - adjacent 00:47:32.780 --> 00:47:39.190 - Korea if we abandoned it in your yes in Europe correct, okay, and and Gabriel do you feel the same 00:47:39.190 --> 00:47:39.900 - way or? 00:47:39.900 --> 00:47:45.380 - If it were simply abandoned, yeah, I know I'm using that I'm using that as an extreme 00:47:45.940 --> 00:47:47.940 - I mean I 00:47:47.940 --> 00:47:50.340 - May be I don't understand enough about subject systems 00:47:50.340 --> 00:47:54.380 - But I don't think that would be a concern because there wouldn't be there wouldn't be water 00:47:54.380 --> 00:47:58.460 - There wouldn't be sewage flowing into it. So you just it would just be pipes in the ground 00:47:58.460 --> 00:48:04.120 - I mean, it's it effectively is trash at that point in the ground, but it's trash. That's not 00:48:04.120 --> 00:48:05.660 - particularly harmful 00:48:05.660 --> 00:48:11.050 - Okay, so you'd be the opinion there probably be no adverse effects if it was if it were in fact 00:48:11.050 --> 00:48:11.780 - abandoned 00:48:11.900 --> 00:48:17.450 - Yes with the caveat that I'm not a specialist in subject. Okay, that's all I wanted to hear. Thank 00:48:17.450 --> 00:48:17.660 - you 00:48:17.660 --> 00:48:28.020 - Questions for the petitioner staff are there any other questions from the board concerning 00:48:28.020 --> 00:48:30.280 - procedural issues 00:48:30.280 --> 00:48:35.980 - Anything like that? Okay, if not, it's going to if you'll have see Patrick. We're gonna go to the 00:48:35.980 --> 00:48:37.660 - public for comment 00:48:37.700 --> 00:48:42.740 - Is there anyone either online who would like to make comment or anyone in chambers who would like 00:48:42.740 --> 00:48:44.500 - to come forward and speak to? 00:48:44.500 --> 00:48:46.500 - this petition 00:48:46.500 --> 00:48:50.620 - None online 00:48:50.620 --> 00:48:53.700 - All right 00:48:53.700 --> 00:48:57.340 - All right with that then back to Patrick or to your 00:48:57.340 --> 00:49:01.780 - Expert you do have 15 minutes and 50 seconds if you want to address anything 00:49:01.780 --> 00:49:06.340 - That came up to this point you have that time and you can do that now 00:49:06.340 --> 00:49:08.340 - I 00:49:08.340 --> 00:49:17.920 - Don't have anything else to add, but I would just like to say that Jason Kroethe my professional 00:49:17.920 --> 00:49:19.300 - did have to step out for a 00:49:19.300 --> 00:49:23.860 - Honor thing for his daughter at school, so that's 00:49:23.860 --> 00:49:29.410 - So if he had something else he wanted to say I was personally unaware of what it was so I can't 00:49:29.410 --> 00:49:30.160 - speak for him 00:49:30.160 --> 00:49:32.260 - Okay, thank you. Thank you 00:49:32.260 --> 00:49:35.540 - It's back to the board for action 00:49:35.620 --> 00:49:38.760 - Further discussion or I will accept a motion. I 00:49:38.760 --> 00:49:59.460 - Mean I'd like to figure out a way to get an approval for the septic because I think the expert the 00:49:59.460 --> 00:50:00.780 - geologist who spoke is 00:50:01.380 --> 00:50:07.920 - The bottom line they know the most more than staff more than us and they're saying it's neither 00:50:07.920 --> 00:50:08.340 - here nor there 00:50:08.340 --> 00:50:12.220 - Whether we make them put it to the West which they can't or if it stays where it is 00:50:12.220 --> 00:50:17.100 - And it's actually worse if we try to remove the system. So 00:50:17.100 --> 00:50:22.820 - That's my line of thinking. I think this is a great plan for a great house. They're getting the setbacks 00:50:22.820 --> 00:50:25.260 - We need more houses like this. So 00:50:25.260 --> 00:50:27.700 - That's that's where I'm at 00:50:29.420 --> 00:50:34.020 - Any further comments or discussion otherwise we we seek a motion 00:50:34.020 --> 00:50:38.260 - So we 00:50:38.260 --> 00:50:40.780 - If we want to 00:50:40.780 --> 00:50:46.660 - As part of the motion if we go in Tim's direction, we'll have to amend a 00:50:46.660 --> 00:50:49.820 - couple of the findings 00:50:49.820 --> 00:50:53.280 - So I would propose the following 00:50:53.280 --> 00:50:57.020 - That we 00:50:57.100 --> 00:51:03.180 - The changes I'm not sure how to put this in the form of motion, but in the proposed findings 00:51:03.180 --> 00:51:05.500 - number one under cars 00:51:05.500 --> 00:51:11.640 - Geology in the second to the last sentence 00:51:11.640 --> 00:51:17.440 - Which currently reads however location of a septic field in the cars features in 00:51:17.440 --> 00:51:21.780 - Juris of the public health safety and general welfare of the community. I 00:51:21.780 --> 00:51:24.860 - would 00:51:26.700 --> 00:51:32.660 - Strike is injure injurious and replace it with maybe 00:51:32.660 --> 00:51:35.940 - injurious and 00:51:35.940 --> 00:51:38.780 - Then in 00:51:38.780 --> 00:51:45.660 - The findings number three I 00:51:45.660 --> 00:51:49.980 - Would delete 00:51:52.660 --> 00:51:57.860 - It is the third to the last sentence, however, there has 00:51:57.860 --> 00:52:00.580 - Been no evidence presented 00:52:00.580 --> 00:52:07.500 - That the septic system cannot be located to the west of the residences. I would just strike that 00:52:07.500 --> 00:52:08.540 - entire sentence and 00:52:08.540 --> 00:52:12.780 - Then in the recommendations I 00:52:12.780 --> 00:52:16.260 - Would 00:52:16.260 --> 00:52:21.620 - Change deny to approve the karst geology variance 00:52:22.620 --> 00:52:30.820 - And then add in the original language in condition number two 00:52:30.820 --> 00:52:37.420 - That was very very comprehensive. Thank you. Do I have a second? 00:52:37.420 --> 00:52:40.860 - Second 00:52:40.860 --> 00:52:45.390 - Okay, we have a motion and second. Is there a further discussion or questions that we need to have 00:52:45.390 --> 00:52:46.420 - answered before? 00:52:46.900 --> 00:52:52.250 - We take a vote and we will come back to staff in just a moment to see if they have anything to add 00:52:52.250 --> 00:52:52.780 - to the 00:52:52.780 --> 00:52:54.380 - findings 00:52:54.380 --> 00:52:56.380 - anything from the board I 00:52:56.380 --> 00:53:01.380 - Mean I would just make a comment. I mean, I definitely appreciate 00:53:01.380 --> 00:53:08.810 - You know some of the challenging issues that the staff's trying to wade through on this one, I 00:53:08.810 --> 00:53:10.500 - think we would generally 00:53:10.500 --> 00:53:13.300 - prefer not to have 00:53:13.300 --> 00:53:15.660 - septic systems in karst 00:53:16.380 --> 00:53:17.940 - photography 00:53:17.940 --> 00:53:19.940 - closest sinkhole 00:53:19.940 --> 00:53:27.860 - This one has pre-existed there doesn't appear to be any evidence of failings or problems and 00:53:27.860 --> 00:53:36.250 - You know the County Health Department signed off on it and I think we ought to give them deference 00:53:36.250 --> 00:53:38.300 - since it's their jurisdiction 00:53:38.300 --> 00:53:44.380 - So with that Gabriel, would you like to make comment on that motion? 00:53:44.780 --> 00:53:46.300 - I was just gonna 00:53:46.300 --> 00:53:49.740 - Volunteer I can put anything up on the screen if you want it up there 00:53:49.740 --> 00:53:54.460 - please it it might be helpful because you might notice that 00:53:54.460 --> 00:54:00.470 - Even with your amendments, there are still things in there that sound like they're for denial, but 00:54:00.470 --> 00:54:02.740 - if you wanted to be for approval, so 00:54:02.740 --> 00:54:05.180 - let's 00:54:05.180 --> 00:54:09.860 - Know let's make sure that we're clear. I'm sorry. Excuse me for that that we're clear on this 00:54:09.860 --> 00:54:11.860 - We're 00:54:11.860 --> 00:54:29.340 - Focusing primarily on the second record the second point after the the recommendation 00:54:38.340 --> 00:54:43.800 - So just to recap John tell us again what you said there on that as far as changing the language to 00:54:43.800 --> 00:54:44.300 - approve 00:54:44.300 --> 00:54:52.520 - Let me go to let me go to the the packet instead because yes, this is just bullet put in my thank 00:54:52.520 --> 00:54:53.380 - you just a moment 00:54:53.380 --> 00:54:58.300 - Yeah, I'm sorry I was reading off of the packet version 00:55:28.300 --> 00:55:37.560 - If you can read this, this is the the proposed findings for the first criterion so 00:55:37.560 --> 00:55:52.520 - Sorry to make you go running around this would be easier if it were in word and not in not a PDF 00:55:52.520 --> 00:55:54.520 - So let me pull that up just a moment 00:55:54.520 --> 00:55:56.520 - And 00:55:56.520 --> 00:56:15.800 - While you're doing that just for the those that are here in chambers with us 00:56:15.800 --> 00:56:18.960 - if we are going to 00:56:18.960 --> 00:56:21.440 - approve something that goes against the 00:56:22.360 --> 00:56:26.620 - Recommendations the city we do have to present alternative alternate findings 00:56:26.620 --> 00:56:30.200 - That explain why we're providing either variants 00:56:30.200 --> 00:56:33.960 - Either approving or denying 00:56:33.960 --> 00:56:36.160 - we always have to come up with a 00:56:36.160 --> 00:56:41.580 - Valid explanation for the rationale for our decision. So it's just not a matter of saying we're 00:56:41.580 --> 00:56:42.920 - either for it or against it 00:56:42.920 --> 00:56:47.040 - And that's what we're doing here. So this tends to take a little bit of time 00:56:47.040 --> 00:56:50.140 - So I just want to explain that to folks that I understood what we're trying to do here 00:57:20.140 --> 00:57:42.540 - All right, apologies for that. 00:57:42.540 --> 00:57:43.540 - So here we are. 00:57:43.540 --> 00:57:52.660 - These are the proposed findings, and the motion in the one about karst geology was to take 00:57:52.660 --> 00:58:22.380 - - however, the location of the septic field in the karst feature may be injurious. 00:58:22.380 --> 00:58:31.940 - And then in the third -- the findings for the third criterion, we have however there's 00:58:31.940 --> 00:58:37.780 - been no evidence presented, we strike the sentence. 00:58:37.780 --> 00:58:59.500 - And then in the recommendation it would be and approve, and the second condition would 00:58:59.500 --> 00:59:03.100 - include the underlying language. 00:59:03.100 --> 00:59:11.580 - So that's -- as I -- so first question, Mr. Fernandez, is this what you had in your motion? 00:59:11.580 --> 00:59:12.580 - Yes. 00:59:12.580 --> 00:59:21.020 - So if we go back to the finding number three, so there's the sentence that was struck out, 00:59:21.020 --> 00:59:24.340 - as you can see there in the strikeout, then granting variance for the proposed location 00:59:24.340 --> 00:59:27.540 - of the house will relieve the obvious practical difficulty. 00:59:27.540 --> 00:59:39.100 - The next sentence, however, no information has been presented that indicates it -- okay. 00:59:39.100 --> 00:59:43.740 - It may be helpful to clarify in the remaining sentence, sandwiched between those, granting 00:59:43.740 --> 00:59:47.940 - variance for the proposed location of the house and septic field, for example, might 00:59:47.940 --> 01:00:07.140 - be -- I think that addresses what you were saying, Flavia. 01:00:07.140 --> 01:00:08.140 - Yeah. 01:00:08.140 --> 01:00:09.140 - All right. 01:00:09.140 --> 01:00:15.860 - And the -- so up at the top -- on the screen is the recommended finding for the second 01:00:15.860 --> 01:00:18.140 - criterion. 01:00:18.140 --> 01:00:22.140 - The final sentence, however, the department cannot determine that the inclusion of a septic 01:00:22.140 --> 01:00:26.620 - field in all the future maintenance that are required will not affect adjacent properties. 01:00:26.620 --> 01:00:29.660 - That would seem to lead toward denial. 01:00:29.660 --> 01:00:34.180 - You may want to amend that one as well. 01:00:34.180 --> 01:00:44.540 - I mean, is that -- is that addressed, John, by deferring to the Monroe County Health Department 01:00:44.540 --> 01:00:51.220 - for findings? 01:00:51.220 --> 01:01:03.300 - Do we have to raise a practical difficulty, or does it have to -- 01:01:03.300 --> 01:01:06.420 - No, for this finding, this one's about effect on adjacent properties. 01:01:06.420 --> 01:01:12.260 - No, I know the number two, but for number three, do we have to propose a practical difficulty 01:01:12.260 --> 01:01:13.260 - there? 01:01:13.260 --> 01:01:19.660 - Well, I think it stated that there are plenty of practical difficulties mentioned related 01:01:19.660 --> 01:01:20.660 - to the house. 01:01:20.660 --> 01:01:23.540 - And I think the rephrasing said it relieves a practical difficulty. 01:01:23.540 --> 01:01:24.540 - Yes. 01:01:24.540 --> 01:01:25.540 - It relieves it. 01:01:25.540 --> 01:01:26.540 - Okay. 01:01:26.540 --> 01:01:27.540 - Thank you. 01:01:27.540 --> 01:01:38.060 - Anything else, Gabriel? 01:01:38.060 --> 01:01:42.020 - This is a matter of opinion, so I just want to be clear that I want to defer to the board 01:01:42.020 --> 01:01:50.220 - - my personal opinion is that if you're going to recommend approval, leaving something in 01:01:50.220 --> 01:01:57.860 - there about maybe injurious -- if you want to recommend approval, maybe you want to have 01:01:57.860 --> 01:02:04.980 - a finding that's a little stronger, like not injurious, but definitely don't -- that's 01:02:04.980 --> 01:02:05.980 - totally your -- 01:02:05.980 --> 01:02:07.980 - Well, that's a good point. 01:02:07.980 --> 01:02:15.620 - But again, it does go back, John, to deferring to the Monroe County Health Department, because 01:02:15.620 --> 01:02:20.020 - they're the ones who did not find there to be an issue. 01:02:20.020 --> 01:02:25.260 - Gabriel, that would -- I mean, that would allow us to just strike it, right? 01:02:25.260 --> 01:02:26.260 - Because -- 01:02:26.260 --> 01:02:30.880 - That's your decision, yes. 01:02:30.880 --> 01:02:39.400 - I want to leave it to John, though it's his motion. 01:02:39.400 --> 01:02:48.620 - Yeah, I mean, I think it's generally -- as I said earlier, I think that there are concerns 01:02:48.620 --> 01:02:55.700 - with having septic fills in a karst area close to a sinkhole. 01:02:55.700 --> 01:03:01.020 - The way it was written, it was definitive that it is injurious. 01:03:01.020 --> 01:03:09.100 - I'm just saying it might be, but in this case, we're not saying definitively that it is, 01:03:09.100 --> 01:03:16.900 - because you're not saying a location of this septic field, you're saying a septic field. 01:03:16.900 --> 01:03:23.380 - So I was reading that as a fairly general kind of statement, but I'll defer to others 01:03:23.380 --> 01:03:24.380 - if you want -- 01:03:24.380 --> 01:03:26.220 - What I'm saying is it doesn't need to be amended. 01:03:26.220 --> 01:03:29.600 - It was a question from staff as to whether we wanted to be more. 01:03:29.600 --> 01:03:34.900 - But I do think I have no issue voting on a motion with that language, because it does 01:03:34.900 --> 01:03:39.780 - indicate to someone in future deliberations that they're looking at something that we 01:03:39.780 --> 01:03:43.300 - did go into it realizing that there could be a problem. 01:03:43.300 --> 01:03:44.660 - We're not saying it definitively. 01:03:44.660 --> 01:03:47.100 - So I would feel comfortable with that. 01:03:47.100 --> 01:03:56.020 - I think that's why I asked my question as well to the staff was that seeing repetitive 01:03:56.020 --> 01:04:01.140 - - it was a definitive statement how it reads. 01:04:01.140 --> 01:04:10.140 - And so that would potentially sway my vote, depending on is it truly injurious, is today, 01:04:10.140 --> 01:04:15.460 - is in the future, or is it -- it could be. 01:04:15.460 --> 01:04:18.820 - What if we added under the second to last sentence the Monroe County Health Department 01:04:18.820 --> 01:04:25.220 - reviewed plans for the proposed septic tank -- septic system and renewed septic permit 01:04:25.220 --> 01:04:27.220 - with no issue? 01:04:27.220 --> 01:04:32.780 - Because again, I would want to -- they have a role in this, too, and we need to use to 01:04:32.780 --> 01:04:37.660 - me their expertise, not ours, as they gave the okay to it. 01:04:37.660 --> 01:04:40.220 - So maybe that's something we could add. 01:04:40.220 --> 01:04:45.300 - Are you agreeable to that, John? 01:04:45.300 --> 01:04:48.340 - Can you just repeat your words again, and I'll type them up? 01:04:48.340 --> 01:04:49.340 - Yes. 01:04:49.340 --> 01:05:00.820 - So just adding in after system and gave permit renewal for septic system -- or, yeah, for 01:05:00.820 --> 01:05:01.820 - septic permit -- 01:05:01.820 --> 01:05:02.820 - Existing. 01:05:02.820 --> 01:05:03.820 - Existing, yeah. 01:05:03.820 --> 01:05:04.820 - Yeah. 01:05:04.820 --> 01:05:05.820 - Granted. 01:05:05.820 --> 01:05:06.820 - They granted that. 01:05:06.820 --> 01:05:07.820 - Yeah. 01:05:07.820 --> 01:05:08.820 - I agree, Tim. 01:05:08.820 --> 01:05:11.820 - That, you know, just makes a better record. 01:05:11.820 --> 01:05:12.820 - Yeah. 01:05:12.820 --> 01:05:16.300 - Yes. 01:05:16.300 --> 01:05:21.540 - Do we feel comfortable with this motion as announced, and we do have a second, correct? 01:05:21.540 --> 01:05:28.500 - Well, I do have a question on the last condition of the recommendation, because you're recommending 01:05:28.500 --> 01:05:35.740 - that the property only shall record a car's conservancy easement in the form of approved 01:05:35.740 --> 01:05:41.700 - by the Planning and Transportation Department, according to the UDO. 01:05:41.700 --> 01:05:49.460 - Do we have to add a five feet beyond the outer dimensions of the septic field as shown as 01:05:49.460 --> 01:05:56.940 - submitted in the site plan? 01:05:56.940 --> 01:05:57.940 - That's for you. 01:05:57.940 --> 01:05:58.940 - Yeah. 01:05:58.940 --> 01:05:59.940 - For you. 01:05:59.940 --> 01:06:00.940 - I'm sorry. 01:06:00.940 --> 01:06:01.940 - Can you repeat the question? 01:06:01.940 --> 01:06:02.940 - Yes. 01:06:02.940 --> 01:06:06.660 - So they are going to have to record a car's conservancy easement in order to get this 01:06:06.660 --> 01:06:07.660 - completed. 01:06:07.660 --> 01:06:08.660 - Correct? 01:06:08.660 --> 01:06:09.660 - Correct. 01:06:09.660 --> 01:06:12.300 - It's a condition. 01:06:12.300 --> 01:06:20.140 - Do they have, do we have to add your condition number A that the easement shall cover all 01:06:20.140 --> 01:06:25.000 - land on the lot that is both five feet beyond the outer dimensions of the septic field as 01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:26.900 - shown in the submitted plan? 01:06:26.900 --> 01:06:33.300 - I would recommend that because without that language in your condition, the condition 01:06:33.300 --> 01:06:38.280 - would be saying you got to follow the UDO and the UDO says, the plain language says 01:06:38.280 --> 01:06:43.140 - you got to put a car's conservancy easement over the septic system at which point, well, 01:06:43.140 --> 01:06:47.940 - maybe he got a variance but we're still tying him up. 01:06:47.940 --> 01:06:48.940 - Correct. 01:06:48.940 --> 01:06:55.940 - And that's what I'm concerned because I want him to have all the legal paperwork to do 01:06:55.940 --> 01:06:58.700 - what he needs to do. 01:06:58.700 --> 01:07:04.860 - So the A section there is saying that the car's conservancy easement doesn't cover the 01:07:04.860 --> 01:07:05.860 - septic system. 01:07:05.860 --> 01:07:06.860 - Correct. 01:07:06.860 --> 01:07:10.780 - So there would be room to walk around it, basically. 01:07:10.780 --> 01:07:11.780 - Yes. 01:07:11.780 --> 01:07:14.780 - Is that what you agree? 01:07:14.780 --> 01:07:18.820 - Any other comments or questions? 01:07:18.820 --> 01:07:22.820 - My question then to staff is do we need, is there a need for us to restate this motion 01:07:22.820 --> 01:07:29.500 - and second it or do we feel that we're all in agreement? 01:07:29.500 --> 01:07:32.380 - If you all feel that you're in agreement, I think because it's recorded, like, we'll 01:07:32.380 --> 01:07:37.700 - be fine to be able to pull it out if you all feel that you're John is the motion maker. 01:07:37.700 --> 01:07:40.420 - You okay with that? 01:07:40.420 --> 01:07:44.660 - I'm also comfortable since it's here on the screen and it's in a document that will forward 01:07:44.660 --> 01:07:47.660 - this to our staff and writes the minutes and writes the approval letter. 01:07:47.660 --> 01:07:48.660 - Thank you. 01:07:48.660 --> 01:07:49.660 - Gabriel. 01:07:49.660 --> 01:07:50.660 - Any other discussion or comments? 01:07:50.660 --> 01:07:53.660 - If not, I see none. 01:07:53.660 --> 01:07:59.820 - Call the question, Fernandez, cut some cow, Throckmorton. 01:07:59.820 --> 01:08:00.820 - Yes. 01:08:00.820 --> 01:08:09.680 - I would like to say, Patrick, that as a board, we do want to thank you for taking the extra 01:08:09.680 --> 01:08:13.760 - time addressing some of the concerns and coming back. 01:08:13.760 --> 01:08:16.500 - That's the way we feel something like this can happen. 01:08:16.500 --> 01:08:20.380 - It was a collaborative process and I want to thank the city for all the hard work. 01:08:20.380 --> 01:08:25.220 - This has been a really interesting case and I appreciate it on both sides. 01:08:25.220 --> 01:08:31.580 - Congratulations and good luck with that and again, to the city, thank you for that. 01:08:31.580 --> 01:08:32.580 - Okay. 01:08:32.580 --> 01:08:38.620 - You can stay if you'd like because it's going to be really exciting. 01:08:38.620 --> 01:08:47.580 - With that, we will go to the next petition, conditional usage, CU-09-25. 01:08:47.580 --> 01:08:58.780 - This is Jared Taylor and if I could please have a staff report. 01:08:58.780 --> 01:09:08.300 - So once again, I'm Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner for the city of Bloomington. 01:09:08.300 --> 01:09:15.780 - This is a request for conditional use approval to allow an increase in the number of bedrooms 01:09:15.780 --> 01:09:24.020 - within an existing structure of a lawfully existing dwelling, common duplex, in the residential 01:09:24.020 --> 01:09:27.600 - medium lot, that's the R2 zoning district. 01:09:27.600 --> 01:09:32.900 - So the key parts here are that it already exists, but it doesn't yet have a conditional 01:09:32.900 --> 01:09:37.100 - use, but they're adding bedrooms. 01:09:37.100 --> 01:09:42.500 - The properties approximately a half acre at the northwest corner of North Meadowlark Lane 01:09:42.500 --> 01:09:47.800 - and East Post Road in the Grandview Hills neighborhood. 01:09:47.800 --> 01:09:49.600 - It's about a half acre. 01:09:49.600 --> 01:09:56.540 - It's zoned R2 and the comprehensive plan, it's neighborhood residential. 01:09:56.540 --> 01:10:04.580 - Existing land use is a duplex and the proposed land use is a duplex. 01:10:04.580 --> 01:10:14.060 - It was, structure was built in 1970 or thereabouts and it was designed for use as two separate 01:10:14.060 --> 01:10:15.680 - dwelling units. 01:10:15.680 --> 01:10:20.680 - As originally designed and constructed, each unit had two bedrooms and other living areas 01:10:20.680 --> 01:10:22.380 - on the main floor. 01:10:22.380 --> 01:10:29.740 - And then on the lower floor was a garage and a finished basement area, but no bedrooms. 01:10:29.740 --> 01:10:35.020 - The southern unit, which is to the left as you can see when viewed from Metal Arc Lane 01:10:35.020 --> 01:10:38.540 - uses the address 655 North Metal Arc Lane. 01:10:38.540 --> 01:10:45.260 - The northern unit on the right uses 657. 01:10:45.260 --> 01:10:51.860 - It's been continuously two separate dwelling units since 1970. 01:10:51.860 --> 01:10:55.460 - The zoning rules have changed over the years when it was built. 01:10:55.460 --> 01:10:56.460 - This was allowed. 01:10:56.460 --> 01:11:00.020 - I'm not sure how it was classified exactly, but it was allowed. 01:11:00.020 --> 01:11:04.900 - In intervening years, it became not allowed, but could continue as a lawful nonconforming 01:11:04.900 --> 01:11:07.240 - use. 01:11:07.240 --> 01:11:15.980 - And then today, it would be allowed -- you can construct a new duplex in the R2 district 01:11:15.980 --> 01:11:20.300 - as you've seen from other cases, but it requires a conditional use approval. 01:11:20.300 --> 01:11:24.680 - But this one so far hasn't needed one because it's just continued as a lawful nonconforming 01:11:24.680 --> 01:11:26.660 - use. 01:11:26.660 --> 01:11:32.060 - But as part of a regular inspection cycle for a rental occupancy permit in December, an 01:11:32.060 --> 01:11:36.060 - inspector from the hand department, Housing and Neighborhood Development, observed a third 01:11:36.060 --> 01:11:40.100 - basement bedroom had been added to each unit. 01:11:40.100 --> 01:11:46.660 - The third bedroom in 667 on the right had existed for at least a few years, but the 01:11:46.660 --> 01:11:53.140 - third bedroom is 665 -- sorry, those numbers are incorrect. 01:11:53.140 --> 01:11:56.540 - 657 and 655. 01:11:56.540 --> 01:12:01.700 - The bedroom in 655 on the left was recently constructed and not yet occupied. 01:12:01.700 --> 01:12:07.020 - So adding the bedrooms increases habitable space and needs to have it be legitimized 01:12:07.020 --> 01:12:08.500 - with the conditional use approval. 01:12:08.500 --> 01:12:10.620 - So that's why we're here. 01:12:10.620 --> 01:12:17.980 - So if we look at it, you'll recall that the use specific standards for a duplex in these 01:12:17.980 --> 01:12:21.340 - districts that are part of what you look at for a conditional use approval include that 01:12:21.340 --> 01:12:27.340 - the design of the structure is compatible with other residential structures on the same 01:12:27.340 --> 01:12:28.340 - block. 01:12:28.340 --> 01:12:29.420 - So here's some photos of it. 01:12:29.420 --> 01:12:30.620 - It's built in 1970. 01:12:30.620 --> 01:12:31.620 - It looks like it. 01:12:31.620 --> 01:12:33.460 - It looks a lot like the other houses on the street. 01:12:33.460 --> 01:12:36.000 - This is from Meadowlark Lane. 01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:37.420 - This is the south side. 01:12:37.420 --> 01:12:41.260 - You can see the upper level there and then the lower level. 01:12:41.260 --> 01:12:44.860 - I believe that this at one time was a garage door. 01:12:44.860 --> 01:12:48.660 - It's long since no longer, and that's leading toward where the bedroom is. 01:12:48.660 --> 01:12:53.980 - There's not an attached garage on this side of it. 01:12:53.980 --> 01:12:59.340 - So here's the rear view from the west, and here's a view from the northwest. 01:12:59.340 --> 01:13:04.660 - You can see the north side of the house and a little bit of the rear again. 01:13:04.660 --> 01:13:07.800 - This is the layout of it. 01:13:07.800 --> 01:13:09.020 - This is the upstairs. 01:13:09.020 --> 01:13:14.500 - You can see there's master bedroom and bedroom on one side and then two bedrooms on the other 01:13:14.500 --> 01:13:16.780 - with the kitchen and living area. 01:13:16.780 --> 01:13:25.860 - You go downstairs, and what they're proposing are -- or what's there actually are bedrooms 01:13:25.860 --> 01:13:26.860 - down there. 01:13:26.860 --> 01:13:31.660 - So each unit will have three bedrooms, total of six bedrooms in the whole thing. 01:13:31.660 --> 01:13:39.780 - Here's a photo of the newer bedroom on the 655 side. 01:13:39.780 --> 01:13:46.500 - So the criterion findings, for this conditional use, there are a few different -- feel different 01:13:46.500 --> 01:13:47.500 - criteria. 01:13:47.500 --> 01:13:54.460 - Again, these are bullet points if you -- the full one -- the full recommended findings 01:13:54.460 --> 01:13:57.100 - are in the staff report. 01:13:57.100 --> 01:14:00.580 - So the proposed finding is that it meets all these specific standards for duplex dwelling 01:14:00.580 --> 01:14:08.340 - in the R2 zoning district. 01:14:08.340 --> 01:14:14.100 - Neither the property owners Michael and Marissa R.C. nor the hand-registered agent Jared Taylor 01:14:14.100 --> 01:14:18.660 - of superior management have any notices of violation on file in the planning and transportation 01:14:18.660 --> 01:14:19.660 - department. 01:14:19.660 --> 01:14:24.180 - Each unit has its own separate exterior entrance facing metal arc lane. 01:14:24.180 --> 01:14:28.740 - The duplex structure was constructed in the same era and with a similar design style as 01:14:28.740 --> 01:14:30.660 - the other houses on metal arc lane. 01:14:30.660 --> 01:14:34.940 - Consequently, the roof pitch, front porch width and depth, front building setback and 01:14:34.940 --> 01:14:40.180 - vehicle parking access for the duplex dwelling are similar in general shape, size, and design 01:14:40.180 --> 01:14:44.360 - with a majority of other single family or duplex structures on the same block face. 01:14:44.360 --> 01:14:49.100 - The duplex structure contains six bedroom total which does not exceed the maximum of 01:14:49.100 --> 01:14:50.100 - six. 01:14:50.100 --> 01:14:55.700 - The property has maintained a hand rental occupancy permit since at least 1999 and is 01:14:55.700 --> 01:15:00.420 - in the process of renewing the permit for another cycle so it's abiding by our rental 01:15:00.420 --> 01:15:05.840 - occupancy permit program. 01:15:05.840 --> 01:15:10.780 - The duplex will use existing approved utility connections and there are no known prior approvals 01:15:10.780 --> 01:15:16.580 - for the site that apply. 01:15:16.580 --> 01:15:20.540 - There's also a finding that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable 01:15:20.540 --> 01:15:22.540 - plans. 01:15:22.540 --> 01:15:26.500 - The recommended finding is that the proposal is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive 01:15:26.500 --> 01:15:27.500 - plan. 01:15:27.500 --> 01:15:32.860 - The comprehensive plan identifies this area as the neighborhood residential land use category. 01:15:32.860 --> 01:15:37.940 - The comprehensive plan states that the neighborhood residential area contains a mixture of densities, 01:15:37.940 --> 01:15:44.140 - housing types and curvilinear street network of local low traffic volume streets and this 01:15:44.140 --> 01:15:49.580 - property is located on a dead end street that's shared by a few single family houses. 01:15:49.580 --> 01:15:53.660 - The comprehensive plan provides guidance for land development and neighborhood residential 01:15:53.660 --> 01:15:58.360 - areas including that quote redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing structures or new 01:15:58.360 --> 01:16:03.300 - infill development of single lots or developments less than one acre should complement the context 01:16:03.300 --> 01:16:05.180 - of surrounding land uses. 01:16:05.180 --> 01:16:10.740 - The proposal uses an existing residential structure that is already a complementary 01:16:10.740 --> 01:16:14.340 - part of the existing context. 01:16:14.340 --> 01:16:20.100 - Comprehensive plan policy 5.3.1 encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment 01:16:20.100 --> 01:16:25.820 - across Bloomington with consideration for increased residential densities, complementary 01:16:25.820 --> 01:16:31.500 - design and underutilized housing types such as accessory dwelling units and duplexes. 01:16:31.500 --> 01:16:39.140 - So this location is served by existing services and utilities. 01:16:39.140 --> 01:16:43.300 - Then there's a finding that it provides adequate public services and facilities. 01:16:43.300 --> 01:16:47.960 - In this case, the site has existing utility connections. 01:16:47.960 --> 01:16:51.100 - No issues have been identified. 01:16:51.100 --> 01:16:59.060 - There are findings that it minimizes or mitigates adverse impacts, including that the proposed 01:16:59.060 --> 01:17:04.600 - use and development will not result in excessive destruction, loss or damage of any natural 01:17:04.600 --> 01:17:08.580 - scenic or historic feature of significant importance. 01:17:08.580 --> 01:17:12.580 - The recommended finding is that there are no natural scenic or historic features that 01:17:12.580 --> 01:17:15.420 - will be impacted. 01:17:15.420 --> 01:17:19.620 - The proposed development shall not cause significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties 01:17:19.620 --> 01:17:24.940 - and/or create a nuisance by reason of noise, smoke, odors, vibrations or objectionable 01:17:24.940 --> 01:17:25.940 - lights. 01:17:25.940 --> 01:17:31.340 - The recommended finding includes that no significant adverse impacts are expected from the addition 01:17:31.340 --> 01:17:38.780 - of two bedrooms within the existing duplex structure. 01:17:38.780 --> 01:17:45.380 - No changes to outside lighting, or excuse me, so then just continuing on about minimizing 01:17:45.380 --> 01:17:47.740 - or mitigating adverse impacts. 01:17:47.740 --> 01:17:51.980 - The hours of operation outside lighting and trash and waste collection must not pose a 01:17:51.980 --> 01:17:55.980 - hazard, hardship or nuisance to the neighbourhood. 01:17:55.980 --> 01:17:59.860 - Recommended finding is no changes to outside lighting or to trash and waste collection 01:17:59.860 --> 01:18:01.620 - are expected. 01:18:01.620 --> 01:18:06.740 - And then related to minimizing adverse impacts, the petitioner shall make a good faith effort 01:18:06.740 --> 01:18:11.540 - to address concerns of the adjoining property owners in the immediate neighbourhood as defined 01:18:11.540 --> 01:18:15.300 - in the pre-submittal neighbourhood meeting for the specific proposal if such a meeting 01:18:15.300 --> 01:18:21.100 - is required, and the petitioner invited members of the -- the petitioners offered multiple 01:18:21.100 --> 01:18:24.700 - occasions to meet with interested parties to discuss and address any concerns about 01:18:24.700 --> 01:18:25.700 - the project. 01:18:25.700 --> 01:18:29.140 - The petitioner invited members of the Grandview Hills neighbourhood association to neighbourhood 01:18:29.140 --> 01:18:34.660 - meetings in the form of open houses at the property on February 25th and March 10th, 01:18:34.660 --> 01:18:35.660 - 2025. 01:18:35.660 --> 01:18:41.940 - Not in the findings, but you will see in the packet there was an email from a neighbour 01:18:41.940 --> 01:18:46.260 - in support. 01:18:46.260 --> 01:18:51.540 - Then there's consideration of -- if there's a phasing plan, is it rational, recommended 01:18:51.540 --> 01:18:56.900 - finding is there -- no phasing is proposed. 01:18:56.900 --> 01:19:05.380 - The department recommends that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve CU-09-25 01:19:05.380 --> 01:19:07.700 - and other numbers with the following condition. 01:19:07.700 --> 01:19:12.580 - This conditional use approval is limited to the exterior design and interior floor plans 01:19:12.580 --> 01:19:15.060 - shown and discussed in the packet. 01:19:15.060 --> 01:19:18.820 - Thank you. 01:19:18.820 --> 01:19:29.480 - >> Just as a point of order here, the start of our packet listed Jared Taylor on the CU, 01:19:29.480 --> 01:19:33.620 - but later it's listing Marissa. 01:19:33.620 --> 01:19:37.460 - Is there a problem with there being two different names there? 01:19:37.460 --> 01:19:42.060 - >> I would not think that there would be a problem. 01:19:42.060 --> 01:19:45.500 - To clarify, Marissa Arcee is the owner. 01:19:45.500 --> 01:19:50.860 - Jared Taylor is a property manager who is working on the owner's behalf. 01:19:50.860 --> 01:19:55.180 - >> Which one actually applied for the -- >> The signature on the bottom of the application 01:19:55.180 --> 01:19:57.580 - form was Marissa Arcee. 01:19:57.580 --> 01:20:00.340 - I have not corresponded directly with the owner at all. 01:20:00.340 --> 01:20:03.380 - I have corresponded completely with Mr. Taylor. 01:20:03.380 --> 01:20:07.780 - I just wanted to be clear about who's doing what. 01:20:07.780 --> 01:20:12.100 - With that, it's time to go to the petitioner or the petitioner's representative to present 01:20:12.100 --> 01:20:15.140 - the petition. 01:20:15.140 --> 01:20:20.580 - Is either Marissa or Jared here this evening? 01:20:20.580 --> 01:20:22.020 - We'll do the same thing. 01:20:22.020 --> 01:20:50.100 - Sign in and say your first and last name and I'll swear you in. 01:20:50.100 --> 01:20:53.100 - Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth 01:20:53.100 --> 01:20:54.100 - and nothing but the truth? 01:20:54.100 --> 01:20:55.100 - I do. 01:20:55.100 --> 01:20:57.620 - And to restate, you'll have 20 minutes. 01:20:57.620 --> 01:21:02.660 - Whatever time you don't use, you can use again before a motion is taken from the board. 01:21:02.660 --> 01:21:03.660 - Thank you. 01:21:03.660 --> 01:21:04.660 - Please. 01:21:04.660 --> 01:21:08.340 - I'd like to thank the board for your time and consideration in this. 01:21:08.340 --> 01:21:11.380 - It's been a process. 01:21:11.380 --> 01:21:14.620 - But with that said, I wanted to make a few points. 01:21:14.620 --> 01:21:19.540 - The property was bought and purchased in 2021. 01:21:19.540 --> 01:21:26.380 - At that time, 657 already had the third bedroom in the downstairs, and it had already been 01:21:26.380 --> 01:21:33.740 - through one hand inspection where that was on their radar. 01:21:33.740 --> 01:21:43.980 - As for 655, that was put in in 2022, and then during the recent hand inspection, it was 01:21:43.980 --> 01:21:54.220 - found that it couldn't be upgraded because the property was R2 zone and was grandfathered 01:21:54.220 --> 01:21:56.780 - in. 01:21:56.780 --> 01:22:01.700 - The reason why we would like to, other than monetary reasons, to have the third bedroom 01:22:01.700 --> 01:22:05.500 - is it is a very quiet neighborhood. 01:22:05.500 --> 01:22:08.140 - We get along great with our neighbors there. 01:22:08.140 --> 01:22:17.260 - Most of our tenants that we like to appeal to are grad students, and most of the neighbors 01:22:17.260 --> 01:22:23.260 - are not wanting young college students in there who are partying at night and staying 01:22:23.260 --> 01:22:24.260 - loud. 01:22:24.260 --> 01:22:25.260 - They want somebody in there. 01:22:25.260 --> 01:22:33.540 - Currently, we have a tenant that is working at IU on the 657 side, and the last couple 01:22:33.540 --> 01:22:39.100 - tenants have been grad students going to IU, but that's really all I have unless you have 01:22:39.100 --> 01:22:40.100 - any questions. 01:22:40.100 --> 01:22:41.100 - >> Thank you. 01:22:41.100 --> 01:22:42.100 - >> Thank you. 01:22:42.100 --> 01:22:47.860 - >> At this point, we'll come to the board for any questions you may have for the staff 01:22:47.860 --> 01:22:58.080 - or the petitioner, and I see none. 01:22:58.080 --> 01:23:04.620 - With that, we will go to the public who might want to comment. 01:23:04.620 --> 01:23:07.980 - Is there anyone in chambers who would like to speak to this petition? 01:23:07.980 --> 01:23:10.180 - If not, is there anyone online? 01:23:10.180 --> 01:23:17.740 - If so, please raise your hand. 01:23:17.740 --> 01:23:26.260 - Seeing none, then it comes back to the petitioner for additional comments if you have any. 01:23:26.260 --> 01:23:29.660 - And do I see nothing further to add? 01:23:29.660 --> 01:23:30.660 - Okay. 01:23:30.660 --> 01:23:37.700 - Then we'll come to the board for action or additional comments, questions, or discussion. 01:23:37.700 --> 01:23:50.060 - >> I'll move to adopt the proposed findings and approve CU-09-25/USC 2025-02-0074 with 01:23:50.060 --> 01:23:51.860 - the following condition. 01:23:51.860 --> 01:23:55.780 - This conditional use approval is limited to the exterior design and interior floor plans 01:23:55.780 --> 01:23:57.500 - shown and discussed in the packet. 01:23:57.500 --> 01:23:59.420 - >> Do I have a second? 01:23:59.420 --> 01:24:00.420 - >> Second. 01:24:00.420 --> 01:24:01.500 - >> We have a first and a second. 01:24:01.500 --> 01:24:05.060 - Is there further discussion? 01:24:05.060 --> 01:24:08.060 - Seeing none, we'll call the question. 01:24:08.060 --> 01:24:10.020 - >> Kusumkow? 01:24:10.020 --> 01:24:11.500 - >> Yes. 01:24:11.500 --> 01:24:13.540 - >> Throckmorton? 01:24:13.540 --> 01:24:14.540 - >> Yes. 01:24:14.540 --> 01:24:15.540 - >> Ballard? 01:24:15.540 --> 01:24:16.540 - >> Yes. 01:24:16.540 --> 01:24:17.540 - >> Burrell? 01:24:17.540 --> 01:24:18.540 - >> Yes. 01:24:18.540 --> 01:24:19.540 - >> Fernandez? 01:24:19.540 --> 01:24:20.540 - >> Yes. 01:24:20.540 --> 01:24:21.540 - >> Thank you. 01:24:21.540 --> 01:24:24.260 - >> And the petition passes unanimously. 01:24:24.260 --> 01:24:25.260 - Congratulations. 01:24:25.260 --> 01:24:26.260 - Good luck. 01:24:26.260 --> 01:24:29.260 - Thank you. 01:24:29.260 --> 01:24:32.180 - >> Okay. 01:24:32.180 --> 01:24:36.740 - We will be going to V- -- let me ask this. 01:24:36.740 --> 01:24:37.740 - It's been an hour and a half. 01:24:37.740 --> 01:24:38.740 - Do we need a five-minute break? 01:24:38.740 --> 01:24:39.740 - Are we okay? 01:24:39.740 --> 01:24:40.740 - Three-minute break? 01:24:40.740 --> 01:24:41.740 - Five-minute? 01:24:41.740 --> 01:24:42.740 - Are we okay? 01:24:42.740 --> 01:24:43.740 - Okay. 01:24:43.740 --> 01:24:48.380 - So we're going to V-11-25, page 55 of the packet. 01:24:48.380 --> 01:24:50.180 - This is Smith and Hayes Properties LLC. 01:24:50.180 --> 01:24:55.340 - If I could have a staff report, please. 01:24:55.340 --> 01:24:56.340 - >> Thank you. 01:24:56.340 --> 01:24:59.020 - This is Eric Rulick, development services manager. 01:24:59.020 --> 01:25:01.460 - >> Can we turn him up? 01:25:01.460 --> 01:25:02.460 - One second, Eric. 01:25:02.460 --> 01:25:03.460 - >> Eric, Mr. Rulick, can you turn your -- I don't know. 01:25:03.460 --> 01:25:04.460 - You're very quiet. 01:25:04.460 --> 01:25:05.460 - Let me see here. 01:25:05.460 --> 01:25:06.460 - Okay. 01:25:06.460 --> 01:25:07.460 - Try again. 01:25:07.460 --> 01:25:11.700 - >> Can you hear me now? 01:25:11.700 --> 01:25:12.700 - >> Very good. 01:25:12.700 --> 01:25:13.700 - Thank you. 01:25:13.700 --> 01:25:14.700 - >> Okay. 01:25:14.700 --> 01:25:15.700 - Sorry. 01:25:15.700 --> 01:25:16.700 - I'll speak louder. 01:25:16.700 --> 01:25:23.980 - This is a request from Smith and Hayes Properties for a site at 300 West 6th Street. 01:25:23.980 --> 01:25:28.940 - The petitioners are requesting a variance from use specific standards to allow for ground 01:25:28.940 --> 01:25:34.900 - floor dwelling units within 20 feet of the first floor façade for a location within 01:25:34.900 --> 01:25:40.300 - the mixed use downtown and within the downtown core overlay district. 01:25:40.300 --> 01:25:48.180 - So this particular petition was heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 2023 for the same 01:25:48.180 --> 01:25:52.220 - request and it was denied by the board. 01:25:52.220 --> 01:25:58.740 - So the petitioner has slightly modified the request to create a interior wall that's about 01:25:58.740 --> 01:26:04.040 - a foot and a half from the front of the building along Morton Street. 01:26:04.040 --> 01:26:07.580 - But in essence, the petition is the exact same. 01:26:07.580 --> 01:26:15.620 - There have not been any changes to the property, to the property lines, or the adjacent streetscape. 01:26:15.620 --> 01:26:21.180 - So per the Board of Zoning Appeals rules and procedures, there is language that governs 01:26:21.180 --> 01:26:26.340 - certain situations where a petition has been denied by the board and the petitioner is 01:26:26.340 --> 01:26:30.020 - coming back with the exact same petition. 01:26:30.020 --> 01:26:35.700 - And in this case here, the rules and procedures say that in this situation of the rehearing 01:26:35.700 --> 01:26:41.560 - of a zoning petition that was previously disproved by the board, the board may require the petitioner 01:26:41.560 --> 01:26:48.060 - to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in order to hear the petition. 01:26:48.060 --> 01:26:53.180 - So in this case here, as I mentioned, the only change has been the addition of an interior 01:26:53.180 --> 01:26:59.540 - wall and there have not been any changes to the building itself on the outside, have not 01:26:59.540 --> 01:27:05.380 - been any changes to the right of way, have not been any real substantive changes whatsoever 01:27:05.380 --> 01:27:07.740 - to the petition as a whole. 01:27:07.740 --> 01:27:13.100 - And so the city, the department, with the advice of the legal department does not feel 01:27:13.100 --> 01:27:22.180 - that this does warrant a material change in circumstances regarding the petition itself. 01:27:22.180 --> 01:27:27.620 - And so it would be appropriate for the board to vote on whether or not they want to hear 01:27:27.620 --> 01:27:32.160 - this petition since it was previously denied. 01:27:32.160 --> 01:27:36.940 - So the decision on whether or not there has been a material change should be based exclusively 01:27:36.940 --> 01:27:43.940 - on whether or not there has been any material change in circumstances or facts which induced 01:27:43.940 --> 01:27:45.880 - the prior denial. 01:27:45.880 --> 01:27:51.220 - So that meaning any new information that has come to light that was not available at the 01:27:51.220 --> 01:27:54.180 - time that the first petition was heard. 01:27:54.180 --> 01:27:57.900 - And so we also had the legal department on call as well if there are any questions for 01:27:57.900 --> 01:28:03.500 - them but as I mentioned the board it would be appropriate for the board to even to vote 01:28:03.500 --> 01:28:05.980 - whether or not to even hear this petition. 01:28:05.980 --> 01:28:12.860 - So with that we should go to the board for any questions before I proceed further. 01:28:12.860 --> 01:28:15.180 - Thank you Eric. 01:28:15.180 --> 01:28:20.700 - If I could have the petitioner or the petitioners represented please come forward and sign in 01:28:20.700 --> 01:28:29.060 - first please and state your first and last name. 01:28:29.060 --> 01:28:31.180 - Bill Beggs Bunger Robertson law firm here in Bloomington. 01:28:31.180 --> 01:28:32.460 - I'm sorry say that again Bill. 01:28:32.460 --> 01:28:35.300 - My name is Bill Beggs Bunger Robertson law firm here in Bloomington. 01:28:35.300 --> 01:28:36.300 - Thank you. 01:28:36.300 --> 01:28:38.980 - And do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth 01:28:38.980 --> 01:28:40.060 - and nothing but the truth. 01:28:40.060 --> 01:28:41.060 - I do. 01:28:41.060 --> 01:28:42.140 - You have 20 minutes. 01:28:42.140 --> 01:28:46.300 - Any unused time will be reserved for you to use again before the board takes action. 01:28:46.300 --> 01:28:47.300 - Thank you. 01:28:47.300 --> 01:28:53.500 - 20 minutes for what I'm sorry you all need to decide whether or not I'm sorry I was following 01:28:53.500 --> 01:28:54.500 - our procedure. 01:28:54.500 --> 01:28:55.500 - We do. 01:28:55.500 --> 01:28:56.500 - We actually I'm sorry. 01:28:56.500 --> 01:28:57.500 - Bill. 01:28:57.500 --> 01:28:58.500 - Give us a moment. 01:28:58.500 --> 01:29:04.460 - We have to actually have that they have demonstrated material difference. 01:29:04.460 --> 01:29:05.460 - Thank you for that. 01:29:05.460 --> 01:29:10.140 - So well let's leave that to the board. 01:29:10.140 --> 01:29:11.140 - Let's see. 01:29:11.140 --> 01:29:12.140 - Yeah. 01:29:12.140 --> 01:29:15.900 - Would be like additional information before making a decision about continuing if so we 01:29:15.900 --> 01:29:25.500 - can speak to the petitioner petitioners argument on why work and let's restrict that to five 01:29:25.500 --> 01:29:27.100 - minutes please. 01:29:27.100 --> 01:29:29.740 - We'll give you five minutes to make that case please. 01:29:29.740 --> 01:29:38.420 - May I comment that I would like to I would like specifically to hear about the changes 01:29:38.420 --> 01:29:45.500 - not why we should hear it but the changes the physical changes that were made that might 01:29:45.500 --> 01:29:46.800 - warrant this hearing. 01:29:46.800 --> 01:29:47.800 - Okay. 01:29:47.800 --> 01:29:53.640 - So to be clear the board is asking you to provide us information about what changes 01:29:53.640 --> 01:30:01.940 - we will be hearing specifically and not to address the need to hear this again I will 01:30:01.940 --> 01:30:07.640 - but I want to point the board to the U.D.O. twenty point oh six point no no no we need 01:30:07.640 --> 01:30:10.460 - you to address our question or else we'll move on. 01:30:10.460 --> 01:30:13.060 - So please tell us what's different please. 01:30:13.060 --> 01:30:17.220 - Could I just make my record as to what your no you you will have an opportunity if we 01:30:17.220 --> 01:30:22.140 - hear it to put that into the record that's that you will have an opportunity with your 01:30:22.140 --> 01:30:25.860 - twenty minutes to put that into the record we're asking you to provide us with the information 01:30:25.860 --> 01:30:27.500 - before we move forward. 01:30:27.500 --> 01:30:28.500 - Okay. 01:30:28.500 --> 01:30:35.740 - So thank you the the difference in the petition you're hearing tonight versus what was heard 01:30:35.740 --> 01:30:41.900 - roughly a year and a half ago is that there was a concern at the time in August or so 01:30:41.900 --> 01:30:49.540 - of twenty twenty three that there would be a compromise or a harm to the pedestrian experience 01:30:49.540 --> 01:30:53.100 - along Morton Street particularly. 01:30:53.100 --> 01:31:00.700 - And so what the change to the project or the petition is this time is to preserve the or 01:31:00.700 --> 01:31:08.380 - rather to enhance or speak to the pedestrian experience along Morton Street by creating 01:31:08.380 --> 01:31:15.340 - a shop window experience so to speak we don't have that term in our in our ordinance but 01:31:15.340 --> 01:31:22.580 - a shop window experience in in this property that would enhance or speak to or benefit 01:31:22.580 --> 01:31:30.980 - the pedestrian experience yet would also accommodate this partial request for a variance. 01:31:30.980 --> 01:31:36.860 - The other difference is that there is less of a variance is a it's a smaller or shorter 01:31:36.860 --> 01:31:45.580 - variance being sought than the full 20 feet which was the request back in August of 2023 01:31:45.580 --> 01:31:57.580 - and I appreciate Mr. Throckmore your comment but changes that are in this yeah we thank 01:31:57.580 --> 01:32:05.840 - you so we'll come back to the board and we want to make a motion to hear this petition. 01:32:05.840 --> 01:32:16.620 - I would move that we hear the petition to have a second call the roll please cut some 01:32:16.620 --> 01:32:26.940 - cow Throckmorton. Yes. Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Now 01:32:26.940 --> 01:32:31.460 - with that Jackie we should be at the petitioner portion since we have heard the report or 01:32:31.460 --> 01:32:35.020 - do we need to go back. Yes. Let's check with Mr. Grulick because I don't know that he's 01:32:35.020 --> 01:32:41.300 - actually given the full report he was just doing the pre. Thank you. Yeah exactly so 01:32:41.300 --> 01:32:46.820 - I should step through the entire presentation report and findings you know as I mentioned 01:32:46.820 --> 01:32:50.620 - the first. So what we'll do here then is for the petitioner if you go ahead and have a 01:32:50.620 --> 01:32:54.820 - seat we're going to pick it up from the beginning now and thank you for that and sorry for the 01:32:54.820 --> 01:33:00.180 - for jumping over that procedure. So what we'll do is we'll start with the staff report and 01:33:00.180 --> 01:33:06.300 - then the petitioner is already sworn in. We'll be able to move forward right into his presentation. 01:33:06.300 --> 01:33:13.020 - Please Eric. Thank you. So this as I mentioned is a variance request from the use specific 01:33:13.020 --> 01:33:19.380 - standards to allow for ground floor dwelling units within 20 feet of the first floor facade. 01:33:19.380 --> 01:33:25.500 - This is for property at the northwest corner of West 6th and North Morton Street. The property 01:33:25.500 --> 01:33:31.340 - is within the mixed use downtown has been developed with a mixed use building. It has 01:33:31.340 --> 01:33:36.860 - a dentist office on the south and kind of west side. There are some interior apartments 01:33:36.860 --> 01:33:43.020 - that were added in the north northwest corner of the building approximately two years ago. 01:33:43.020 --> 01:33:47.660 - And then there was another building multifamily building not shown in this site photo that 01:33:47.660 --> 01:33:54.460 - was also recently constructed about three years ago on the north side of the site. So 01:33:54.460 --> 01:33:59.180 - here is the floor plan of the existing building. So as I mentioned there is a dentist office 01:33:59.180 --> 01:34:04.700 - a commercial space that occupies the majority of the ground floor. There is a dwelling unit 01:34:04.700 --> 01:34:08.540 - that is on the north side of the building and then you can see here the multifamily 01:34:08.540 --> 01:34:13.340 - building that was constructed on the north portion of the site. So the east portion of 01:34:13.340 --> 01:34:21.380 - the building has two spaces that had initially started to be converted into dwelling units 01:34:21.380 --> 01:34:26.580 - without a building permit. We noticed that that activity was happening and contacted 01:34:26.580 --> 01:34:31.180 - the building department and issued a stop work order. That prompted the petitioner to 01:34:31.180 --> 01:34:37.300 - come forward with a request to allow for that space that had initially started to be converted 01:34:37.300 --> 01:34:44.100 - into dwelling units to be legitimately permitted and approved. However, there is a use specific 01:34:44.100 --> 01:34:49.860 - standard for ground floor dwelling units within the downtown that they have to be 20 feet 01:34:49.860 --> 01:34:55.740 - back from the front of the building. So there are many standards that govern ground floor 01:34:55.740 --> 01:35:01.580 - uses within the downtown. One of those at this location is at a minimum of 50% of the 01:35:01.580 --> 01:35:07.860 - ground floor has to be non-residential space. So the petitioner meets that with the presence 01:35:07.860 --> 01:35:14.220 - of the dentist office. So this petition is not about, you know, what percentage of the 01:35:14.220 --> 01:35:21.180 - ground floor has to be non-residential, but deals with where within a building can dwelling 01:35:21.180 --> 01:35:26.740 - units be located. And so there is a use specific standard, as I mentioned, that requires ground 01:35:26.740 --> 01:35:33.420 - floor units to be 20 feet back from the front. You know, the purpose of that is many fold. 01:35:33.420 --> 01:35:39.300 - But you know, in essence, you know, we are here as part of the criteria for a variance 01:35:39.300 --> 01:35:45.020 - that somebody has to demonstrate why they can't meet a law, not why the law doesn't 01:35:45.020 --> 01:35:49.940 - necessarily make sense or shouldn't apply, but that there's something unique here. So 01:35:49.940 --> 01:35:55.500 - what has changed since this petition was last heard, as I mentioned, was the creation of 01:35:55.500 --> 01:36:02.380 - this one and a half foot deep dead space that I'm going to call that fronts and separates 01:36:02.380 --> 01:36:08.380 - the dwelling units from the facade along Morton Street. So the petition has, at least right 01:36:08.380 --> 01:36:13.980 - now, shown that to be filled with kind of signage for the dentist office. There are 01:36:13.980 --> 01:36:19.980 - different problems with that in regards to signage even being in this location because 01:36:19.980 --> 01:36:25.460 - there is no commercial space that's adjacent to that. So these would just be windows staring 01:36:25.460 --> 01:36:31.300 - at the backside of a wall, in essence, but that's not necessarily part of the petition. 01:36:31.300 --> 01:36:38.580 - They're just creating this dead space to separate the units from the streetscape along there. 01:36:38.580 --> 01:36:44.300 - So as is required with all variance requests, there are three findings that we have to step 01:36:44.300 --> 01:36:49.220 - through. You know, the first of that is that the approval will not be injurious to the 01:36:49.220 --> 01:36:54.460 - public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To that regard, there is no negative 01:36:54.460 --> 01:37:00.020 - impact from that. This variance is not altering the safety of the building in any regards. 01:37:00.020 --> 01:37:06.220 - Second, the use and value adjacent to the area will not be affected in a substantially 01:37:06.220 --> 01:37:14.020 - adverse manner. With this, though, there is a very significant depth to this because the 01:37:14.020 --> 01:37:18.860 - reason that we don't want ground floor dwelling units deals with the pedestrian experience 01:37:18.860 --> 01:37:25.420 - and how ground floor units interact with that streetscape and the pedestrian experience. 01:37:25.420 --> 01:37:30.300 - So there are certainly lots of situations in the downtown where you have ground floor 01:37:30.300 --> 01:37:35.020 - space that is right along the sidewalk that folks would love to be able to convert into 01:37:35.020 --> 01:37:41.240 - dwelling units and staff is working on language changes to the UDO that might allow for certain 01:37:41.240 --> 01:37:46.620 - situations where that might be appropriate, but that hasn't happened yet. So the language, 01:37:46.620 --> 01:37:51.060 - the law that we have now says that dwelling units have to be 20 feet behind the front 01:37:51.060 --> 01:37:58.580 - of the building. So that reasoning is to create an active space there. Non-residential commercial 01:37:58.580 --> 01:38:05.340 - space gives a lot more interaction. Ground floor dwelling units don't really do that. 01:38:05.340 --> 01:38:11.020 - Due to privacy concerns, a lot of times folks are just putting down their blinds. And there's 01:38:11.020 --> 01:38:17.300 - a difference when you design a commercial space versus a residential space along a sidewalk, 01:38:17.300 --> 01:38:21.380 - it's just designed differently, it looks differently. So there are lots of reasons why we have the 01:38:21.380 --> 01:38:27.180 - law in place. You know, and as I mentioned, in this situation here with a variance, somebody 01:38:27.180 --> 01:38:31.960 - has to demonstrate that there is something unique about the property that doesn't allow 01:38:31.960 --> 01:38:37.140 - it to meet code. So within this particular building, the petitioner has created a ground 01:38:37.140 --> 01:38:41.460 - floor dwelling units. There are places within the ground floor that dwelling units could 01:38:41.460 --> 01:38:48.460 - be located and have been located legitimately and appropriately. So not granting this variance 01:38:48.460 --> 01:38:53.700 - does not deprive the property of any reasonable use. You know, there's nothing unique about 01:38:53.700 --> 01:38:58.540 - this that prevents them from having dwelling units somewhere else in the in the building, 01:38:58.540 --> 01:39:03.180 - they would just like to have them somewhere else. And so you know, this is a very typical 01:39:03.180 --> 01:39:09.340 - example of, you know, a disagreement with what the law should be, which is different 01:39:09.340 --> 01:39:14.060 - than something that prevents you from meeting the law, which is what the criteria is for 01:39:14.060 --> 01:39:20.260 - the variance. And so we do not find that there are any practical difficulties that are peculiar 01:39:20.260 --> 01:39:24.060 - to this property that are different than any other property in the downtown that don't 01:39:24.060 --> 01:39:29.620 - allow these dwelling units to be located further back within the building in the space that 01:39:29.620 --> 01:39:37.020 - would be required. So to that effect, we did not make positive findings for the second 01:39:37.020 --> 01:39:43.780 - or the third criteria, which were the same criteria findings that the board adopted previously. 01:39:43.780 --> 01:39:50.060 - And again, we recommend that the board adopt these findings and deny this variance request. 01:39:50.060 --> 01:39:56.300 - And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Eric. Now it's time for us to go to the 01:39:56.300 --> 01:40:03.460 - petitioner already sworn in 20 minutes. And again, whatever's not used now, we will come 01:40:03.460 --> 01:40:07.020 - back to you and you can use that time before the board takes action. 01:40:07.020 --> 01:40:12.300 - Good evening again, members of the board. And thank you very much for hearing us tonight. 01:40:12.300 --> 01:40:17.180 - With me tonight on behalf of Smith and Hayes Properties LLC are David Hayes. You'll be 01:40:17.180 --> 01:40:23.420 - hearing from him. Doug Bruce, architect, you'll be hearing from him and Krista Huttenlocker 01:40:23.420 --> 01:40:28.140 - from Hoosier Choice Properties, who's also done a great deal of research about this petition 01:40:28.140 --> 01:40:33.980 - in supporting this. I don't ever like to disagree with the staff 01:40:33.980 --> 01:40:38.700 - on something, but I am going to disagree on something here. They were not here because 01:40:38.700 --> 01:40:43.420 - of a disagreement with the law. That's not what brings us here. We're here tonight because 01:40:43.420 --> 01:40:48.180 - this property, and everybody knows the site, it's the Hayes Market building just a block 01:40:48.180 --> 01:40:55.100 - south, but the building falls in sort of a crack in the ordinance. It falls into sort 01:40:55.100 --> 01:41:02.860 - of a no-persons land within the UDO, and that's what gets us here. We tried to pay close attention 01:41:02.860 --> 01:41:09.780 - to the comments and concerns of the staff from August of 2023 when this petition was 01:41:09.780 --> 01:41:18.020 - heard before, and so we tried to come back with a concern for revisions that would address 01:41:18.020 --> 01:41:32.620 - those concerns and solve those problems or solve those concerns. I said a few moments 01:41:32.620 --> 01:41:39.060 - ago that the proposal would be along the lines of a shop window. I think there's probably 01:41:39.060 --> 01:41:49.860 - a better phrase for that, but on the screen here in a moment will be a rendering of what 01:41:49.860 --> 01:41:58.940 - we expect this would look like, and the idea, while that's loading, the idea is to bring 01:41:58.940 --> 01:42:07.180 - about the very commercial look, commercial feel, commercial activity that the staff and 01:42:07.180 --> 01:42:17.380 - the UDO prefer for the streetscape. So that's what we've prepared for you to see tonight. 01:42:17.380 --> 01:42:23.260 - We reiterate this is not a request for a full relief. We're not asking for the 20-foot relief 01:42:23.260 --> 01:42:31.140 - from this. In fact, it's quite a bit less than that when you consider, under the definitions 01:42:31.140 --> 01:42:37.380 - of the ordinance, the awning that sticks out onto the sidewalk counts, and then the width 01:42:37.380 --> 01:42:44.420 - of the wall, and then the one foot nine or so, almost two feet in this space that would 01:42:44.420 --> 01:42:52.420 - be the new shop window experience in the downtown. The reason the property falls into the crack, 01:42:52.420 --> 01:42:55.620 - and you'll hear more about this in a moment, but the property falls into sort of a crack 01:42:55.620 --> 01:43:02.700 - because it's a designated historic property, meaning it's not a property that we can readily 01:43:02.700 --> 01:43:09.940 - make changes to the outside or the appearances of, so it can't look different. The hoped 01:43:09.940 --> 01:43:17.980 - for active, busy streetscape won't happen anyway on this site unless we were to take 01:43:17.980 --> 01:43:26.020 - out windows, take out or create openings into this site that we're bound under the historic 01:43:26.020 --> 01:43:33.260 - preservation ordinance to not do, at least not without permission and being able to show 01:43:33.260 --> 01:43:40.020 - good reasons for doing so, and so the request we make to you really isn't a change from 01:43:40.020 --> 01:43:46.980 - what it can be due to its historic designation. The other thing that we want to make sure 01:43:46.980 --> 01:43:52.860 - we point out to you, and you're going to hear from this, but the UDO favors an active pedestrian 01:43:52.860 --> 01:43:59.100 - experience, which in this case, and the crack this property falls into, the active pedestrian 01:43:59.100 --> 01:44:04.860 - experience here is the Beeline Trail, and Krista will talk to you about research that 01:44:04.860 --> 01:44:12.140 - she has performed, and those of you who can remember or picture the site when you're down 01:44:12.140 --> 01:44:19.100 - there, it's an extraordinarily for the downtown area, it's an extraordinarily or unusually 01:44:19.100 --> 01:44:26.500 - narrow sidewalk, it's got parking meters in it, and so it isn't the same pedestrian experience 01:44:26.500 --> 01:44:34.900 - that the UDO contemplates when it imposes the 20 foot from the front facade rule. Here's 01:44:34.900 --> 01:44:53.220 - another one that might be... So the peculiar position here that we find 01:44:53.220 --> 01:45:02.100 - ourselves in is a preference for an active pedestrian experience, a sidewalk that isn't 01:45:02.100 --> 01:45:09.020 - a normal size for pedestrians, and an enormously successful beeline trail that is where the 01:45:09.020 --> 01:45:15.250 - pedestrian experience happens anyway, so we're stuck with nowhere to go in terms of the 01:45:15.250 --> 01:45:16.320 - requirements 01:45:16.320 --> 01:45:21.180 - of the ordinance, and Crystal will talk to you about that. The competing factors are 01:45:21.180 --> 01:45:30.980 - what bring us here, it's unusual, it's peculiar to this site, and so given that fact, I wanna 01:45:30.980 --> 01:45:35.460 - make sure... Oh, I wanna mention one other thing that you'll hear about and I'll show 01:45:35.460 --> 01:45:43.180 - you photos of here in a moment are... So the preference of the UDO to send residential 01:45:43.180 --> 01:45:49.020 - use off the, in this case, Morton Street side of the property, meaning send it back to the 01:45:49.020 --> 01:45:55.820 - backside or the beeline trail side of the property, leaves us with yet another peculiar 01:45:55.820 --> 01:46:02.300 - situation for this property because since the days of the construct, the very construction 01:46:02.300 --> 01:46:08.220 - of this building, since the very days of the railroad usage back there, the utilities that 01:46:08.220 --> 01:46:15.340 - serve the building have entered the building through that beeline trail side or back side 01:46:15.340 --> 01:46:21.820 - of the building. And so because of this preference for the 20 feet from the front facade, that 01:46:21.820 --> 01:46:28.060 - would require that the utilities either be placed on the Morton Street side, the sixth 01:46:28.060 --> 01:46:38.140 - street side, or at this point, the north side, which was an alley, but now is a nice courtyard 01:46:38.140 --> 01:46:45.860 - and a developed space. And so it leaves the property with the peculiar problem of in order 01:46:45.860 --> 01:46:53.580 - to satisfy the ordinance, we'd have to ignore the larger part or a significant portion of 01:46:53.580 --> 01:47:01.820 - the utility service that goes back there. Right now you're going to see a photo of the back 01:47:01.820 --> 01:47:06.460 - side or the beeline trail side, not that everybody in this room hasn't been there. I understand 01:47:06.460 --> 01:47:12.820 - that, but hopefully it will be helpful. Last thing I want to point out to you in terms 01:47:12.820 --> 01:47:20.100 - of the peculiarities of this property is the fact that the door to this building is and 01:47:20.100 --> 01:47:25.060 - has been forever that we know of. I just was looking on old black and white pictures of 01:47:25.060 --> 01:47:31.420 - the building now on the southeast corner of this building. This isn't a property for which 01:47:31.420 --> 01:47:38.140 - there has been an entrance and exit on the Morton side, nor really on the sixth side, 01:47:38.140 --> 01:47:44.860 - but is really on that corner. That governs or directs or dictates where the pedestrian 01:47:44.860 --> 01:47:52.820 - experience, the in and out, so to speak, for this particular building is going to be. I've 01:47:52.820 --> 01:47:58.140 - brought with me tonight alternate findings that we think recognize the unusual characteristics 01:47:58.140 --> 01:48:07.020 - of this property, particularly as they relate to the 20 feet from the front façade requirement. 01:48:07.020 --> 01:48:11.780 - Right now, what I'd like to do is ask that David Hayes come forward and talk to you a 01:48:11.780 --> 01:48:18.220 - little bit about, on behalf of Smith and Hayes, about the property itself and the history 01:48:18.220 --> 01:48:20.660 - of the property and where we find ourselves now. 01:48:20.660 --> 01:48:25.660 - Thank you. Could we stop the clock here? David, come forward and give us your first and last 01:48:25.660 --> 01:48:40.620 - name and please sign in. David Hayes. And do you affirm that the testimony you're about 01:48:40.620 --> 01:48:44.900 - to give will be the truth of the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. We're 01:48:44.900 --> 01:48:52.820 - going to start the clock then, please. Please. Okay. Well, thank you for these late nights. 01:48:52.820 --> 01:48:58.740 - My first time here. Yeah, so my granddad, my great-grandfather started the Hayes Market 01:48:58.740 --> 01:49:03.860 - in 1941, originally was in the Blooming Foods building. Shortly thereafter moved to the 01:49:03.860 --> 01:49:10.980 - corner of 6th and Morton and he died in 1971 and my grandpa, Uncle Paul, Aunt Mary took 01:49:10.980 --> 01:49:16.860 - the store over at that point and Aunt Mary was the last one standing in 1996 when they 01:49:16.860 --> 01:49:23.180 - closed the store and thankfully Tim Hincky purchased the store and renovated it and leased 01:49:23.180 --> 01:49:27.740 - it to Irwin Union Bank and then Tim and I worked out an arrangement for me to acquire 01:49:27.740 --> 01:49:34.460 - it in around 2000. So it's set as a bank for many, many years. Ultimately CASA moved 01:49:34.460 --> 01:49:42.220 - in upstairs. I was on the board of CASA for 13 years and the bank ultimately left to move 01:49:42.220 --> 01:49:47.540 - up the street first, financial at the time. So we moved CASA downstairs and yeah, and 01:49:47.540 --> 01:49:55.140 - we had just a good old building, Hayes Market building. It was pretty cool. But then as 01:49:55.140 --> 01:50:03.260 - 2018-2019 and some budget issues with CASA, I suggested that we find alternate space for 01:50:03.260 --> 01:50:09.340 - them that was less expensive. So we got with Jim Murphy and negotiated a really nice lease 01:50:09.340 --> 01:50:14.500 - in the shower space and that's where they are now. So that space went dark and I actually 01:50:14.500 --> 01:50:18.940 - had a meeting with Mayor Hamilton and his group to find out what they wanted me to do 01:50:18.940 --> 01:50:24.020 - with that space. Not what I wanted to do, but what they would like for me to do. And 01:50:24.020 --> 01:50:31.380 - they were pretty excited about improving the space. In fact, they said if you don't ask 01:50:31.380 --> 01:50:37.980 - for variances and don't do anything, you'll get a tax abatement for 10 years. So anyway, 01:50:37.980 --> 01:50:42.900 - we decided to build the Q tower on the parking lot and renovate the building and really make 01:50:42.900 --> 01:50:49.420 - it something cool along the beeline trail murals on the side that Adam long painted 01:50:49.420 --> 01:50:58.220 - that depict the old six old Sixth Street and the modern Morton Street. So extremely proud 01:50:58.220 --> 01:51:03.740 - of that and wanted to maintain the integrity of the building. So we did well we were in 01:51:03.740 --> 01:51:09.900 - the middle of we were in the middle of cove it at the time and the contractor that that 01:51:09.900 --> 01:51:16.420 - I hired to do the to do the the work on the bottom floor after after the original apartments 01:51:16.420 --> 01:51:24.660 - had been built in the upper floor had been remodeled. We started going and the tax abatement 01:51:24.660 --> 01:51:32.660 - didn't work out because we didn't know the exact order that you had to do things we didn't 01:51:32.660 --> 01:51:37.540 - know you could actually start a project and still get your tax abatement. I learned that 01:51:37.540 --> 01:51:45.260 - the hard way. So anyway that that be told we just moved on. Ultimately thankfully we're 01:51:45.260 --> 01:51:51.740 - able to secure Cummins Dental to come into the space and they did and we then were building 01:51:51.740 --> 01:51:57.460 - out the backside of the building. Well the contractor I had his name was David Howard 01:51:57.460 --> 01:52:02.860 - and you know I it's not what I do for a living I'm just hired him to do his job. Well two 01:52:02.860 --> 01:52:09.740 - years ago March he took his own life and I was in the midst of you know kind of reeling 01:52:09.740 --> 01:52:19.300 - with that and anyway so after he did what he did we got with the city and found out 01:52:19.300 --> 01:52:24.940 - he actually had no permits so that is addressed Eric's question about why we didn't have permits 01:52:24.940 --> 01:52:29.340 - it wasn't we were trying to do anything behind anyone's back. So everything kind of got put 01:52:29.340 --> 01:52:37.500 - on hold and then you know it just became it's just become a disaster so you know we just 01:52:37.500 --> 01:52:45.040 - want we never asked for anything we did exactly what we said we would do and to Bill's point 01:52:45.040 --> 01:52:51.780 - the pedestrian experience if that's to hold up the the beeline trail is fabulous right 01:52:51.780 --> 01:52:57.460 - I mean that's it's a it's a community treasure it's what everyone uses and Krista will tell 01:52:57.460 --> 01:53:02.940 - you no one walks down that sidewalk unless they live there. I don't go there often but 01:53:02.940 --> 01:53:08.180 - when I do is need to greet the people to live there and that's who walks down that trail 01:53:08.180 --> 01:53:14.220 - or that that little sidewalk there it's not people going to you know the farmers market 01:53:14.220 --> 01:53:21.140 - or anything like that so we tried really hard to take a step back and say that we're never 01:53:21.140 --> 01:53:25.260 - going to be able to make this office space it's not practically there's no way the only 01:53:25.260 --> 01:53:30.780 - way it could be a potential office would be walk into that private gate which the parents 01:53:30.780 --> 01:53:35.420 - of the kids to live there love the fact that we have three levels of security for them 01:53:35.420 --> 01:53:40.600 - they would have to enter through the north side of the old building down a hallway which 01:53:40.600 --> 01:53:46.100 - there's again residential right there and then they slip into two to two spot it just 01:53:46.100 --> 01:53:52.820 - isn't practical at all the door that you've seen off of Morton go straight upstairs the 01:53:52.820 --> 01:53:58.660 - apartments upstairs there's really no other practical use than to allow someone to live 01:53:58.660 --> 01:54:05.820 - there and I think the demonstration to set back create the experience of the dental office 01:54:05.820 --> 01:54:13.260 - on the entire corner would be satisfactory of addressing the pedestrian pedestrian experience 01:54:13.260 --> 01:54:17.780 - if there was even pedestrians there. 01:54:17.780 --> 01:54:27.140 - So when I take a step back and I remember talking with Mayor Hamilton about it that 01:54:27.140 --> 01:54:34.180 - no one wanted to maintain the integrity of that building more than me and to Bill's point 01:54:34.180 --> 01:54:39.140 - even if it was allowed to cut a big hole in the side of that building on Morton Street 01:54:39.140 --> 01:54:48.700 - side to create some resemblance of a storefront I wouldn't do it so if you have any questions 01:54:48.700 --> 01:54:56.340 - for me feel free to ask them but I'm again appreciative of your time and got some really 01:54:56.340 --> 01:54:59.860 - great people here to go through the details. 01:54:59.860 --> 01:55:10.500 - That's our time now Jackie could we have that displayed 535 okay and could we stop the clock 01:55:10.500 --> 01:55:35.860 - for a minute and if you'd sign in please and you said 535 right. 01:55:35.860 --> 01:55:56.380 - Thank you for your time this evening I will be brief so Christa can come up with a few 01:55:56.380 --> 01:56:01.060 - things here but I wanted to add a few things architecturally I had some notes here I don't 01:56:01.060 --> 01:56:06.140 - want to repeat everything that David or Bill had said but architecturally what I'll say 01:56:06.140 --> 01:56:12.020 - is peculiar about this building if you look at the site plan this building was built historically 01:56:12.020 --> 01:56:17.440 - has always been entered on the corner of 6th and Morton it was a it was a grocery store 01:56:17.440 --> 01:56:24.660 - for decades and and if you look it has a 27 foot wide sidewalk along 6th Street now the 01:56:24.660 --> 01:56:29.740 - sidewalk here along Morton where the building sticks out the facade that you see here that 01:56:29.740 --> 01:56:35.140 - is in question I walked by there on my way here tonight just to measure something there's 01:56:35.140 --> 01:56:39.980 - a couple of things that are particular about it first off there's no curb there the road 01:56:39.980 --> 01:56:46.740 - and the and the sidewalk are flush with each other so the cars that pull up and park there 01:56:46.740 --> 01:56:51.140 - at an angle if you can imagine this isn't perpendicular parking they're parking at an 01:56:51.140 --> 01:56:56.500 - angle their bumpers are sticking out over the sidewalk so when you take the sidewalk 01:56:56.500 --> 01:57:02.180 - that's only six feet wide it's flush with the street cars pull up there's parking meters 01:57:02.180 --> 01:57:07.460 - in it what I measured on my way here is anywhere from four foot eight to four foot ten from 01:57:07.460 --> 01:57:12.420 - a bumper to the building now to me that's particular in our downtown it's not a six 01:57:12.420 --> 01:57:18.060 - foot sidewalk it's not an eight foot sidewalk so even if we were to put a door here someone 01:57:18.060 --> 01:57:23.580 - in a wheelchair going along Morton Street the ADA says we need a sixty inch turning 01:57:23.580 --> 01:57:30.000 - circle we don't have it with the cars there so this is this little section of this building 01:57:30.000 --> 01:57:35.860 - is not going to be a pedestrian experience but what we are trying to do is by putting 01:57:35.860 --> 01:57:40.500 - some graphics in the windows and stepping this back Eric mentioned something about the 01:57:40.500 --> 01:57:45.460 - UDO did not want people walking by and seeing people with their blinds open well you're 01:57:45.460 --> 01:57:51.060 - not going to see that here because we've created this this inner wall and if you look 01:57:51.060 --> 01:57:55.940 - at the south side of this building where the dental office is now there's already graphics 01:57:55.940 --> 01:57:59.820 - in some of the other windows for the exam rooms and all of those so we're just going 01:57:59.820 --> 01:58:05.040 - to duplicate what they've done here so you're not looking into somebody's bedroom and trying 01:58:05.040 --> 01:58:10.620 - to use the space so it's not a wide space you couldn't put a sandwich board out there 01:58:10.620 --> 01:58:18.180 - and people get by so there's no real way for anybody to access this space comfortably and 01:58:18.180 --> 01:58:23.740 - then on the other part about putting the bill the the units to the back so this building 01:58:23.740 --> 01:58:29.260 - and the dentist uses it you saw the picture of all the utilities along the beeline the 01:58:29.260 --> 01:58:34.460 - electric everything all went down that alley when it was a well when it was a railroad 01:58:34.460 --> 01:58:39.840 - track and all of those come into mechanical rooms there the dentist office has his gases 01:58:39.840 --> 01:58:47.340 - all of those the bathrooms for him everything is back there and and so do at a great expense 01:58:47.340 --> 01:58:53.660 - could you relocate all that along Morton Street I I what I say is that this is that what we're 01:58:53.660 --> 01:58:58.820 - proposing tonight the pedestrian experience is not going to be any different and anyone 01:58:58.820 --> 01:59:03.220 - walking down the sidewalk is not going to know whether there's commercial in there or 01:59:03.220 --> 01:59:07.420 - residential in there so I hope that leaves enough time for Krista to come up I appreciate 01:59:07.420 --> 01:59:21.220 - your time just over two minutes so if you'd like to come forward sign in please and once 01:59:21.220 --> 01:59:33.900 - you've signed in if you would state your first and last name for me please 01:59:33.900 --> 01:59:38.420 - Krista Hutton locker and do you affirm that the truth the whole truth and nothing but 01:59:38.420 --> 01:59:44.660 - the truth yes I do okay we'll restart two minutes 15 seconds I have a written statement 01:59:44.660 --> 01:59:55.340 - I would like to introduce if it's if it's okay get we've run out of time we've not done 01:59:55.340 --> 01:59:59.580 - a great job of managing our time obviously so we're gonna reserve okay you have two minutes 01:59:59.580 --> 02:00:06.520 - left then we'll reserve two minutes for you to address other issues thank you 02:00:06.520 --> 02:00:12.340 - Jackie's gonna pass to you crit miss Hutton locker statement that she just identified 02:00:12.340 --> 02:00:18.620 - and then we will also have asked if she could pass a letter of support from Cummings dental 02:00:18.620 --> 02:00:26.340 - and then I've got proposed findings as well as let me let me ask you of the staff is is 02:00:26.340 --> 02:00:34.660 - Krista on the part of this petition or is she yes okay part thank you all right with 02:00:34.660 --> 02:00:45.620 - that then before going to the public city yeah is there are there any questions from 02:00:45.620 --> 02:01:01.980 - the board to the staff or to the petitioner at this point that we can address thanks to 02:01:01.980 --> 02:01:10.620 - the board any questions of the petitioner or the staff we've heard from the petitioner 02:01:10.620 --> 02:01:21.780 - talking a lot about the pedestrian experience but we have not addressed the 20 feet 20 feet 02:01:21.780 --> 02:01:31.180 - setback requirement from the front facade as required that is the one part that is on 02:01:31.180 --> 02:01:43.980 - both proposed findings two and three that is in question correct so I would like to ask 02:01:43.980 --> 02:01:59.160 - eric grulick to address if you can address if with with these new drawings of the interior 02:01:59.160 --> 02:02:05.020 - wall or window experience window shop experience that they are talking about that if that resolves 02:02:05.020 --> 02:02:12.620 - the 20 feet setback requirement from the front facade no so the udio says it dwelling units 02:02:12.620 --> 02:02:18.160 - and that would be any portion of a dwelling unit has to be within has to be 20 feet back 02:02:18.160 --> 02:02:23.260 - from the front of the building so it's not you know the bedrooms have to be 20 feet back 02:02:23.260 --> 02:02:30.700 - or anything like that it's that any portion of the dwelling unit has to be 20 feet back 02:02:30.700 --> 02:02:38.260 - is there argument that the front of the building is on sixth street and this is a side of the 02:02:38.260 --> 02:02:45.140 - building but this is a corner lot so when it's a corner lot yeah yeah so it's a corner lot 02:02:45.140 --> 02:02:49.940 - so very clearly you know the udio says that any portion of a lot that abuts a public street 02:02:49.940 --> 02:02:56.500 - is a front you know so there's not a differentiation of you know this is a more important front 02:02:56.500 --> 02:03:01.740 - than this is you know they're both important they're both streets they both have vehicles 02:03:01.740 --> 02:03:10.620 - they both have pedestrians have the same requirements thanks for clarifying that thank you question 02:03:10.620 --> 02:03:18.860 - this this findings of the board zoning appeals that was handed to us is this from the this 02:03:18.860 --> 02:03:24.220 - is a draft of the petitioner okay it should be it should be so noted so that we know that 02:03:24.220 --> 02:03:43.260 - one is handed to us thank you any other questions do we have any others we will have another 02:03:43.260 --> 02:03:49.980 - opportunity after public comment shall I move on okay we'll go to the public for comment 02:03:49.980 --> 02:03:56.540 - is there anyone in the chambers who would like to come forward and speak to this petition 02:03:56.540 --> 02:04:02.140 - is there anyone online if so please raise your hand use the function please to raise 02:04:02.140 --> 02:04:13.260 - your hand no one on zoom okay thank you now with that we will go back to the petitioner 02:04:13.260 --> 02:04:19.220 - you do have an additional two minutes now to address now and it's a use it or lose it 02:04:19.220 --> 02:04:23.620 - so the two minutes need to be used so use all of it please and then we'll come back 02:04:23.620 --> 02:04:33.540 - to the board for additional questions I want to understand the question about the 20 feet 02:04:33.540 --> 02:04:39.460 - that's why we're here is to seek a variance from that 20 foot requirement it's not a full 02:04:39.460 --> 02:04:46.900 - or complete relief that we seek but only partial by virtue of the placement of the shop window 02:04:46.900 --> 02:04:52.760 - we were trying to solve a problem solve an issue with respect to the bind that the property 02:04:52.760 --> 02:04:58.660 - is in in between the beeline and Morton and sixth the other thing we want to make sure 02:04:58.660 --> 02:05:05.220 - we've at least pointed out I think everybody knows this is that very block has been has 02:05:05.220 --> 02:05:10.940 - had ground floor commercial space empty since it was built in 2019 if you walk by there 02:05:10.940 --> 02:05:16.400 - you look in and you see gravel where they've never even finished the floor of that other 02:05:16.400 --> 02:05:24.100 - property and so in terms of use of the property and vibrancy and activity of the of the block 02:05:24.100 --> 02:05:31.260 - we are we believe we're bringing more to that rather than less and so from the standpoint 02:05:31.260 --> 02:05:37.100 - of your question Ms. Burel about the 20 feet we are asking for partial relief meaning not 02:05:37.100 --> 02:05:43.660 - the full 20 feet but actually more amongst about 13 or so feet obviously we would prefer 02:05:43.660 --> 02:05:51.100 - to have neither request me we prefer to have complete 20 foot relief but we don't we're 02:05:51.100 --> 02:05:55.580 - not asking that because we knew what happened in August of 23 to the extent there is going 02:05:55.580 --> 02:06:03.100 - to be a point made Eric by Eric about whether it's contiguous and whether this shop window 02:06:03.100 --> 02:06:09.780 - space would be contiguous to the to the existing tenant it is it is contiguous it's a it's 02:06:09.780 --> 02:06:15.360 - a narrow it's a small contiguity but it is in fact contiguous and so it meets the ordinance 02:06:15.360 --> 02:06:27.060 - in that respect as well thank you and please allow me to clarify my earlier comment towards 02:06:27.060 --> 02:06:31.340 - this document was sent to us my point was that the petitioner should have noted that 02:06:31.340 --> 02:06:35.700 - this was from the petitioner because it does look like an official document it can be confusing 02:06:35.700 --> 02:06:41.660 - that's what I meant I sorry I did not mean to imply I was criticizing the it just helps 02:06:41.660 --> 02:06:48.460 - us understand what we're looking at that's okay I just also for the record this was entered 02:06:48.460 --> 02:06:53.660 - all right and so it's now been changed so I appreciate that okay so with that business 02:06:53.660 --> 02:07:01.720 - we're back to the board for action we will either take a motion we will entertain any 02:07:01.720 --> 02:07:08.720 - questions comments or any further questions directly to the petitioner or to the staff 02:07:08.720 --> 02:07:36.380 - I mean one quick point I'll make is along the commercial lines with commercial space 02:07:36.380 --> 02:07:40.660 - is being vacant I think we're gonna see I think this is probably the beginning of more 02:07:40.660 --> 02:07:45.860 - of these to come because I think that's where where property owners are getting to they're 02:07:45.860 --> 02:07:51.840 - not able to fill spaces so do we allow that to continue to happen or do we fill it with 02:07:51.840 --> 02:07:58.180 - something viable such as dwelling units I'm I'm on the side of wanting dwelling units 02:07:58.180 --> 02:08:03.340 - I think they've presented a lot of peculiarities you know to this property for reasons to grant 02:08:03.340 --> 02:08:18.180 - the variance that's just my thought you know I for one I'm listening to the the petitioner 02:08:18.180 --> 02:08:22.020 - you know I'm inclined to separate the argument of the beeline in this in the streetscape 02:08:22.020 --> 02:08:29.460 - because the the beeline is is not discussed in this UDO that I'm looking at on the page 02:08:29.460 --> 02:08:37.180 - page 40 section 4a it is talking about the storefront and the storefront faces the street 02:08:37.180 --> 02:08:42.580 - the beeline doesn't indicate that it's a it is not mentioned in here as being something 02:08:42.580 --> 02:08:49.220 - as a storefront on it it was a repurposed railroad line that had buildings that had 02:08:49.220 --> 02:08:58.160 - services that faced it so I do want to separate those two as we look at this a streetscape 02:08:58.160 --> 02:09:04.860 - is a streetscape it's it's not a trailscape so as we consider this but are there any other 02:09:04.860 --> 02:09:11.340 - comments or questions for this yes John I'm still needling this one around because this 02:09:11.340 --> 02:09:23.060 - is a really hard one but little context I will confess that the original changes to 02:09:23.060 --> 02:09:34.180 - the zoning code that started the requirement for ground floor commercial as part of the 02:09:34.180 --> 02:09:41.620 - residential projects that started back in the dark ages when I was a mayor but you have 02:09:41.620 --> 02:09:49.620 - to it seems that the context is so different back then I mean there was a tremendous concern 02:09:49.620 --> 02:09:56.580 - about vibrate see and pedestrian experience etc. but it's just my opinion I know it's 02:09:56.580 --> 02:10:04.340 - not the purview of the bza but you know what was a very targeted concept has become this 02:10:04.340 --> 02:10:13.420 - mass applied is a you know rule now that I'm glad to hear I think I heard earlier from 02:10:13.420 --> 02:10:20.540 - Eric that the planning departments planning to take a look at that because it does very 02:10:20.540 --> 02:10:30.900 - little good for vibrancy and for our economy to have every apartment building in Bloomington 02:10:30.900 --> 02:10:37.420 - have commercial space downstairs and it ends up becoming economic waste with all of these 02:10:37.420 --> 02:10:46.700 - vacant parts or pieces of buildings all over the city so I'm really glad that the staff 02:10:46.700 --> 02:10:53.620 - and and others are taking a look at that you know I think this is kind of peculiar in the 02:10:53.620 --> 02:10:59.140 - sense that you've got a historic building which creates some challenges in terms of 02:10:59.140 --> 02:11:08.500 - how you can change it structurally you know I work downtown really close to this building 02:11:08.500 --> 02:11:14.500 - and walk through there quite a bit it is kind of funky I usually don't walk on that sidewalk 02:11:14.500 --> 02:11:19.500 - I take the beeline so to your point Joe it's kind of interesting that it's not considered 02:11:19.500 --> 02:11:27.740 - a streetscape along the beeline yet we're encouraging people to think about how they 02:11:27.740 --> 02:11:33.660 - build along the beeline to provide that kind of access so I assume that's something else 02:11:33.660 --> 02:11:40.100 - that planning professionals will have to think through as part of any changes at the UTO 02:11:40.100 --> 02:11:46.540 - could we kind of want to encourage that you know we've heard so much about bike pad you 02:11:46.540 --> 02:11:53.460 - know as a key transportation mode then you know that's a different kind of quote unquote 02:11:53.460 --> 02:12:05.460 - thoroughfare so I'm really struggling with this I don't you know I mean the way the building 02:12:05.460 --> 02:12:18.260 - set up with the access to these two units whether they're offices or whether they are 02:12:18.260 --> 02:12:24.420 - residential it just doesn't strike me as being material to the pedestrian experience I mean 02:12:24.420 --> 02:12:30.540 - because you're going to be entering through that courtyard whether it's an office retail 02:12:30.540 --> 02:12:40.620 - or an apartment so I just don't you know if I'm walking by a building you know it's just 02:12:40.620 --> 02:12:46.300 - not going to change anything as far as I'm concerned it seems like the you know it's 02:12:46.300 --> 02:12:54.260 - just not going to have any kind of material effect on the pedestrian experience so that's 02:12:54.260 --> 02:12:59.180 - why I'm kind of struggling with this because I don't know how to reconcile some of the 02:12:59.180 --> 02:13:06.940 - stuff that's in the code which is you know needs to be followed with just sort of the 02:13:06.940 --> 02:13:14.620 - practical realities of a very unique building and to Mr. Hayes man I'm old enough I remember 02:13:14.620 --> 02:13:22.620 - going in that grocery store I was sad when it closed because I lived downtown so anyway 02:13:22.620 --> 02:13:27.700 - that probably means nothing and it was just ramblings of an old guy so sorry about that 02:13:27.700 --> 02:13:36.820 - particular because that is that is an issue and you do see other businesses along there 02:13:36.820 --> 02:13:42.100 - who are repurposing and are converting the backside and I understand the petitioner did 02:13:42.100 --> 02:13:47.780 - address that by saying there would be a large cost associated with that but they are adapting 02:13:47.780 --> 02:13:54.260 - to that that beeline as more of a we'll call pedestrian right now even though it's just 02:13:54.260 --> 02:14:00.820 - much more than pedestrian I think though that what we have is it in order for us if I understand 02:14:00.820 --> 02:14:08.980 - this clearly for us to grant a variance we would have to somehow have a finding that 02:14:08.980 --> 02:14:15.500 - would allow us to waive that setback that's that's really the issue here not because I 02:14:15.500 --> 02:14:19.180 - think most of certain agreement that it's interesting idea you've done something to 02:14:19.180 --> 02:14:29.700 - try to make it look commercial but you know we we will have to have some kind of finding 02:14:29.700 --> 02:14:36.420 - to do so so depending on what kind of motion is brought forward by the board one for approval 02:14:36.420 --> 02:14:42.900 - of the various or want to deny they will be need to be in the case of a approval and approval 02:14:42.900 --> 02:14:50.500 - there will need to be a conditional finding for that too that for that particular one 02:14:50.500 --> 02:14:58.900 - that's where I am focusing on yeah well I'm yes so what I'm focusing on here is the pedestrian 02:14:58.900 --> 02:15:09.580 - experience you know that that is something that the it's in our comprehensive plan but 02:15:09.580 --> 02:15:15.340 - when it comes to the UDO we have to follow the UDO and we are here we are the defenders 02:15:15.340 --> 02:15:23.420 - of the UDO regardless if we agree or not I was the person that requested from the plan 02:15:23.420 --> 02:15:31.140 - commission to do a study on how to reduce the size of the commercial first floor in 02:15:31.140 --> 02:15:36.980 - the buildings because we have so many requests coming forth and I do know that there is a 02:15:36.980 --> 02:15:43.500 - problem and we need to fix it and I and and we haven't been able to fix that problem yet 02:15:43.500 --> 02:15:57.100 - so I understand both sides but still I don't have a you're pretty adept at do you have 02:15:57.100 --> 02:16:03.060 - the UDO in front of you page 40 John I don't but I'll pull it out so but let me read it 02:16:03.060 --> 02:16:07.500 - because because Flavia there might be something here let's consider what it says under section 02:16:07.500 --> 02:16:11.820 - a the mixed use downtown courthouse square character areas intended to maintain the historic 02:16:11.820 --> 02:16:17.940 - character the downtown by providing a diverse mix of traditional commercial retail uses 02:16:17.940 --> 02:16:24.300 - at the street level to capitalize on maintain and enhance the pedestrian activity I want 02:16:24.300 --> 02:16:29.860 - to focus on that maintain and enhance the pedestrian activity individually define the 02:16:29.860 --> 02:16:36.100 - sidewalk edges with interesting buildings that respect the established context of traditional 02:16:36.100 --> 02:16:41.740 - commercial storefront buildings now I'm not saying I'm for against this but when I'm 02:16:41.740 --> 02:16:47.000 - asking John since you're better at this is is the language in there enough to allow us 02:16:47.000 --> 02:16:54.780 - to say what was done by creating the illusion of business by putting the wall in making 02:16:54.780 --> 02:17:04.140 - it look like a commercial establishment helping define the sidewalk is that enough to allow 02:17:04.140 --> 02:17:15.420 - us to override the setback that's my question please John think about is the precedent we're 02:17:15.420 --> 02:17:24.340 - creating with all the other buildings that will come up with creative solutions to pretend 02:17:24.340 --> 02:17:36.900 - like there's a commercial use so they can use the space for rent this is why I think 02:17:36.900 --> 02:17:42.140 - you're bringing a really good question looking again at the purpose correct and do we feel 02:17:42.140 --> 02:17:45.900 - that that's that that's an interpretation that we are going to want to try to pursue 02:17:45.900 --> 02:17:50.580 - or do we feel like it's just not really the right way to go because we will eventually 02:17:50.580 --> 02:17:59.840 - have to figure out how to overcome the setback no I was just I agree I think we and I kind 02:17:59.840 --> 02:18:04.380 - of said at the beginning we open a can of worms here potentially for everybody in this 02:18:04.380 --> 02:18:10.420 - area who can't fill their commercial space to come to fill it with a facade and put departments 02:18:10.420 --> 02:18:14.940 - in there I can understand wanting the need to fill the space I was coming I appreciate 02:18:14.940 --> 02:18:20.220 - I'm gonna call you Krista so I don't butcher your last name but I appreciate what she kind 02:18:20.220 --> 02:18:23.940 - of put together here because when we're talking about like what kind of data are we seeing 02:18:23.940 --> 02:18:31.180 - to support this I mean she's talking about a three to one ratio of the pedestrian traffic 02:18:31.180 --> 02:18:35.900 - and I think to me that's the peculiarity stands out as this sidewalk how they said they couldn't 02:18:35.900 --> 02:18:40.980 - put up a sandwich sign and still be able to walk around these these parking meters I mean 02:18:40.980 --> 02:18:46.740 - I think this really supports how this is not the pedestrian experience that is defined 02:18:46.740 --> 02:18:52.700 - by the UDO and encouraged by the UDO it's the beeline in this particular case and I 02:18:52.700 --> 02:18:56.360 - think that's a peculiarity that that stands out and it would make for an argument as to 02:18:56.360 --> 02:19:04.540 - why we grant the variance just to your I think a couple of points that the other board members 02:19:04.540 --> 02:19:13.860 - make I think they're and I'm very mindful of you know the precedent issues etc but this 02:19:13.860 --> 02:19:19.340 - is a lot different than new construction I mean I'd probably have a different reaction 02:19:19.340 --> 02:19:29.540 - if every you know new construction project that has vacant retail came in and just wanted 02:19:29.540 --> 02:19:39.820 - to put up some something in the window this is a historic building on a challenging lot 02:19:39.820 --> 02:19:46.460 - and I respect Eric's point about what the code says but you know the the entrances building 02:19:46.460 --> 02:19:54.660 - was the corner you know that's where the building fronted you went in through the corner so 02:19:54.660 --> 02:20:00.780 - it's not like the Morton Street side of the building was ever you know the front of the 02:20:00.780 --> 02:20:08.100 - building so I think there are some elements to this specific project that are very unique 02:20:08.100 --> 02:20:17.500 - and not necessarily as precedential as if it was you know one of the one of the other 02:20:17.500 --> 02:20:24.540 - new construction buildings that doesn't have any of these kind of you know funky traits 02:20:24.540 --> 02:20:32.900 - to it and the 20 you know as I understand the way that the code reads on the 20 foot 02:20:32.900 --> 02:20:44.620 - setback from I guess the front of the building or the streetscape I mean I kind of get that 02:20:44.620 --> 02:20:52.420 - but again I mean these folks would have a difficult time getting I mean it just doesn't 02:20:52.420 --> 02:20:57.420 - well never mind I mean that's the point of getting a variance right is that there's something 02:20:57.420 --> 02:21:09.380 - unique about the the property that warrants variance from strict application of the code 02:21:09.380 --> 02:21:14.100 - so to your point I mean that's that's what this is about are we willing to you know provide 02:21:14.100 --> 02:21:25.360 - a variance from that 20 foot setback or yeah I have two questions and this may go to you 02:21:25.360 --> 02:21:32.140 - for step for to staff for so the the tenants experience is not changed whatsoever is that 02:21:32.140 --> 02:21:38.900 - correct or is the tenant going to have now windows is so the wall facade can you help 02:21:38.900 --> 02:21:46.100 - explain the wall facade and like is so it's does the residential apartment lose a window 02:21:46.100 --> 02:21:54.860 - because of decals on it if that's a question for staff I guess I can try to answer that 02:21:54.860 --> 02:22:01.820 - for you so the the wall that's being created on the inside you know it does not have windows 02:22:01.820 --> 02:22:08.500 - that can see to the outside so this this is a flat wall so from the residents experience 02:22:08.500 --> 02:22:13.700 - they're just staring at walls and so I want to go back to something here I think that 02:22:13.700 --> 02:22:19.460 - I touched on earlier that is important to mention that that these decals this signage 02:22:19.460 --> 02:22:24.900 - is not allowed there is no commercial space that is adjacent to this so these have to 02:22:24.900 --> 02:22:31.580 - be transparent windows and you know creating this dead space is not an improvement for 02:22:31.580 --> 02:22:36.700 - the streetscape you know it just creates this dead wall there with windows that you're you're 02:22:36.700 --> 02:22:41.980 - staring at nothing so in terms of the interior experience with the residents you know they're 02:22:41.980 --> 02:22:47.580 - just staring at a wall with even no windows if that I think answers your question well 02:22:47.580 --> 02:22:52.380 - also Eric just in and again precedence is not precedence but we had the same discussion 02:22:52.380 --> 02:22:58.660 - with building across the street when we were discussing the recruitment center because 02:22:58.660 --> 02:23:05.700 - of the issue of putting up those posters in order to provide a barrier because of concerns 02:23:05.700 --> 02:23:10.500 - about safety for those working inside so this to follow up on what you're saying there again 02:23:10.500 --> 02:23:15.820 - this has come up before this has been an issue about what to do about you using that strategy 02:23:15.820 --> 02:23:23.500 - of putting up essentially posters I know that some of the buildings in this area are given 02:23:23.500 --> 02:23:30.240 - the ability to put up art in display it but I think that's done through the planning process 02:23:30.240 --> 02:23:35.300 - rather than you know coming in and asking for a variance but yeah art art is certainly 02:23:35.300 --> 02:23:40.700 - different than signage you know in signage is in windows is very carefully regulated 02:23:40.700 --> 02:23:45.780 - you can't take up more than 25 percent of a window pane but again because there's no commercial 02:23:45.780 --> 02:23:50.580 - use behind this no commercial use adjacent to this no signage would be allowed in these 02:23:50.580 --> 02:23:55.860 - windows at all it would have to be trend they have to be transparent so you're just staring 02:23:55.860 --> 02:24:01.300 - at a blank wall you know as I said I we do not feel like that's certainly an improvement 02:24:01.300 --> 02:24:05.220 - for the pedestrian experience but to be clear could the petitioner put up public art in 02:24:05.220 --> 02:24:11.660 - that space they could put up art sure and that and that would if we were to grant variance 02:24:11.660 --> 02:24:19.260 - on the setback that would that would be acceptable it could be yeah you know and again I and 02:24:19.260 --> 02:24:25.720 - we hear you know we hear the the conflict the within the board members of you know wanting 02:24:25.720 --> 02:24:31.100 - to activate space not wanting spaces that empty you know and challenges with where the 02:24:31.100 --> 02:24:36.180 - law is written and then you know what the variance is based on you know and just want 02:24:36.180 --> 02:24:40.660 - to point out you know this space had always been commercial you know there was commercial 02:24:40.660 --> 02:24:45.000 - use in here when the bank was here so you know there's nothing that prevents this space 02:24:45.000 --> 02:24:50.260 - from being commercial or non-residential you know they they had apportioned this off because 02:24:50.260 --> 02:24:54.320 - they started to create dwelling units there without a permit so those spaces weren't even 02:24:54.320 --> 02:24:59.140 - available to the dentist office when they were moving in there so some of this is a self-created 02:24:59.140 --> 02:25:06.980 - hardship from the petitioner do we have any other questions or comments I mean I I know 02:25:06.980 --> 02:25:11.340 - that corridor there and I know that there's some commercial space that's open along that 02:25:11.340 --> 02:25:15.140 - corridor and it's it's the same issues that we've had before we had the same issue over 02:25:15.140 --> 02:25:21.940 - on it was a third street with that building across from Brueberger where we talked about 02:25:21.940 --> 02:25:25.820 - they've constantly been trying to change that into a residential those types of things so 02:25:25.820 --> 02:25:29.580 - we've had these questions come over and over and over again so I do know that it's frustrating 02:25:29.580 --> 02:25:35.180 - but at the same time I know as a small business owner myself that there is a very high demand 02:25:35.180 --> 02:25:41.620 - for affordable office space in those areas too now I can't speak to that being the issue 02:25:41.620 --> 02:25:46.940 - but I do want to at least voice the concerns of small business owners where we are looking 02:25:46.940 --> 02:25:53.460 - for affordable square footage in the downtown but we've been priced out of that I would 02:25:53.460 --> 02:25:57.620 - like to say to speak a little bit to the precedent just so for the record I know that all the 02:25:57.620 --> 02:26:00.940 - board members already know this but you don't actually set precedent right so each variances 02:26:00.940 --> 02:26:06.540 - its own thing but speaking of the two previous ones or that one that you mentioned on third 02:26:06.540 --> 02:26:11.020 - street or one we did with actually with mr. Howard on South Walnut those have both turned 02:26:11.020 --> 02:26:16.820 - to uses since they requested a variance to use them as residential and were declined 02:26:16.820 --> 02:26:24.260 - it does sometimes take time but we have seen those that those spaces do turn over and like 02:26:24.260 --> 02:26:28.140 - miss Borel mentioned you know one time when we brought one of those forward miss Borel 02:26:28.140 --> 02:26:32.260 - and mr. Ballard asked us to do a survey of the downtown and we did and it was a six percent 02:26:32.260 --> 02:26:37.500 - vacancy rate which was low and you know there are some spaces that are harder to fill than 02:26:37.500 --> 02:26:42.700 - others and as mr. Grulick pointed out to mr. Fernandez his point this is a historic building 02:26:42.700 --> 02:26:46.940 - the shell is historic and it has you know only so many entrances but the inside was 02:26:46.940 --> 02:26:53.900 - gutted and they chose to split it up in this way that isn't allowed by code you know whether 02:26:53.900 --> 02:26:59.220 - that was done you know inadvertently or not they that was that was self-created and so 02:26:59.220 --> 02:27:04.820 - now coming back you know it's kind of hard to to fix that problem and a final comment 02:27:04.820 --> 02:27:12.180 - on the president for the public for those watching those here we can't say because of this this 02:27:12.180 --> 02:27:17.420 - every every case is individual that's the point of that we're using those in order as touchstones 02:27:17.420 --> 02:27:22.180 - for us as we consider how do you attack these problems but they are not precedents and they 02:27:22.180 --> 02:27:32.420 - are not precedent setting any other questions or comments or motions questions can go to 02:27:32.420 --> 02:27:39.460 - staff can go to the petitioner I make a motion for the board of zoning appeals to adopt the 02:27:39.460 --> 02:27:47.620 - proposed findings and deny the dash eleven dash twenty five of a motion for denial of 02:27:47.620 --> 02:27:58.540 - the dash eleven dash twenty five. Do I have a second. I'm sorry. I have a second. Is there 02:27:58.540 --> 02:28:09.220 - any discussion for the question is called. Any comments positions. Then I'll call the 02:28:09.220 --> 02:28:28.780 - question. A yes vote is to deny. Yes. Ballard. No. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Hudson cow. Okay. 02:28:28.780 --> 02:28:38.820 - The motion passes three to two. No the motion failed. I'm sorry. Two to three. I misspoke. 02:28:38.820 --> 02:28:43.860 - I meant that it was successful. Sorry. Successful three to two. Thank you. We'll move on to the 02:28:43.860 --> 02:28:51.380 - next. I'm so sorry. Only two people voted to deny it. The motion failed. We need a new 02:28:51.380 --> 02:29:03.020 - motion. The motion was for denial. It was two to three. Right. Yep. So in other words 02:29:03.020 --> 02:29:09.420 - I'm sorry let me be clear. I need a positive motion please. Yeah we need a new motion so 02:29:09.420 --> 02:29:21.340 - either to approve or continue. Yep. And then while we're discussing that the 02:29:21.340 --> 02:29:27.500 - reason this is hard is because we will have to have findings. We can't just make a motion 02:29:27.500 --> 02:29:33.600 - that's the opposite. And as Mr. Grulick pointed out you can't approve what they've submitted 02:29:33.600 --> 02:29:37.160 - as submitted. You can't approve any of that signage. They would need a variance for all 02:29:37.160 --> 02:29:45.060 - of that. So you'll have to be specific about what you're approving I would say. So where 02:29:45.060 --> 02:29:55.360 - we stand now is the motion to deny failed. We are looking for a new motion which could 02:29:55.360 --> 02:30:02.980 - also be another motion to deny but with other conditions or one to approve the variance. 02:30:02.980 --> 02:30:08.380 - And if it's to approve we will need to discuss conditional language. 02:30:08.380 --> 02:30:21.780 - I have a question. What's the difference between the 15 feet and the 20 feet? I guess I'm trying 02:30:21.780 --> 02:30:29.220 - to understand where the 20 foot comes from and is there a technical reason or a structural 02:30:29.220 --> 02:30:34.860 - reason for that or is it just an experience and that's why it's 20 feet. 02:30:34.860 --> 02:30:39.340 - So the reason for the 20 foot and that is a number that's used in a couple different 02:30:39.340 --> 02:30:47.260 - situations in the zoning code. One of those deals with the language regarding where ground 02:30:47.260 --> 02:30:51.620 - floor parking can occur within a building and that's required to be 20 feet back. So 02:30:51.620 --> 02:30:58.260 - 20 feet in general is designed to try to make sure that there is active usable space there. 02:30:58.260 --> 02:31:03.660 - And so as I mentioned earlier this is not a situation where they're required to have 02:31:03.660 --> 02:31:09.420 - 50 percent ground floor commercial and we're arguing about what amount of space is viable 02:31:09.420 --> 02:31:14.140 - for commercial use. But this is to have space in there that is actually usable. So whether 02:31:14.140 --> 02:31:20.380 - it's for studying, whether it's for recreation, whether it's an exercise room, doesn't matter. 02:31:20.380 --> 02:31:25.860 - But the 20 foot gives space for something viable to occur within. 02:31:25.860 --> 02:31:38.140 - This is for the petitioner. So it looks like the 20 foot setback is not an option, or I 02:31:38.140 --> 02:31:45.700 - guess potentially if you're the architect, if the 20 foot is not an option and how I'm 02:31:45.700 --> 02:31:51.180 - getting caught up with the 15 versus the 20 and why is the 20 necessary? Because to me 02:31:51.180 --> 02:32:03.060 - as a renter, it looks like it's actually prohibiting the experience of the tenant by creating this 02:32:03.060 --> 02:32:11.700 - space. And so I'm trying to wrap my head around, I guess my question would be for one of the 02:32:11.700 --> 02:32:18.020 - four of you. So I'll try to answer that. So certainly the 02:32:18.020 --> 02:32:25.580 - UDO states residential use in this area can't, has to start 20 feet behind the facade. Okay. 02:32:25.580 --> 02:32:33.420 - So and the UDO definition that our attorney came up or looked at said that it starts with 02:32:33.420 --> 02:32:38.420 - the canopy. So there is a couple of canopies in that area. So what we were trying to do 02:32:38.420 --> 02:32:48.900 - again also to be different from the August 23 proposal was to set it back to try to get 02:32:48.900 --> 02:32:53.940 - out of the 20 feet as much as we could. Now would we love to have it right up against 02:32:53.940 --> 02:32:59.420 - the you know and not need that at all? What we were trying to do is at least give something 02:32:59.420 --> 02:33:05.780 - a space and again the idea of the art or something. And we looked at the south side of the building 02:33:05.780 --> 02:33:11.260 - where the dentist that already leases the 50% commercial has graphics in his windows and 02:33:11.260 --> 02:33:16.420 - so then we thought well we could do the same thing here and you won't know that there's 02:33:16.420 --> 02:33:23.860 - a residential use behind it or not. So we just used enough space. We left enough space 02:33:23.860 --> 02:33:29.820 - to be able to put graphics or something there or art if that's what we need to do. I mean 02:33:29.820 --> 02:33:36.900 - I think he would love to do that. But these units, the unit of the two units, the unit 02:33:36.900 --> 02:33:41.780 - on the north end of the building has windows facing the courtyard. So that unit doesn't 02:33:41.780 --> 02:33:47.700 - change as much. The unit that will have the wall and will have a very high transom glass 02:33:47.700 --> 02:33:52.260 - that you won't see. It won't be something they'll be able to look out. But it's a studio 02:33:52.260 --> 02:33:58.060 - unit. And studio units typically have a living room, bedroom that's kind of, it doesn't have 02:33:58.060 --> 02:34:02.740 - a window. It doesn't have to. There are plenty of units like that in town. So we were trying 02:34:02.740 --> 02:34:08.300 - to do something to kind of get us to meet the 20 foot as close as we could. So that's 02:34:08.300 --> 02:34:14.460 - why we have it. Would we remove that wall if possible? Sure. Do we think we've presented 02:34:14.460 --> 02:34:19.220 - enough information to say this is peculiar to this building? That's what we hope we've 02:34:19.220 --> 02:34:38.260 - done tonight. Sure. Okay. This is, well, this will be for either the petitioner or, or the 02:34:38.260 --> 02:34:49.140 - staff. Yeah, I see that there's two units, a studio apartment in the one bedroom apartment. 02:34:49.140 --> 02:34:57.420 - Isn't that code that you have to have two egresses? And, and it looks like there's definitely 02:34:57.420 --> 02:35:05.060 - one egress for the studio apartment. The other one looks like it's going through the some 02:35:05.060 --> 02:35:10.180 - other, is that part of the, is that a bedroom that opens onto the stairwell as a second 02:35:10.180 --> 02:35:16.060 - egress? So that's how we, that's how we, we also changed this. If you look at the, if 02:35:16.060 --> 02:35:25.380 - there was a floor plan from last year. So yes, the, the unit to the north is a one bedroom 02:35:25.380 --> 02:35:32.700 - unit. To, to the north? Well, there's two units there, side by side. The one I'm looking at 02:35:32.700 --> 02:35:38.260 - says a studio apartment. Okay, so, so it has a window that, that the second exit, you have 02:35:38.260 --> 02:35:43.140 - an entrance into the unit and then you have a window facing the courtyard on the north. 02:35:43.140 --> 02:35:50.340 - So that's its second egress for code. The southernmost unit of these two has, its, its 02:35:50.340 --> 02:35:56.140 - main entrance from the hallway is its first egress and its second egress is the door we 02:35:56.140 --> 02:36:02.260 - would be adding into that stair area. That's right. It says existing door, but the one 02:36:02.260 --> 02:36:12.540 - inside would have to be added. That's right. That's right. Thank you. Yeah. So again, for 02:36:12.540 --> 02:36:23.700 - us to vote to approve this request for variance, we would need the language. And Jackie, were 02:36:23.700 --> 02:36:28.460 - you suggesting our option is to continue it until we could figure it out? Yeah. I mean, 02:36:28.460 --> 02:36:35.740 - I think those are like deny, continue, approve. It sounded like there might be an opportunity 02:36:35.740 --> 02:36:46.560 - to rethink a little bit of this wall with the art versus stickers. And I don't know. 02:36:46.560 --> 02:36:56.940 - It just feels like there may be a way to kind of improve this a little bit. Yeah. We've seen 02:36:56.940 --> 02:37:03.660 - other petitioners that have had an opportunity to rethink and brought us something that was 02:37:03.660 --> 02:37:11.460 - happening. Yeah, I will. When is our next meeting? Sorry. Next means April 24th is April 24th. 02:37:11.460 --> 02:37:18.420 - Is that correct, Jackie? Yeah. I want to make a motion that we continue this petition until 02:37:18.420 --> 02:37:29.620 - the April 24th meeting. Do I have a second? Okay. So I have a motion to continue the meeting 02:37:29.620 --> 02:37:38.420 - that continue this petition until April 24th meeting. A vote of yes will continue it. I'm 02:37:38.420 --> 02:37:42.700 - going to try to keep my mind straight. A vote of yes will continue and a vote of no will 02:37:42.700 --> 02:37:47.260 - vote it down and we will then have to go back to the board for additional action. I have 02:37:47.260 --> 02:37:51.700 - a first and a second. Yes. Discussion, please. Yeah. I mean, I think I'm with John on this. 02:37:51.700 --> 02:37:55.180 - I think there's there's ways to enhance. We're talking about this pedestrian experience. 02:37:55.180 --> 02:38:00.060 - You guys can come back with very pointed things that are going to enhance that experience 02:38:00.060 --> 02:38:04.260 - rather than just talking. We realize we didn't tell you to prepare for that. I think that'd 02:38:04.260 --> 02:38:08.940 - be very helpful because I think you're on the right track. Again, I want to find a way 02:38:08.940 --> 02:38:14.380 - to support this, but I think we need just more details of what the exterior is going 02:38:14.380 --> 02:38:21.780 - to look like and in relation to the pedestrian experience. Any further discussion? If not, 02:38:21.780 --> 02:38:33.160 - there's a motion in front of the board and I'll call the question. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 02:38:33.160 --> 02:38:43.940 - Yes. Yes. Yes. So the motion 50 passes to continue this petition to our next meeting 02:38:43.940 --> 02:38:48.180 - April 24th, 2025. 02:38:48.180 --> 02:38:57.100 - And I would please advise the petitioner to consider what was presented by our board about 02:38:57.100 --> 02:39:05.900 - bringing back specific information. Thank you. Okay, we're at 8.15. We have time to 02:39:05.900 --> 02:39:15.820 - hit the last petition. Again, I'll ask do you guys need a quick break? Are you good? 02:39:15.820 --> 02:39:23.460 - Anyone? Okay, so we're on page 68 of the, is that right? Yeah, page 68 of the packet. 02:39:23.460 --> 02:39:35.860 - This is the petition V variance dash 12 dash 25, Don Cowden Foundation, Inc. Do I have 02:39:35.860 --> 02:39:39.540 - a staff report, please? Everyone's left. 02:39:39.540 --> 02:39:45.180 - Thank you. Eric Rulick again, Development Services Manager. So this is a request from 02:39:45.180 --> 02:39:52.580 - Don Cowden Foundation, Inc. for properties that are located at 2500 and 2506 West Third 02:39:52.580 --> 02:39:58.860 - Street. So the petitioners are here tonight to request a variance from parking maximums, 02:39:58.860 --> 02:40:03.060 - parking setback standards to allow parking between the building and the street, entrance 02:40:03.060 --> 02:40:07.820 - and drive standards to allow drive aisles between a building and the street, maximum 02:40:07.820 --> 02:40:15.380 - impervious surface coverage, minimum landscape area and loading service and refuse standards 02:40:15.380 --> 02:40:22.740 - to allow for the construction of a new restaurant use in the mixed use corridor zoning district. 02:40:22.740 --> 02:40:28.860 - So this petition site is located at the northwest corner of West Third and Kimball Drive. There 02:40:28.860 --> 02:40:35.300 - are two properties that are involved with this petition that are within the city jurisdiction 02:40:35.300 --> 02:40:39.940 - and then another property that is just to the north of this that is located in the county's 02:40:39.940 --> 02:40:45.820 - jurisdiction. So this site has been developed with a restaurant use and parking lot as well 02:40:45.820 --> 02:40:50.500 - as a multi-tenant center and parking lot and then the property to the northeast that is 02:40:50.500 --> 02:40:58.140 - in the county is currently undeveloped. So the property is about 1.18 acres in size. 02:40:58.140 --> 02:41:02.700 - As I mentioned, it has been developed with a restaurant and multi-tenant center. So the 02:41:02.700 --> 02:41:08.280 - petitioners would be removing both structures and parking areas to allow for a new Chick-fil-A 02:41:08.280 --> 02:41:15.220 - restaurant. So with that, they would be removing the drive cuts off of 3rd Street as the UDO 02:41:15.220 --> 02:41:20.980 - only allows on quarter lots access to come from the lower classified street. So the access 02:41:20.980 --> 02:41:26.860 - would actually come from the northern property that is in the county. That property would 02:41:26.860 --> 02:41:33.260 - have a parking lot and then serve as the stacking distance for the drive-through lanes. So you 02:41:33.260 --> 02:41:37.380 - can see here in the site plan, there are two drive-through lanes that are shown on the 02:41:37.380 --> 02:41:43.940 - east side of the site that then circle around along Kimball Drive and along 3rd Street and 02:41:43.940 --> 02:41:48.940 - then access the building that is in the southwest corner of the site. So the petitioner is 02:41:48.940 --> 02:41:54.720 - requesting a variety of variances in order to allow for this site plan. One of those 02:41:54.720 --> 02:42:01.340 - is from the maximum number of parking spaces that are allowed. So the UDO for restaurant 02:42:01.340 --> 02:42:08.620 - uses allows for a maximum of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of indoor seating area 02:42:08.620 --> 02:42:14.980 - plus five spaces per 1,000 square feet of outdoor seating area. So the indoor seating 02:42:14.980 --> 02:42:21.380 - area is based on, I'm sorry, the parking for the indoor seating is based on how much 02:42:21.380 --> 02:42:25.300 - seating is within the building. So you can see that on the right side here of the floor 02:42:25.300 --> 02:42:30.580 - plans as I mentioned is about 1,100 square feet. And so that would allow for 11 parking 02:42:30.580 --> 02:42:35.180 - spaces. They've got about 800 square feet of outdoor seating area that would allow for 02:42:35.180 --> 02:42:40.540 - four spaces. So the maximum number of parking spaces that would be allowed by the UDO is 02:42:40.540 --> 02:42:47.220 - 15 parking spaces. The indoor seating area would accommodate approximately 74 customers 02:42:47.220 --> 02:42:55.500 - and the petitioner expects between 10 to 13 employees per shift. So to help justify their 02:42:55.500 --> 02:43:01.180 - maximum parking number of variance, the petitioners have submitted parking studies from three 02:43:01.180 --> 02:43:05.580 - different locations. One of those was the other Chick-fil-A location on the east side 02:43:05.580 --> 02:43:12.180 - of town. Another was the Chick-fil-A in Terre Haute and then another was one up in Indianapolis. 02:43:12.180 --> 02:43:16.980 - All three of those were kind of standalone facilities so that they can gauge how much 02:43:16.980 --> 02:43:22.940 - parking is present at each of those locations. And so they've included that parking study 02:43:22.940 --> 02:43:29.020 - and that is in your packet as well. So it did find, certainly as the board can see with 02:43:29.020 --> 02:43:35.260 - the number of seats and number of employees, the need for this use is much more than 15. 02:43:35.260 --> 02:43:40.660 - When you look at the studies from the other locations, you can see certainly parking ratio 02:43:40.660 --> 02:43:48.020 - is much higher in the 30s for similar size restaurant sizes. So the study that they submitted 02:43:48.020 --> 02:43:52.940 - does help justify the request for the maximum parking number. One of the other requests 02:43:52.940 --> 02:43:59.180 - that they are requesting is for the parking setback. So the UDO requires parking spaces 02:43:59.180 --> 02:44:05.460 - to be located 20 feet behind the front of the building. So as a result of the building 02:44:05.460 --> 02:44:09.900 - being at the southwest corner of the site, there are several parking spaces that are 02:44:09.900 --> 02:44:14.340 - on the east side of the building, and then on the north side of the building as well, 02:44:14.340 --> 02:44:18.820 - that are within that parking setback area. So they've requested a variance in order to 02:44:18.820 --> 02:44:23.180 - allow for all of those spaces to be there. There's another section of the code that deals 02:44:23.180 --> 02:44:29.100 - with the location of entrances and drives, and does not allow for entrances and drive 02:44:29.100 --> 02:44:34.500 - to be located less than 45 degrees between a building and the street. So because they 02:44:34.500 --> 02:44:39.220 - have two drive-through lanes that are between the building and Kimball Drive, those require 02:44:39.220 --> 02:44:44.600 - variances as well. The petitioner is also requesting a variance from the maximum impervious 02:44:44.600 --> 02:44:51.540 - surface coverage. Within the MC zoning district, 60 percent is the maximum impervious surface 02:44:51.540 --> 02:44:56.740 - coverage that is required. The petitioners have shown some of the parking spaces with 02:44:56.740 --> 02:45:04.380 - permeable pavers that are still at that 67.4 percent impervious surface coverage, so that 02:45:04.380 --> 02:45:10.460 - does require a variance. However, the UDO does state that in situations where parking 02:45:10.460 --> 02:45:16.700 - is provided over the maximum, all of those have to be constructed of permeable pavers. 02:45:16.700 --> 02:45:22.100 - So if the board granted the parking maximum number, there is a condition of approval that 02:45:22.100 --> 02:45:28.040 - says that those extra spaces would have to be constructed out of impervious material. 02:45:28.040 --> 02:45:31.780 - So if that were to happen, that variance would come off because they would be able to meet 02:45:31.780 --> 02:45:36.980 - the maximum impervious surface coverage number. However, one of the other standards, the minimum 02:45:36.980 --> 02:45:43.180 - landscaped area, which is 40 percent, would not be affected by the use of permeable pavers. 02:45:43.180 --> 02:45:50.500 - So the petitioners are requesting a variance to allow 32.5 percent minimum landscaped area. 02:45:50.500 --> 02:45:54.900 - And then one of the other variances being requested is in regards to loading service 02:45:54.900 --> 02:46:02.140 - and refuse. The zoning code says that these areas should be located away from public streets 02:46:02.140 --> 02:46:07.500 - to the maximum extent possible, shall not be highly visible. So the dumpster locations 02:46:07.500 --> 02:46:12.700 - are shown on the east side of the site and is certainly very visible. It's only separated 02:46:12.700 --> 02:46:16.820 - by the street by two drive-through lanes. There's certainly a lot of locations on the 02:46:16.820 --> 02:46:21.420 - site that the dumpsters could have been located at that would be much less visible. So we 02:46:21.420 --> 02:46:26.780 - do not feel that it had been located to the maximum extent practical. And so that would 02:46:26.780 --> 02:46:33.100 - require a variance as well. So the landscape, the petitioner has submitted a landscape plan. 02:46:33.100 --> 02:46:38.100 - They are not requesting a variance from the landscaping requirements. There are a few 02:46:38.100 --> 02:46:43.260 - changes or additions that need to happen for some additional landscaping to meet this. 02:46:43.260 --> 02:46:48.380 - However, the petitioner is fully expecting in order to be able to meet all of the landscaping 02:46:48.380 --> 02:46:54.940 - requirements. So they have also submitted some elevations. Again, there are some minor 02:46:54.940 --> 02:46:59.660 - modifications that need to happen to the elevations. But the petitioner expects to be able to be 02:46:59.660 --> 02:47:05.580 - compliant with our architectural requirements. And so there are no elevation variances that 02:47:05.580 --> 02:47:12.980 - are being requested tonight as well. So with this, obviously, there are a lot of criteria 02:47:12.980 --> 02:47:20.340 - that have to be evaluated for each variance request. Each of these variance criteria are 02:47:20.340 --> 02:47:26.740 - evaluated separately in and of themselves. So in regards to the maximum parking number, 02:47:26.740 --> 02:47:32.020 - we did not find that the granting of the variance would be injurious in any regards. It would 02:47:32.020 --> 02:47:37.540 - allow for parking to be accommodated on the site that would be appropriate for this use. 02:47:37.540 --> 02:47:42.420 - You know, it's been well documented in their parking study through the information of the 02:47:42.420 --> 02:47:47.140 - number of employees and the seating capacity that there is a need for it. So we did not 02:47:47.140 --> 02:47:53.980 - find any injurious to the public health safety or general welfare of the community as a result 02:47:53.980 --> 02:47:59.700 - of the granting of the parking maximum number. The next two, though, I'm just going to kind 02:47:59.700 --> 02:48:04.420 - of talk about together because they're both related. You know, the front parking setback 02:48:04.420 --> 02:48:10.940 - and the entrance and drive. The reason for these criteria, the reason for these standards 02:48:10.940 --> 02:48:14.660 - in terms of the front parking setback, the parking has to be located twenty feet behind 02:48:14.660 --> 02:48:20.340 - the front of a building and the prohibition of entrance and drives goes to just a general 02:48:20.340 --> 02:48:27.780 - overall site design that is desired and envisioned by both our comprehensive plan and then all 02:48:27.780 --> 02:48:32.220 - of the standards within the zoning code that were written to accomplish that. So as the 02:48:32.220 --> 02:48:37.860 - board is probably aware, you know, just through many different petitions, you know, our goal 02:48:37.860 --> 02:48:42.680 - through the comprehensive plan and the UDO was to create building forward design on a 02:48:42.680 --> 02:48:48.740 - site to promote walkable communities by placing buildings along the street rather than parking 02:48:48.740 --> 02:48:53.640 - between buildings in the street to encourage pedestrian activity, again to improve the 02:48:53.640 --> 02:49:00.300 - streetscape experience and the pedestrian experience and to de-emphasize vehicles and 02:49:00.300 --> 02:49:07.100 - parking from the predominant visual aspect of a site. So we did find that there would 02:49:07.100 --> 02:49:11.780 - be injuries to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare because these things 02:49:11.780 --> 02:49:16.940 - are related to the general welfare of the community, you know, to promote walkable communities, 02:49:16.940 --> 02:49:23.700 - to improve the visual and community aesthetics along corridors. So we did find negative findings 02:49:23.700 --> 02:49:29.420 - for that. Maximum and previous surface coverage, the petitioner does expect to be able to meet 02:49:29.420 --> 02:49:34.700 - all of their stormwater requirements. And as I mentioned, if the parking spaces over 02:49:34.700 --> 02:49:39.500 - the maximum are all constructed as permeable paper, then this variance would not even be 02:49:39.500 --> 02:49:44.780 - required as well. Again, with the minimum landscaped area requirement, assuming that 02:49:44.780 --> 02:49:48.060 - they're able to meet all the requirements of the utilities department for stormwater 02:49:48.060 --> 02:49:54.900 - drainage, as well as all the landscaping requirements, then we did not find a negative impact from 02:49:54.900 --> 02:49:59.820 - the granting of the variance for the minimum landscaped area. And the loading of service 02:49:59.820 --> 02:50:04.700 - and refuges, you know, we did not find that there would be any injuries to the public 02:50:04.700 --> 02:50:10.620 - health, safety, morals, or general welfare as a result of that variance. In regards to 02:50:10.620 --> 02:50:16.500 - the use and value adjacent to the area, we did not find any adverse impacts to the use 02:50:16.500 --> 02:50:22.020 - and adjacent use and value of the surrounding properties as a result of granting the maximum 02:50:22.020 --> 02:50:26.260 - parking number. Again, this would allow for parking to be provided on the site that would 02:50:26.260 --> 02:50:30.840 - serve the needs here, so that would reduce any possible impacts to adjacent properties 02:50:30.840 --> 02:50:37.220 - by being able to provide appropriate parking on this site. In regards to the parking setback 02:50:37.220 --> 02:50:42.740 - and maximum impervious surface and the entrance and drive, you know, we did not find any adverse 02:50:42.740 --> 02:50:49.700 - impacts on adjacent properties from any of those aspects. However, for the loading service 02:50:49.700 --> 02:50:55.780 - and refuse areas, we did find a negative adverse impact as a result of having the dumpsters 02:50:55.780 --> 02:51:01.860 - in the front on adjacent use and value because it does promote a negative visual aspect along 02:51:01.860 --> 02:51:06.220 - the street and the pedestrian experience of having these trash and refuse areas located 02:51:06.220 --> 02:51:12.340 - along the front, so we did make negative findings in that regard. And then lastly, the, you 02:51:12.340 --> 02:51:17.220 - know, obviously the most difficult of all of these things is that the strict application 02:51:17.220 --> 02:51:23.180 - of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property and, 02:51:23.180 --> 02:51:27.980 - you know, most importantly that the practical difficulties are peculiar to the property. 02:51:27.980 --> 02:51:34.180 - So in regards to maximum parking area or parking number, you know, we did find that there is 02:51:34.180 --> 02:51:39.700 - a practical difficulty related to the use of this property and that the UDO would not 02:51:39.700 --> 02:51:45.260 - allow for parking that would be appropriate to serve this use. They have demonstrated 02:51:45.260 --> 02:51:51.100 - that there is a need for maximum parking number, and so that has been well justified, so we 02:51:51.100 --> 02:51:56.900 - did make positive findings in that regard. However, for the next two, for the front parking 02:51:56.900 --> 02:52:03.940 - setback and entrance and drive, we did not find any practical difficulties in the use 02:52:03.940 --> 02:52:09.020 - of the property or that there was anything peculiar about the property that did not allow 02:52:09.020 --> 02:52:13.340 - for the entrance and drives and parking to be located in a way that it would meet all 02:52:13.340 --> 02:52:19.300 - of the requirements of the UDO. This is a very large property. It's over an acre. It 02:52:19.300 --> 02:52:25.340 - has several hundred feet of frontage on both streets, so it is very wide. It has been developed 02:52:25.340 --> 02:52:30.980 - with commercial uses now, and so the denial of this variance would not deprive the use 02:52:30.980 --> 02:52:37.340 - of this property for a wide range of uses that the UDO allows for. That is very important 02:52:37.340 --> 02:52:42.540 - to keep in mind as you're evaluating these criteria is that you're looking at it from 02:52:42.540 --> 02:52:45.900 - a perspective that without the granting of the variances, this property would not be 02:52:45.900 --> 02:52:50.940 - able to be developed in a manner consistent for which it's zoned. You know, it's not that 02:52:50.940 --> 02:52:56.780 - every site plan has to fit on every site, but that a property has an inherent peculiar condition 02:52:56.780 --> 02:53:02.700 - about it that is unique to that property that presents a practical difficulty in its development. 02:53:02.700 --> 02:53:07.280 - And so in that regard, we did not find anything that prevented parking setbacks from being 02:53:07.280 --> 02:53:12.780 - met or the entrance and drive. While we certainly understand that the petitioner has a high 02:53:12.780 --> 02:53:19.460 - customer volume in relation to the drive through and why that is important to them, the impacts 02:53:19.460 --> 02:53:24.540 - of that are very significant and are very important and are emphasized heavily in our 02:53:24.540 --> 02:53:30.060 - comprehensive plan and our UDO. And again, as I mentioned, you know, the site is developable 02:53:30.060 --> 02:53:35.060 - for a wide range of uses. So the denial of that variance does not deprive the use of 02:53:35.060 --> 02:53:41.140 - the property. For the maximum previous surface coverage, as I mentioned, you know, if they 02:53:41.140 --> 02:53:46.940 - utilize the additional spaces over the maximum with permeable pavers, that parking area or 02:53:46.940 --> 02:53:52.660 - that variance wouldn't be required. But even if the board does not require that, we did 02:53:52.660 --> 02:53:58.540 - not find that there would be any negative impacts in that regard. Likewise, with the 02:53:58.540 --> 02:54:07.540 - minimum landscape area, that, you know, they would not be able to, they could still meet. 02:54:07.540 --> 02:54:13.000 - You know, the application of the UDO does not prevent the site from being developed 02:54:13.000 --> 02:54:17.700 - and meet the minimum landscape area requirements. You know, as I mentioned, it's a very large 02:54:17.700 --> 02:54:23.260 - property. It's over an acre in size. And so it does not present any inherent challenges 02:54:23.260 --> 02:54:29.220 - with meeting the minimum landscape area requirement. Again, with the loading service and refuse, 02:54:29.220 --> 02:54:33.180 - you know, the property is very large. There are lots of places that the dumpsters could 02:54:33.180 --> 02:54:40.220 - have been located rather than along the front, along Kimball Drive. And, you know, certainly 02:54:40.220 --> 02:54:45.740 - we do not feel that the dumpster and refuse areas have been located appropriately to place 02:54:45.740 --> 02:54:53.220 - them in an area not visible from the public street. So with that, we are recommending 02:54:53.220 --> 02:54:59.460 - that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the variance from maximum parking 02:54:59.460 --> 02:55:06.300 - spaces and deny all other variances with the three conditions that are listed in staff's 02:55:06.300 --> 02:55:13.760 - report. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. We have the petitioner or petitioner's 02:55:13.760 --> 02:55:19.100 - representative. If so, come forward. Sign in, please. Yeah, if there's something that 02:55:19.100 --> 02:55:21.300 - was unclear, we can do that right now. Go ahead and sign in. 02:55:21.300 --> 02:55:31.620 - Eric, just a quick question. I think it's the diagram on page 74. I'm trying to wrap my 02:55:31.620 --> 02:55:39.660 - mind around where's the county jurisdiction in all of this? Is it the white area north 02:55:39.660 --> 02:55:47.220 - of the site? Yeah, I will pull that up for you real quick. 02:55:47.220 --> 02:55:54.940 - I think it's along like South Kimball to the I guess. Is it before after the schematics? 02:55:54.940 --> 02:56:01.700 - So it's so you can see it here on this exhibit. So the dashed property that is on the north 02:56:01.700 --> 02:56:05.420 - is the property. It's in the county. And then the two properties that have been developed 02:56:05.420 --> 02:56:11.740 - with the cozy table and the multi-tenant center in the city. And so is all that land to the 02:56:11.740 --> 02:56:20.820 - I guess going I'm getting turned around here on directions. So all of those I guess white 02:56:20.820 --> 02:56:28.620 - parcels. Those are all in the county. Yes. But the shaded ones are in the city. Correct. 02:56:28.620 --> 02:56:36.780 - Wow. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the clarification. State your first and last name please. Brian 02:56:36.780 --> 02:56:42.100 - Kaiser Brian if do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth or 02:56:42.100 --> 02:56:48.460 - truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Again you have 20 minutes any time unused will be 02:56:48.460 --> 02:56:54.020 - given to you at the end before we make any decisions. Please. Thank you. I would ask 02:56:54.020 --> 02:56:59.980 - can staff pull up the site plan again please. As Eric just mentioned we find ourselves in 02:56:59.980 --> 02:57:05.580 - a pretty unique situation with this parcel. As he said we are you know the intention is 02:57:05.580 --> 02:57:12.820 - to develop these three lots into a Chick-fil-a store. Just for your reference this site is 02:57:12.820 --> 02:57:19.260 - located about 500 feet away from Interstate I 69 on the east side of town. We are we find 02:57:19.260 --> 02:57:25.820 - ourselves in a very highly trafficked commercial area that parcel on the north side of our 02:57:25.820 --> 02:57:31.420 - site is located within the county. As a result of that and staff can we go to the very last 02:57:31.420 --> 02:57:38.340 - page of this PDF please. As a result of that parcel being within county jurisdiction we 02:57:38.340 --> 02:57:44.100 - find ourselves in a unique situation in that this site plan varies heavily from what Chick-fil-a 02:57:44.100 --> 02:57:49.820 - would consider their ideal site plan. The city you know not being allowed to take on 02:57:49.820 --> 02:57:56.340 - voluntary annexations at this point in time has put us in a position we don't really want 02:57:56.340 --> 02:58:01.300 - to be in as far as what the site plan looks like. I also have the landlord here tonight 02:58:01.300 --> 02:58:05.860 - I'll let them speak a little bit to that as well. I'm going to run down the list of variances 02:58:05.860 --> 02:58:09.500 - I'm not going to touch on everything Eric did a good job of explaining what we're asking 02:58:09.500 --> 02:58:18.040 - for. I will point out we are sitting on a count on a corner lot. Eric made a mention 02:58:18.040 --> 02:58:24.940 - that the intention of the comprehensive plan and UDO is to promote a building forward environment 02:58:24.940 --> 02:58:33.060 - for the streetscape and for pedestrian experiences as a result of our conversations with the 02:58:33.060 --> 02:58:39.620 - planning department up to this point we have modified our site plan to do what we feel 02:58:39.620 --> 02:58:46.000 - best aligns with the intention of the UDO and the comprehensive plan while still functioning 02:58:46.000 --> 02:58:53.020 - in a way that works for a Chick-fil-A restaurant. We have placed the building forward on the 02:58:53.020 --> 02:58:59.740 - higher classification street being Third Street in a normal Chick-fil-A site plan. That's that 02:58:59.740 --> 02:59:03.900 - drive through would wrap around all three sides of the building and we have made an 02:59:03.900 --> 02:59:09.420 - intentional modification to our site plan to place that building as close to Third Street 02:59:09.420 --> 02:59:14.700 - as we are allowed to place it. And the intention is going to be for us to meet the UDO and 02:59:14.700 --> 02:59:21.340 - provide the enhanced pedestrian entrance as well as a part of the UDO requirements. We 02:59:21.340 --> 02:59:26.740 - are also required to install a ten foot sidewalk along Third Street and an eight foot tree 02:59:26.740 --> 02:59:32.860 - plot that will also be included along the Third Street frontage. Kimball Street frontage 02:59:32.860 --> 02:59:38.300 - as well that one has a five foot sidewalk and a six foot tree plot that will allow us 02:59:38.300 --> 02:59:43.700 - just to kind of help you know improve the pedestrian experience and you know make everything 02:59:43.700 --> 02:59:49.380 - look a little bit better like Eric was asking for. As far as the dumpster goes I want to 02:59:49.380 --> 02:59:56.460 - make a critical point that was not made in the staff report. If you look at the northwest 02:59:56.460 --> 03:00:01.380 - corner of our proposed site plan what you will see directly north of the site are mobile 03:00:01.380 --> 03:00:07.020 - trailer homes. There are people living in the trailer homes for rent directly north 03:00:07.020 --> 03:00:14.260 - of our site. We have placed the dumpster very intentionally on our parcel knowing that we're 03:00:14.260 --> 03:00:20.420 - going to need a variance but we did that in order to place that dumpster as far away as 03:00:20.420 --> 03:00:26.420 - we could feasibly get it from the residential properties directly adjacent to our site in 03:00:26.420 --> 03:00:30.940 - a what I would call a normal situation for us if we had commercial to the north that 03:00:30.940 --> 03:00:34.420 - dumpster would be on the north side of the site but we have moved it in order to you 03:00:34.420 --> 03:00:41.340 - know behoove the residents up there not place this dumpster effectively in their backyards 03:00:41.340 --> 03:00:47.400 - there is a PDF in the flash drive that I had sent you it should be the elevations for that 03:00:47.400 --> 03:00:54.980 - dumpster should be that first one yes so the dumpster that Chick-fil-a uses on all of their 03:00:54.980 --> 03:01:02.300 - sites and this one included if this project moves forward is not an open exposed dumpster 03:01:02.300 --> 03:01:06.580 - if you've been to the cozy table restaurant what's currently sitting out there is an old 03:01:06.580 --> 03:01:11.180 - rumkey dumpster that is rusting with a plastic lid that is falling apart and it doesn't look 03:01:11.180 --> 03:01:17.320 - good what Chick-fil-a makes very intentional on all of their sites both for you know adjacent 03:01:17.320 --> 03:01:24.020 - property value but also for customer experience is to place that dumpster within a brick masonry 03:01:24.020 --> 03:01:29.660 - you know enclosure so that the dumpster is not inherently visible you know it's still 03:01:29.660 --> 03:01:34.560 - apparent that you know it is a structure that houses the dumpster but I want to make it 03:01:34.560 --> 03:01:42.420 - clear that we have made efforts to hide that dumpster and I would also argue that there 03:01:42.420 --> 03:01:49.140 - are sections of your U.D.O. that make provisions for dumpster enhancements and placements when 03:01:49.140 --> 03:01:54.940 - that dumpster cannot be connected to the building as desired by the comprehensive plan in the 03:01:54.940 --> 03:02:00.940 - U.D.O. and we have gone above and beyond these sections of the U.D.O. that make those provisions 03:02:00.940 --> 03:02:06.900 - you know this is an eight foot tall dumpster enclosure the you know the brick masonry that's 03:02:06.900 --> 03:02:12.600 - on there matches the design of the primary structure there's a movable gate those gates 03:02:12.600 --> 03:02:17.740 - have been placed so that they face into the site and don't face the street frontages and 03:02:17.740 --> 03:02:22.620 - that was also done intentionally so that the dumpster is not opening facing you know our 03:02:22.620 --> 03:02:27.940 - pedestrian experience that we're trying to create a long third street other than that 03:02:27.940 --> 03:02:33.460 - staff if we can go back to the site plan please. 03:02:33.460 --> 03:02:38.780 - Eric made a made a great point about permeable pavers on this site and our impervious coverage 03:02:38.780 --> 03:02:45.220 - variance I just want to make sure that we are clear our intention is going to be to 03:02:45.220 --> 03:02:50.700 - install as many permeable pavers as needed to meet the impervious coverage requirement. 03:02:50.700 --> 03:02:56.600 - So while the plan originally submitted to staff is short of that requirement Eric has 03:02:56.600 --> 03:03:01.700 - told us that we need to you know effectively add four spaces worth of permeable pavers 03:03:01.700 --> 03:03:06.540 - in order to meet the requirement and we will be doing so. 03:03:06.540 --> 03:03:11.460 - Other than that the only thing I want to hit on is just the landscape plan and then I will 03:03:11.460 --> 03:03:17.300 - get out of your hair Eric mentioned that we are you know roughly 8 percent short of the 03:03:17.300 --> 03:03:22.540 - minimum required landscape area and he is correct but I would like to point out that 03:03:22.540 --> 03:03:28.660 - you know the UDO makes provisions for the amount of plantings and you know there's some 03:03:28.660 --> 03:03:36.540 - other landscape pieces to this and we are able to meet the landscape code you know everywhere 03:03:36.540 --> 03:03:41.660 - else as needed we're going to have the required number of minimum plantings I mean it is going 03:03:41.660 --> 03:03:46.860 - to look and feel like a Bloomington landscape plan for a commercial site. 03:03:46.860 --> 03:03:52.260 - It's just 8 percent short of the typical and part of the reason that was done was because 03:03:52.260 --> 03:03:58.020 - of the parking spaces and you know we've got a larger a large parking lot certainly larger 03:03:58.020 --> 03:04:05.420 - than the UDO allowed for and you know again it's a Chick-fil-A it's a high traffic store 03:04:05.420 --> 03:04:11.100 - we like I said we're 500 feet from the interstate you know this is the only Chick-fil-A located 03:04:11.100 --> 03:04:16.620 - between Indianapolis and Evansville and you know this is going to see a large number of 03:04:16.620 --> 03:04:20.980 - interstate traffic so we have intentionally designed the site with a longer than normal 03:04:20.980 --> 03:04:26.500 - drive-through you know parking spaces that go well above the UDO because we we feel that 03:04:26.500 --> 03:04:30.380 - this is going to be a high traffic store and we want to make sure that we're providing 03:04:30.380 --> 03:04:37.260 - the best customer experience on site with that I'm going to sit down I'll let the landlord 03:04:37.260 --> 03:04:48.060 - speak if they want to I'm going to reserve some time for after questions but thank you 03:04:48.060 --> 03:05:06.680 - do we have someone else from this going to speak to this okay come forward and sign please 03:05:06.680 --> 03:05:11.300 - thank you I know say your first and last name please Tom Orman do you affirm that the testimony 03:05:11.300 --> 03:05:14.220 - you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes 03:05:14.220 --> 03:05:18.780 - I do okay we'll restart the clock and you still have at least 12 minutes I'll go quick 03:05:18.780 --> 03:05:22.980 - because you guys might have questions for him but anyway we have an opportunity here to 03:05:22.980 --> 03:05:30.060 - take to 1970 buildings down and and bring a new Chick-fil-a to our west side of Bloomington 03:05:30.060 --> 03:05:36.300 - I think that that's great for everybody there's probably not a tree on this site right now 03:05:36.300 --> 03:05:42.980 - I think I also want to bring up another important important point cozy table restaurant is getting 03:05:42.980 --> 03:05:48.020 - relocated to a new you know we didn't just kick them out I think that's really important 03:05:48.020 --> 03:05:54.660 - because we're all about you know local business so I wanted to bring that point up and you 03:05:54.660 --> 03:06:01.060 - know we do actually Cowden Enterprises owns the trailer park right behind it and it is 03:06:01.060 --> 03:06:04.740 - unique and Chick-fil-a they can speak on their behalf but they've been looking for a west 03:06:04.740 --> 03:06:10.380 - side location probably two to three years and they've worked really hard with Eric and 03:06:10.380 --> 03:06:15.680 - I think Eric's worked hard with them as well to try to make this work and so we really 03:06:15.680 --> 03:06:19.440 - didn't like to come here with all these variances but we appreciate your time and your effort 03:06:19.440 --> 03:06:30.740 - and support and if you got any questions he'd be the man thank you questions to the board 03:06:30.740 --> 03:06:38.340 - from the board to the staff or the petitioners just one for the petitioner can you go back 03:06:38.340 --> 03:06:46.260 - and Jackie do you mind bringing up the dumpster slide and can you just orient me pointing 03:06:46.260 --> 03:06:52.260 - to where that is and then how those gates will will open up did you say yes so the gates 03:06:52.260 --> 03:06:59.860 - open up they open out so it's you know like it like a normal door they open out this way 03:06:59.860 --> 03:07:05.060 - that's yeah and then they face to the west side of the site so if you're standing on 03:07:05.060 --> 03:07:09.980 - Kimball you're looking at the back of the dumpster which is that very north picture 03:07:09.980 --> 03:07:15.220 - the the gates will be facing interior to the site okay so that's the view off Kimball would 03:07:15.220 --> 03:07:20.220 - be the top yes and then if you're if you're standing inside the site looking at Kimball 03:07:20.220 --> 03:07:24.580 - you would see the second picture down on the right side you'd be looking at the gates okay 03:07:24.580 --> 03:07:32.620 - got it thank you for that clarification for the staff I'm just kind of trying to wrap 03:07:32.620 --> 03:07:46.220 - my head around how do we make land use decisions for property that's not in our jurisdiction 03:07:46.220 --> 03:07:51.860 - so that so that the county's property is not part of this petition we did not factor that 03:07:51.860 --> 03:07:59.740 - in for any capacity whatsoever so they have to work separately with the county I did reach 03:07:59.740 --> 03:08:04.460 - out to county planning and talk to them they did a preliminary review on this and said 03:08:04.460 --> 03:08:10.620 - that the parking lot and what was shown at least at a conceptual stage a few months ago 03:08:10.620 --> 03:08:18.940 - would be allowed but overall it was not factored into our petition in any way so I guess before 03:08:18.940 --> 03:08:25.420 - they would pull a building permit they'd have to get sign off from both the city and the 03:08:25.420 --> 03:08:30.260 - county planning yeah so they would have to go through whatever process county planning 03:08:30.260 --> 03:08:35.260 - has for that section of the property that is in their jurisdiction you know we have 03:08:35.260 --> 03:08:40.060 - dealt with this situation a couple times you know where there is a petition coming forward 03:08:40.060 --> 03:08:45.900 - that has landed both the city and the county and in essence it's just a hard line of where 03:08:45.900 --> 03:08:50.020 - the city county boundary is and everything on our side of the line has to meet on our 03:08:50.020 --> 03:09:00.620 - side of the line and anything on the county side has to meet their requirements interesting 03:09:00.620 --> 03:09:10.540 - any other questions I have another question I guess for this is for Eric I mean I can 03:09:10.540 --> 03:09:22.980 - fully appreciate the the advantages of a site this close to I-69 but I guess my I'm just 03:09:22.980 --> 03:09:31.900 - a little certain about there there's if if the traffic is coming from I-69 the turning 03:09:31.900 --> 03:09:41.940 - lane you know at 3rd Street that aligns with with Kimball seems like a fairly it was designed 03:09:41.940 --> 03:09:48.220 - for I don't know it just doesn't seem like a very large shoot there I mean are you concerned 03:09:48.220 --> 03:09:56.460 - about traffic back up on West 3rd well so the UDO like I mentioned requires access to 03:09:56.460 --> 03:10:02.980 - come from the lower classified Street so they'd be turning from 3rd North onto Kimball you 03:10:02.980 --> 03:10:06.500 - know whether they were coming from the West or East on 3rd Street they would be going 03:10:06.500 --> 03:10:13.940 - north into Kimball and then you know circling into the site however John I think the question 03:10:13.940 --> 03:10:22.980 - is legitimate because you can see on the east side how the backup spills out of their property 03:10:22.980 --> 03:10:30.620 - into the target parking lot roadway surface so I think what you really what I'm hearing 03:10:30.620 --> 03:10:35.220 - is yes you have those two lanes but it's going to come down Kimball and on to end it's going 03:10:35.220 --> 03:10:44.960 - to be backed up right to third as people try to turn in is that is that fair to say 03:10:44.960 --> 03:10:52.500 - how many to the petitioner then how many cars can fit into those two lanes 03:10:52.500 --> 03:10:58.960 - to just for clarification for those two drive-through lanes if they are completely full if you're 03:10:58.960 --> 03:11:06.020 - operating them both as full service drive-through lanes they would hold about 40 cars and at 03:11:06.020 --> 03:11:12.780 - your peak what's your normal traffic peak as far as like total traffic to store total 03:11:12.780 --> 03:11:18.460 - traffic say say your peak hour how many cars go through that drive-through in a peak hour 03:11:18.460 --> 03:11:26.780 - I would say we can typically serve between 120 140 cars in an hour typically yes it always 03:11:26.780 --> 03:11:32.540 - depends because I mean you know it's it's operation specific I mean if well I'm sorry 03:11:32.540 --> 03:11:36.940 - you're saying that's how many you can you can service I'm asking how many do you typically 03:11:36.940 --> 03:11:42.260 - yeah get in line yeah typically we can serve about 140 120 cars and that's how many are 03:11:42.260 --> 03:11:47.460 - in line or how many you can serve how many we can serve okay so there could be more that 03:11:47.460 --> 03:11:54.100 - that in other words in that hour you can still have backup that you don't serve but can still 03:11:54.100 --> 03:12:02.700 - be in line that's what I'm asking yes in theory yep okay just just if I can I mean operationally 03:12:02.700 --> 03:12:08.980 - I mean this isn't a criticism at all because I think I've seen all kinds of case studies 03:12:08.980 --> 03:12:17.940 - on Chick-fil-a and just how phenomenal they are with the efficiency but it just seems 03:12:17.940 --> 03:12:24.380 - like most of the customers are drive-thru is that correct yes and I mean they will be you 03:12:24.380 --> 03:12:29.500 - know as as I had mentioned earlier we are very close to i69 so there's going to be a 03:12:29.500 --> 03:12:34.140 - high percentage of cars that are coming off the interstate and going through this drive-thru 03:12:34.140 --> 03:12:42.180 - and and eric I mean the the east side chick-fil-a has a similar situation doesn't it as it relates 03:12:42.180 --> 03:12:51.580 - to the um the location of the drive-thru in terms of the the proximity to east third street 03:12:51.580 --> 03:12:57.820 - uh yeah certainly they are they are right on third street um but you know I'll just point 03:12:57.820 --> 03:13:03.180 - out that the the restaurant location on east third the chick-fil-a does meet all of our 03:13:03.180 --> 03:13:07.580 - requirements for setbacks and drive-through lanes and and parking setbacks um so that 03:13:07.580 --> 03:13:14.940 - was a site um very similar building size uh it's got less on-site parking um but it did 03:13:14.940 --> 03:13:24.180 - you know it is possible to do these arrangements and meet our requirements 03:13:24.180 --> 03:13:30.780 - it's certainly true john that the u-shape drive-thru away from the building is the exact 03:13:30.780 --> 03:13:35.940 - layout I believe of the one on the east side where it uses the same approach yeah I'm just 03:13:35.940 --> 03:13:39.820 - going to say that to be clear it's just that the setback is met is that what you're saying 03:13:39.820 --> 03:13:44.620 - eric the setbacks met on the east side yes so the setbacks and entrances and drives not 03:13:44.620 --> 03:13:49.340 - between the building and the street are met on both sides um and that's a corner location 03:13:49.340 --> 03:14:00.540 - as well yes any other questions for the staff or petitioner at this point we will have further 03:14:00.540 --> 03:14:09.860 - discussion available if you'd like to wait okay what we'll do then is go to the public 03:14:09.860 --> 03:14:14.340 - anyone wanted to comment is anyone here who'd like to speak to the petition anyone in chamber 03:14:14.340 --> 03:14:22.780 - hello yes my name is sean walker wait a second we're checking on chambers here so those that 03:14:22.780 --> 03:14:26.420 - are online if you would please just raise your hand and we'll call on you in a second no 03:14:26.420 --> 03:14:34.420 - one here jackie how many people do we have online uh looks like just the one okay all 03:14:34.420 --> 03:14:41.060 - right very good so do you have a name there uh yep sean walker okay you can go now sean 03:14:41.060 --> 03:14:45.680 - sean can you hear us i can hear you okay do you affirm that the testimony you're about 03:14:45.680 --> 03:14:49.180 - to give will be the truth the whole truth and that's meant the truth yes sir all right 03:14:49.180 --> 03:14:54.340 - you have up to five minutes thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight i'm 03:14:54.340 --> 03:15:00.220 - sean walker principal development lead for chick-fil-a in the midwest region and i just 03:15:00.220 --> 03:15:05.500 - want to let you know i am here i am listening erica's done a wonderful job so has brian 03:15:05.500 --> 03:15:10.140 - i'm not sure i have much to add brian has done a great job to clarify the positioning 03:15:10.140 --> 03:15:14.580 - of our dumpster i'm just here to answer any operational questions that you may have i 03:15:14.580 --> 03:15:19.300 - know there were questions about traffic and just some comparisons between the subject 03:15:19.300 --> 03:15:24.420 - property and the other property on each third street but there are some unique differences 03:15:24.420 --> 03:15:29.540 - that are applicable to the sites um one of which for the traffic circulation i just want 03:15:29.540 --> 03:15:36.700 - to point out that uh the east bloomington location does front uh other retailers like 03:15:36.700 --> 03:15:42.260 - target and whole other centers and apartment complexes so i think there was mention about 03:15:42.260 --> 03:15:47.220 - potential backup on east third street or turning into the site so i just want to make sure 03:15:47.220 --> 03:15:53.570 - that we we see that there are distinct differences between the density and the uses and the 03:15:53.570 --> 03:15:54.600 - residential 03:15:54.600 --> 03:16:00.300 - units and the the major retailers that are along east um on the east side versus where 03:16:00.300 --> 03:16:05.500 - we're going in the west um i think the distance the density is not the same so i just want 03:16:05.500 --> 03:16:10.580 - to make sure that we're comparing apples to apples um separately i'll make one other 03:16:10.580 --> 03:16:16.140 - point about the positioning of our building on the east side is yes we do have a similar 03:16:16.140 --> 03:16:21.100 - layout here for the subject property however the main road and the intersection is on the 03:16:21.100 --> 03:16:27.180 - opposite side so south kingston drive which is where the intersection is or the main intersection 03:16:27.180 --> 03:16:34.340 - entering to the east bloomington location allows for a proper positioning of our building closest 03:16:34.340 --> 03:16:40.460 - to the intersection and allows for an elongated drive-through in comparison to what we're 03:16:40.460 --> 03:16:46.860 - dealing with on this west side property um for for kimball street to be the main access 03:16:46.860 --> 03:16:51.300 - to the property we tried to utilize if you go back to our site plan we tried to utilize 03:16:51.300 --> 03:16:58.140 - the longest um or the length of the site so we can have access and elongate the drive-through 03:16:58.140 --> 03:17:03.780 - to a company or to accommodate the drive-through traffic that we will have and so what you 03:17:03.780 --> 03:17:08.660 - see with the subject property today we've gone through a number of plans maybe five 03:17:08.660 --> 03:17:15.500 - six seven or eight just to accommodate make sure we can um have a lengthy drive-through 03:17:15.500 --> 03:17:21.060 - as well as sufficient parking and those are things that will run for or allow us to run 03:17:21.060 --> 03:17:28.060 - an efficient operation um we've heard comments and we've heard things from other jurisdictions 03:17:28.060 --> 03:17:32.820 - across the country and we try to take all of that information and really optimize our 03:17:32.820 --> 03:17:37.820 - site and so again i don't want to restate all the things that brian mentioned but i just 03:17:37.820 --> 03:17:43.820 - want to you know note those two distinct points so we do have similar layouts to east bloomington 03:17:43.820 --> 03:17:48.540 - but the position of the traffic signal and the main access points are different which 03:17:48.540 --> 03:17:54.420 - kind of drives decisions on how we lay out the site so that may not be important to you 03:17:54.420 --> 03:18:00.020 - but uh that is important to us and it is a distinct difference um another point i wanted 03:18:00.020 --> 03:18:06.460 - to make was for every site we do engage um we do engage with local officials as well 03:18:06.460 --> 03:18:13.260 - as uh traffic experts to make sure we're fully optimizing our sites um i think brian mentioned 03:18:13.260 --> 03:18:19.640 - up to 120 140 cars that we can accommodate on average and i just want to make sure we 03:18:19.640 --> 03:18:26.420 - know for any other sites the peak times are usually during lunch and dinner so maybe between 03:18:26.420 --> 03:18:32.540 - 12 to 2 and 5 to 8 and so we're not talking about a constant flow of traffic in and out 03:18:32.540 --> 03:18:37.740 - on our site throughout the day there's specific peak volumes that we have accounted for with 03:18:37.740 --> 03:18:43.400 - the design of our site i think that will do it for now if y'all have any other questions 03:18:43.400 --> 03:18:47.900 - about our operations but but hopefully that clarifies some of the distinct differences 03:18:47.900 --> 03:18:56.780 - between the two all right i'll do a little housekeeping here um the the the uh board 03:18:56.780 --> 03:19:01.260 - was calling for comments from the public that was clearly someone who was involved with 03:19:01.260 --> 03:19:06.980 - the petitioner those comments should have been included in the presentation however because 03:19:06.980 --> 03:19:12.500 - the next portion of the board meeting would be for us to hear again from the petitioner 03:19:12.500 --> 03:19:16.340 - though that time has now come off of what you had left so you have an additional five 03:19:16.340 --> 03:19:25.300 - minutes if you would uh like to make any final comments i do apologize um if i have it's 03:19:25.300 --> 03:19:31.340 - so it's okay i'm just so passionate about our sites and thank you thank you thank you 03:19:31.340 --> 03:19:36.340 - that's my fault thank you thank you guys for staying late i mean as late as you have i 03:19:36.340 --> 03:19:40.100 - mean it is a 9 p.m and we're still sitting at a bza meeting so i appreciate y'all staying 03:19:40.100 --> 03:19:45.740 - as late as you have um as shawn mentioned uh this store over on the east side it's sitting 03:19:45.740 --> 03:19:51.520 - on the southwest corner of the of the corner lot um so while eric is correct that we are 03:19:51.520 --> 03:19:56.180 - also sitting on a corner lot like they are the the fact of the matter is it's a different 03:19:56.180 --> 03:20:01.460 - corner um and if you know we the reason we can't place our building directly in the corner 03:20:01.460 --> 03:20:06.500 - of our lot is because if we did so our drive-through would be positioned in such a way that we 03:20:06.500 --> 03:20:11.540 - are delivering food to the passenger side of the car which doesn't really work for a 03:20:11.540 --> 03:20:15.020 - drive-through i mean if you can imagine somebody in a mcdonald's drive-through window trying 03:20:15.020 --> 03:20:19.740 - to pass food to somebody who's on the opposite side of a car it doesn't work and that's part 03:20:19.740 --> 03:20:24.140 - of the reason why we have placed the the drive-through in the location that we have and have not 03:20:24.140 --> 03:20:29.420 - placed the building in the south east corner of the lot as the planning department had 03:20:29.420 --> 03:20:36.140 - requested um other than that um i don't really have anything else to present so i'll i will 03:20:36.140 --> 03:20:40.500 - yield the remainder of my time but thank you for agreeing to hear a petition tonight um 03:20:40.500 --> 03:20:45.820 - and i guess i'll add one more quick thing um we are open to considering improvements 03:20:45.820 --> 03:20:50.140 - to third street if need be we're happy to work through that for this with the city you 03:20:50.140 --> 03:20:54.220 - know if it requires us to pay for extra long-term lane improvements whatever that might be we 03:20:54.220 --> 03:20:58.020 - can we're happy to work through that with the city even if that if it's as a condition 03:20:58.020 --> 03:21:07.820 - of tonight's approval so thank you thank you back to the board for action that would include 03:21:07.820 --> 03:21:12.780 - a motion or continued discussion or questions to either the staff or the petitioner at this 03:21:12.780 --> 03:21:18.180 - point i just want to say if you think you're going to talk about this for a while we do 03:21:18.180 --> 03:21:22.220 - have to stop by nine so you will have to someone will have to make a motion we'll have to vote 03:21:22.220 --> 03:21:25.860 - if you would like to continue past nine so you have about five minutes well we should 03:21:25.860 --> 03:21:29.780 - do that now while we're at that point we're at a break can i have a motion for continuing 03:21:29.780 --> 03:21:40.740 - the meeting past the nine o'clock cutoff so moved second second call borrell yes fernandez 03:21:40.740 --> 03:21:46.820 - yes kudson cow yes throckmorton yes ballard yes thank you and back to the board for action 03:21:46.820 --> 03:22:05.500 - well i'm not sure about the whole thing but i guess i would just say that on the findings 03:22:05.500 --> 03:22:13.580 - the one that i i guess i don't really agree with it relates to the dumpster in the trash 03:22:13.580 --> 03:22:25.500 - location i thought the petitioners rationale for the location was pretty reasonable and 03:22:25.500 --> 03:22:34.700 - it looks pretty consistent to you know the east side chick-fil-a as well and i think 03:22:34.700 --> 03:22:39.220 - the fact that it's you know got an entire structure around it i i just don't see how 03:22:39.220 --> 03:22:52.620 - that's injurious to the public any other comments or questions to the petitioner or to the staff 03:22:52.620 --> 03:23:05.260 - quick question on the i guess for eric on the landscaping use they're 8 short is that 03:23:05.260 --> 03:23:11.580 - what would that quantify to like plant wise or well so it's you know it's not in relation 03:23:11.580 --> 03:23:17.500 - to the number of trees or shrubs but it's just in relation to the amount of open space 03:23:17.500 --> 03:23:22.300 - that occurs on a property so the minimum landscape area number you know it's just supposed to 03:23:22.300 --> 03:23:27.420 - serve as one of those checks and balances on a property for how much is developed and 03:23:27.420 --> 03:23:32.860 - how much is just left open as undeveloped space you know that undeveloped space serves 03:23:32.860 --> 03:23:41.280 - a wide range of things you know area for landscaping stormwater infiltration you know habitat 03:23:41.280 --> 03:23:42.220 - somewhat 03:23:42.220 --> 03:23:47.740 - so it's not necessarily the and like i said they're meeting the number of trees and shrubs 03:23:47.740 --> 03:23:52.460 - um it's just the amount of space that's not developed um is what that is specifically kind 03:23:52.460 --> 03:23:58.460 - of relates to i think for me on that one i mean looking at the site right now i think 03:23:58.460 --> 03:24:04.220 - they're right there's a tree the rest of its pavement so yeah i think even being eight 03:24:04.220 --> 03:24:07.980 - percent sure this is vast improvement landscaping for that corner especially 03:24:10.860 --> 03:24:20.060 - i got a question on impervious surface coverage and this is for the petitioner so the petitioner 03:24:20.060 --> 03:24:28.140 - said that you would meet the maximum impervious surface coverage that is correct our intention 03:24:28.140 --> 03:24:34.380 - will be to add pavers for whatever amount of spaces is needed to meet the impervious surface 03:24:34.380 --> 03:24:38.300 - coverage requirement i believe eric specified it was four spaces worth of papers in the staff 03:24:38.300 --> 03:24:47.100 - findings okay so eric do we remove that from i mean they are not looking for a variance on that 03:24:47.100 --> 03:24:52.620 - then yeah so if they're willing to do that then you would just have a condition of and and there 03:24:52.620 --> 03:24:57.820 - is a condition of approval now um and and that's why i left i put this condition of approval on 03:24:57.820 --> 03:25:03.480 - there and certainly if the board did not feel that they wanted them to do those permeable pavers 03:25:03.480 --> 03:25:03.660 - then 03:25:03.660 --> 03:25:08.770 - they would approve the variance if the petitioner is willing to do that um then the board would 03:25:08.770 --> 03:25:08.860 - keep 03:25:08.860 --> 03:25:13.500 - the condition on there that all parking spaces over the fixed 15 must be constructed of permeable 03:25:13.500 --> 03:25:17.420 - pavers and the variance then for maximum impervious surface coverage would go away 03:25:17.420 --> 03:25:23.900 - that would not be required if that condition is there and they're agreeable to that 03:25:23.900 --> 03:25:29.820 - the condition is added to the recommendation well it's on there now it's condition two 03:25:30.460 --> 03:25:33.660 - two yes okay get it 03:25:33.660 --> 03:25:41.500 - any other comments questions 03:25:41.500 --> 03:25:53.420 - so i guess the only uh issue that we're having here is the front parking setback 03:25:53.420 --> 03:26:00.300 - because if we if they're gonna if they're gonna do the maximum impervious surface coverage 03:26:00.300 --> 03:26:08.460 - that is a moot point and the minimum landscape you're thinking eight percent is minimum the 03:26:08.460 --> 03:26:16.700 - loading and service and refuse they came up with a plausible location because of the 03:26:16.700 --> 03:26:26.220 - the residential area so the only point i think we need to talk about is the front parking setback 03:26:26.220 --> 03:26:35.900 - can you elaborate on that uh steph yeah so so those are those are obviously the two big ones 03:26:35.900 --> 03:26:41.180 - the front parking setback for the parking spaces and also the entrance and drive aisles 03:26:41.180 --> 03:26:50.300 - those are those are two huge standards within the udio and it was a very cognitive shift several 03:26:50.300 --> 03:26:57.980 - years ago when we introduced these standards to shift the paradigm of thinking in site design 03:26:57.980 --> 03:27:04.700 - to emphasize buildings and de-emphasize parking having buildings at a corner frame or you know 03:27:04.700 --> 03:27:11.420 - along a street improves pedestrian accessibility to that and it places the emphasis on buildings 03:27:11.420 --> 03:27:16.300 - and not vehicles it increases the streetscape along there so you know this is a big shift 03:27:16.300 --> 03:27:21.980 - from the thinkings of 30 years ago when sites were designed with the building in the far end 03:27:21.980 --> 03:27:26.220 - of the parking lot and a sea of parking or all of the parking between a building in the street 03:27:26.220 --> 03:27:31.100 - it creates a very negative experience along the street for pedestrians and vehicles and so that 03:27:31.100 --> 03:27:36.440 - was a very cognitive shift in all of our documents the comprehensive plan which talks about 03:27:36.440 --> 03:27:36.940 - improving 03:27:36.940 --> 03:27:42.780 - walkability and walkable communities our streets design that talk about a complete streets design 03:27:42.780 --> 03:27:47.580 - where buildings are along the street everything is pedestrian oriented you know the placement of 03:27:47.580 --> 03:27:47.740 - the 03:27:47.740 --> 03:27:54.300 - building at the far southwest corner of the site puts the main visual element of this property 03:27:54.300 --> 03:28:00.140 - as parking and drive-through lanes and that is that is just extremely counter to all of our 03:28:00.140 --> 03:28:07.340 - documents laws and comprehensive plan and as i mentioned in my report you know what you have 03:28:07.340 --> 03:28:12.700 - to make findings for is that there is some practical difficulty that is peculiar to this property 03:28:12.700 --> 03:28:17.900 - that does not allow them to meet code you know what what is unique about this property that does 03:28:17.900 --> 03:28:22.780 - not allow it to be developed without the granting of the variance and you know we and we deal with 03:28:22.780 --> 03:28:28.060 - this a lot of a situation where here is a site plan that site plan just might not work on this 03:28:28.060 --> 03:28:32.620 - property that doesn't mean the property is undevelopable it just means this one specific 03:28:32.620 --> 03:28:38.140 - site plan doesn't work here and and that's a fine line but that's what our criteria are is that 03:28:38.140 --> 03:28:43.740 - there is some practical difficulty that is peculiar to this property and this property is over an 03:28:43.740 --> 03:28:44.380 - acre 03:28:44.380 --> 03:28:48.620 - it's got businesses on it you know you can certainly think of a wide range of properties 03:28:48.620 --> 03:28:53.100 - that are this size that have been developed according to code and so it is possible to 03:28:53.100 --> 03:28:58.460 - develop property and meet all of our code and you know this particular site plan with the 03:28:58.460 --> 03:29:02.700 - arrangement of all of the parking and the drive-through lanes between the building and the street 03:29:02.700 --> 03:29:09.180 - you know really really is counter to so many of our adopted documents and plans and you know so 03:29:09.180 --> 03:29:13.740 - that's that's that's that's the challenge and why we were not able to make any findings here 03:29:13.740 --> 03:29:18.380 - is because there aren't any inherent practical difficulties about this property 03:29:18.380 --> 03:29:22.140 - that don't allow it to be developed without the granting of a variance. 03:29:22.140 --> 03:29:30.220 - Yeah I tend to argue that the the practical difficulty here I don't think it's the site per 03:29:30.220 --> 03:29:38.780 - se but it's the operational the mode of operation of this business because this is not a typical 03:29:38.780 --> 03:29:44.460 - restaurant that you go when you sit down and you go in and you sit with your family it's it 03:29:44.460 --> 03:29:51.260 - regardless of what it is everybody gets in their car and they go through the drive-through and 03:29:51.260 --> 03:29:56.380 - 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 03:29:56.380 --> 03:30:04.620 - want to even get out of the car you just want to get it and and go so I understand why this is 03:30:04.620 --> 03:30:11.820 - designed the way it's designed so I think the practical difficulty that I can see is the mode 03:30:11.820 --> 03:30:20.620 - of operation of this type of business this is not a typical restaurant like a you know a local 03:30:20.620 --> 03:30:33.500 - restaurant that you we would go to it's a high traffic design for drive-through purchase so I 03:30:33.500 --> 03:30:47.580 - understand why it's designed in that in this way yeah thank you would anyone care to put forward a 03:30:47.580 --> 03:31:09.980 - motion so if we're stuck on the entrance and drive in the front parking setback for you guys 03:31:09.980 --> 03:31:15.820 - to change your plans to meet code what is that going to require and what would that cost so I 03:31:15.820 --> 03:31:22.380 - can't speak directly to costs because that's that's incredibly fluid as far as requiring changes to 03:31:22.380 --> 03:31:29.940 - the plans you know I'm happy to pull open the PDF I've got staff over here we've got about six or 03:31:29.940 --> 03:31:34.700 - seven different site plans that have been looked at for this site you know we've worked with staff 03:31:34.700 --> 03:31:41.540 - on many of those Eric has seen many of those and to be honest we feel that the site plan that we 03:31:41.540 --> 03:31:47.820 - have presented today is the site plan there there's not going to be another site plan that 03:31:47.820 --> 03:31:54.180 - Works for Chick-fil-a and works for the city of Bloomington. We've done the works for Chick-fil-a 03:31:54.180 --> 03:31:54.900 - site plan 03:31:54.900 --> 03:31:59.060 - Eric didn't like it. We were happy to accommodate his requests 03:31:59.060 --> 03:32:01.780 - Ended up where we are today 03:32:01.780 --> 03:32:03.620 - so 03:32:03.620 --> 03:32:08.730 - This is what we're moving forward with so this is it. This is it this works if this if this site 03:32:08.730 --> 03:32:09.180 - plan 03:32:09.980 --> 03:32:12.680 - If the city does not like the site plan if this does not work 03:32:12.680 --> 03:32:17.250 - for the city if these variants don't get approved today Chick-fil-a will have to consider other 03:32:17.250 --> 03:32:17.620 - lots in 03:32:17.620 --> 03:32:22.380 - Bloomington and and as the landlord mentioned we've been looking for two or three years 03:32:22.380 --> 03:32:26.460 - So that I mean, you know land on the west side of Bloomington is not easy to come by but the short 03:32:26.460 --> 03:32:26.740 - answer 03:32:26.740 --> 03:32:30.700 - Is that this is our site plan? Yeah, and that's where I would bring into account 03:32:30.700 --> 03:32:34.400 - That that we now can take financial dispositions 03:32:34.400 --> 03:32:39.480 - Into our arguments into our fat findings of fact, and I think that's a big one 03:32:40.080 --> 03:32:43.970 - Especially with floppy saying like the thoroughfare of being 500 feet from the interstate. This isn't 03:32:43.970 --> 03:32:44.880 - just a get-and-go 03:32:44.880 --> 03:32:48.690 - That's all it is. Nobody's really looking observing. They're flying down west third. They get into 03:32:48.690 --> 03:32:50.240 - the interstate or they're getting off 03:32:50.240 --> 03:32:53.000 - but I think 03:32:53.000 --> 03:32:57.560 - Again, this comes back to understanding what the UDO is saying and Eric I understand your findings 03:32:57.560 --> 03:33:01.720 - but I also think it's forcing a financial disposition of 03:33:01.720 --> 03:33:04.920 - Something that has to be taken to into account 03:33:04.920 --> 03:33:07.520 - I 03:33:07.520 --> 03:33:10.960 - Don't know how to quantify that but I think it should be considered 03:33:10.960 --> 03:33:15.000 - I'll just say I want 03:33:15.000 --> 03:33:18.980 - Since we've talked about the highway a little bit just as a note 03:33:18.980 --> 03:33:23.100 - I mean we have seen other fast food restaurants look at this intersection, right a number of years 03:33:23.100 --> 03:33:23.360 - ago 03:33:23.360 --> 03:33:30.460 - What's it called Culver's did a full site plan on the south side of this intersection they didn't 03:33:30.460 --> 03:33:30.800 - build it 03:33:30.800 --> 03:33:33.770 - They decided not to because they thought the light they ended up thinking corporate ended up 03:33:33.770 --> 03:33:34.960 - thinking the light was too difficult 03:33:34.960 --> 03:33:38.220 - and so then they built the Culver's that is there now like 03:33:38.220 --> 03:33:44.560 - Do we want people getting off the highway and flying down 3rd Street to pop into Culver's and pop 03:33:44.560 --> 03:33:45.440 - back out to the highway 03:33:45.440 --> 03:33:47.440 - Is that what our is that what our? 03:33:47.440 --> 03:33:51.560 - Plans are for is that what the comprehensive plan is looking for at this part of 3rd Street 03:33:51.560 --> 03:33:57.020 - Or is that what interchanges are for like is that what the development at the actual intersection 03:33:57.020 --> 03:33:57.320 - of? 03:33:57.320 --> 03:34:04.120 - 37 or 69 now and our crossroads for like how far in are we gonna let that 03:34:04.640 --> 03:34:06.640 - that automobile focused 03:34:06.640 --> 03:34:11.120 - You'd land use come into town people live here. I mean they said so themselves 03:34:11.120 --> 03:34:13.240 - There are trailers immediately north of here 03:34:13.240 --> 03:34:17.880 - Is this the the udio does not think that this type of development is appropriate here 03:34:17.880 --> 03:34:23.080 - You may change your minds and or I mean you may have a different mind and right findings for that 03:34:23.080 --> 03:34:25.600 - But I just want to make sure we're not like losing 03:34:25.600 --> 03:34:29.320 - The forest for the trees we're like sometimes 03:34:29.320 --> 03:34:34.000 - We're just really thinking about this particular group and how do we help them figure this out? 03:34:34.240 --> 03:34:39.870 - I mean there may be a reason that it needed so many variances because the udio does not anticipate 03:34:39.870 --> 03:34:40.720 - this type of 03:34:40.720 --> 03:34:46.320 - Heavy vehicular use at this location in particular. Maybe it's not appropriate here 03:34:46.320 --> 03:34:51.490 - Like I think that's what mr. Grulick was saying the udio not every use and people don't always want 03:34:51.490 --> 03:34:52.960 - to hear that but not every use 03:34:52.960 --> 03:34:54.960 - Is appropriate at every spot? 03:34:54.960 --> 03:34:58.920 - And and that can be for their reasons or the udios reasons 03:34:59.560 --> 03:35:04.750 - And so I just want to make that point publicly for I'm sure there's a bajillion people watching 03:35:04.750 --> 03:35:05.640 - this on cats as there always are 03:35:05.640 --> 03:35:10.860 - You know that is part of why we make the recommendations we make because the udio has been thought 03:35:10.860 --> 03:35:11.320 - through 03:35:11.320 --> 03:35:16.640 - Based on the comprehensive plan and maybe we don't want something this far in 03:35:16.640 --> 03:35:22.720 - To be a drop-off for 69 and that's why it's not written that way 03:35:22.720 --> 03:35:25.520 - Just something to think about 03:35:26.320 --> 03:35:32.220 - To follow up on that and I'm not here to hash out how they should develop but you do have that 03:35:32.220 --> 03:35:36.080 - That hold of development area around the lows 03:35:36.080 --> 03:35:39.500 - Behind the lows where the big lots had closed 03:35:39.500 --> 03:35:45.000 - It's now good, but there there is land there that that I don't I don't know the answer 03:35:45.000 --> 03:35:50.570 - to the question, but I'm understanding where Jack is going with it is there are places there that 03:35:50.570 --> 03:35:50.800 - are 03:35:51.320 --> 03:35:56.200 - Actually designed to allow for some of these things to occur because Freddy's went in over there 03:35:56.200 --> 03:35:57.360 - certainly next to Hardee's 03:35:57.360 --> 03:36:03.770 - Etc that actually will accommodate due to the size of those parking lots, which we know a lot of 03:36:03.770 --> 03:36:04.620 - them are empty 03:36:04.620 --> 03:36:08.040 - especially where the old Kmart was there so 03:36:08.040 --> 03:36:11.800 - You know, I mean that is a compelling question. It's brought up. I'm 03:36:11.800 --> 03:36:18.280 - By by the by the staff because there is property there that would probably work 03:36:18.280 --> 03:36:22.320 - I'm concerned about this particular location because of what Culver's did 03:36:22.320 --> 03:36:28.200 - I was here when we did the Culver's approval and it was not a unanimous decision because we knew 03:36:28.200 --> 03:36:29.560 - that the traffic was going to 03:36:29.560 --> 03:36:31.560 - Be terrible and ended up being terrible 03:36:31.560 --> 03:36:35.440 - and it still is terrible even though they tore down the 03:36:35.440 --> 03:36:42.530 - Tool place next door the rental there was a lot of concern about that and the cars were bleeding 03:36:42.530 --> 03:36:42.840 - out 03:36:42.840 --> 03:36:45.400 - to the stoplight 03:36:46.280 --> 03:36:50.400 - So I get it and I also have seen what happens over on the east side, even though, you know 03:36:50.400 --> 03:36:54.600 - It's a little bit different issue. So I mean it's a compelling question being asked by the by the 03:36:54.600 --> 03:36:55.080 - staff 03:36:55.080 --> 03:36:58.200 - not to say I don't want to see something there because 03:36:58.200 --> 03:37:01.360 - What's there now needs to be redeveloped? 03:37:01.360 --> 03:37:07.610 - 100% sorry to be clear. We're not I just want to make sure that you're that's a force for the trees 03:37:07.610 --> 03:37:07.920 - issue 03:37:07.920 --> 03:37:12.520 - And yes, we would love to see redevelopment here as well. That's what that's what all the you know 03:37:12.520 --> 03:37:17.350 - You do regulations are for there for redevelopment, but redevelopment that is in line and 03:37:17.350 --> 03:37:17.840 - appropriate with 03:37:17.840 --> 03:37:21.240 - Yeah, I don't mean to suggest the anti-development. It's just more of a 03:37:21.240 --> 03:37:26.940 - It's it's clear that that space it is primed to be redeveloped quickly. Yes 03:37:26.940 --> 03:37:34.240 - It is a permitted use yes, the issue is the site plan. Yes 03:37:34.240 --> 03:37:41.160 - You know, and I also think on top of that John it has to do with the the type of business that is 03:37:41.160 --> 03:37:41.520 - because 03:37:41.960 --> 03:37:44.080 - Chick-fil-a does have a heavy 03:37:44.080 --> 03:37:46.680 - vehicular use 03:37:46.680 --> 03:37:53.320 - We're granting more spaces for parking yet. There's the discussion that most of the 03:37:53.320 --> 03:37:58.740 - Customers are in a car in and out so 03:37:58.740 --> 03:38:03.400 - You know that also has to be taken into account. I think in what we do here. Yeah 03:38:03.400 --> 03:38:07.970 - Again, it goes back to what you just said. It's the site plan. Does the site plan make sense for 03:38:07.970 --> 03:38:10.640 - the for what chick-fil-a? 03:38:11.240 --> 03:38:13.240 - needs 03:38:13.240 --> 03:38:18.520 - We're very close to pi-69 it's impossible it's gonna spill over 03:38:18.520 --> 03:38:21.680 - you know and 03:38:21.680 --> 03:38:24.240 - Impossible to 03:38:24.240 --> 03:38:29.080 - To protect that area because it's just the business will come. It's the highways there 03:38:29.080 --> 03:38:33.540 - Yeah, because there's always a built the right to build. I mean bill correct. So 03:38:33.540 --> 03:38:40.560 - You know they can come in put in a plan there that completely meets code and the bleeding 03:38:40.920 --> 03:38:46.050 - Can continue all the way down that corridor. Absolutely. I do think that they're responsible 03:38:46.050 --> 03:38:47.200 - corporate citizen 03:38:47.200 --> 03:38:50.760 - And what they're trying to say is hey, we're just trying to be you know, we're trying to use this 03:38:50.760 --> 03:38:54.460 - It's in the right spot. We think so. There's nothing to suggest otherwise 03:38:54.460 --> 03:39:01.620 - But I think it does go back to what has come up across the board which is is this the right 03:39:01.620 --> 03:39:04.560 - design for that space 03:39:04.560 --> 03:39:06.560 - Based on what we know 03:39:07.560 --> 03:39:12.440 - The use is going to be with that with that 03:39:12.440 --> 03:39:19.040 - That they will work with the traffic 03:39:19.040 --> 03:39:25.080 - For possible extensions if necessary. Yeah. Well, we have the setback issue first 03:39:25.080 --> 03:39:30.710 - Correct, right that the traffic I think if they you know, if they're meeting the code there's not 03:39:30.710 --> 03:39:30.900 - much 03:39:30.900 --> 03:39:32.900 - I think that we can really put on 03:39:33.960 --> 03:39:40.960 - The petitioner, but it I think we have to deal with that that issue. Can we grant this variance? 03:39:40.960 --> 03:39:46.120 - With what's being termed the 03:39:46.120 --> 03:39:51.160 - Site plan. It's the site plan or are we going to say 03:39:51.160 --> 03:39:56.520 - We're not really convinced that this is the site plan. There's got to be another look at it 03:39:56.520 --> 03:40:00.780 - We've certainly had those decisions in the past and I'm not advocating either way here. I'm asking 03:40:00.780 --> 03:40:01.460 - the question 03:40:02.460 --> 03:40:10.460 - We have developers in real estate people here that know what rendition of these plans are we on? 03:40:10.460 --> 03:40:15.460 - Yeah 03:40:15.460 --> 03:40:23.460 - Again just the point of 03:40:23.460 --> 04:01:55.340 - Compromise and how long it takes and and finally getting to it. This isn't the first round. They've 04:01:55.340 --> 03:40:30.300 - been through and I 03:40:31.300 --> 03:40:37.020 - I'm with Flavia like this is an interstate area if this was you know a mile in it'd be a different 03:40:37.020 --> 03:40:38.540 - conversation to me 03:40:38.540 --> 03:40:43.470 - It's not anything else going in there is gonna be a fast-paced. I mean, what do we think will go in 03:40:43.470 --> 03:40:44.100 - there? 03:40:44.100 --> 03:40:45.980 - That's not going to be 03:40:45.980 --> 03:40:49.580 - To me accommodating to an interstate, you know thoroughfare 03:40:49.580 --> 03:40:54.880 - Sure, there's somebody may take a chance on that, but you're surrounded by z-barts. You got Midas. 03:40:54.880 --> 03:40:56.740 - You've got car shops around there 03:40:56.740 --> 03:40:58.260 - I mean, I 03:40:58.260 --> 03:41:00.260 - Think that's yeah 03:41:00.260 --> 03:41:07.030 - So, you know, I'll just kind of touch on that a little bit, you know and just kind of bring it back 03:41:07.030 --> 03:41:07.780 - a little bit 03:41:07.780 --> 03:41:08.260 - You know 03:41:08.260 --> 03:41:14.020 - It's it's the the board's role their job is to look at the property and say what is unique here 03:41:14.020 --> 03:41:15.180 - that does not allow this 03:41:15.180 --> 03:41:18.540 - To be developed without the granting of a variance, you know, not like I said 03:41:18.540 --> 03:41:21.340 - It's not that every site plan has to fit on every site 03:41:21.340 --> 03:41:25.940 - But what is unique here that does not allow this site to be developed without my variance? 03:41:26.620 --> 03:41:29.460 - And and that's that's what it has to come back to 03:41:29.460 --> 03:41:35.700 - And I think Eric that you've made the the point that this site is large enough 03:41:35.700 --> 03:41:40.300 - That it could accommodate many things and therefore it's not injurious to to say 03:41:40.300 --> 03:41:44.900 - You know, we can't approve this. So I think that points been made clear 03:41:44.900 --> 03:41:55.260 - Do we have an action that anyone would like to put forth the emotion or more discussion 03:41:55.260 --> 03:42:00.780 - Let me ask a clarifying. What is the front the issue with the front setback exactly? Eric? 03:42:00.780 --> 03:42:06.120 - So there are two things, you know, one is that parking has to be 20 feet behind the front of the 03:42:06.120 --> 03:42:06.580 - building 03:42:06.580 --> 03:42:12.140 - But the biggest one is that entrances and drives can't be between the building and the street 03:42:12.140 --> 03:42:18.940 - So entrances running less than 45 degrees can't be between the building and the street 03:42:19.740 --> 03:42:25.920 - And so the presence of the drive through lanes between the building and Kimball Drive is is one of 03:42:25.920 --> 03:42:30.990 - those things that does not meet as well as all of the parking spaces and the entrances, the drives 03:42:30.990 --> 03:42:36.310 - for those parking spaces, thank you, so are you saying if they I'm not saying they want to do this, 03:42:36.310 --> 03:42:36.380 - but if the building 03:42:37.980 --> 03:42:45.430 - I don't know how you could do it, but if the building and the drive through were reoriented, it 03:42:45.430 --> 03:42:50.860 - would be in line with the code if the building was close at the corner of 03:42:52.140 --> 03:42:56.340 - and the drive through were reoriented, 03:42:56.340 --> 03:43:00.260 - it would be in line with the code? 03:43:00.260 --> 03:43:05.260 - If the building was close at the corner of Kimball and 3rd? 03:43:05.260 --> 03:43:07.160 - Yeah, absolutely. 03:43:07.160 --> 03:43:08.380 - So if the building was placed 03:43:08.380 --> 03:43:10.560 - at the southeast corner of the site, 03:43:10.560 --> 03:43:12.260 - then there would be a site, 03:43:12.260 --> 03:43:15.040 - there's lots of possibilities for the site to be developed. 03:43:15.040 --> 03:43:16.940 - And so that's one of the points that, you know, 03:43:16.940 --> 03:43:18.840 - I guess I've been trying to hit on is, you know, 03:43:18.840 --> 03:43:21.160 - the site does present itself to be developed 03:43:21.160 --> 03:43:25.580 - in a wide range of areas that are compliant with the UDO. 03:43:25.580 --> 03:43:26.700 - And, you know, there's nothing 03:43:26.700 --> 03:43:27.980 - that prevents that from happening. 03:43:27.980 --> 03:43:31.260 - It's just this particular site plan just doesn't fit. 03:43:31.260 --> 03:43:32.780 - And there could be other locations 03:43:32.780 --> 03:43:35.340 - that it could be fine and would meet, 03:43:35.340 --> 03:43:36.820 - but at the end of the day, you know, 03:43:36.820 --> 03:43:38.540 - this property is very large 03:43:38.540 --> 03:43:40.460 - and there's nothing inherent about it 03:43:40.460 --> 03:43:43.780 - that does not allow it for it to be developed, you know, 03:43:43.780 --> 03:43:46.180 - and meet all the standards of the UDO. 03:43:46.180 --> 03:43:47.740 - And that's the criteria. 03:43:49.780 --> 03:43:53.200 - I don't know. 03:43:53.200 --> 03:43:57.220 - I just had a sidebar and I'll share that with everyone. 03:43:57.220 --> 03:43:58.820 - I mean, the possibility is 03:43:58.820 --> 03:44:01.980 - that someone could make a motion, again, for continuous 03:44:01.980 --> 03:44:05.040 - and allow for one month to come back with a revision. 03:44:05.040 --> 03:44:09.620 - My comment on the sidebar was that, you know, 03:44:09.620 --> 03:44:12.860 - there has been numerous site plans created. 03:44:12.860 --> 03:44:16.820 - So it could be that a compromise could be reached. 03:44:16.820 --> 03:44:19.700 - So that's also an option for the board to consider. 03:44:19.700 --> 03:44:21.580 - I'm not putting that forward as a motion. 03:44:21.580 --> 03:44:23.340 - I'm putting it as a consideration. 03:44:23.340 --> 03:44:46.180 - I think for the petitioner, you know, 03:44:46.180 --> 03:44:49.740 - obviously solving this today, I'm not asking a question. 03:44:49.740 --> 03:44:50.860 - I'm just, yeah, sorry. 03:44:50.860 --> 03:44:54.940 - Obviously solving this today would be ideal 03:44:54.940 --> 03:44:56.860 - because then you have, you know, 03:44:56.860 --> 03:44:58.820 - you have to wait for another month. 03:44:58.820 --> 03:45:02.500 - But I think you're very, very close, so, so close. 03:45:02.500 --> 03:45:07.500 - And I don't wanna, I really don't wanna deny this 03:45:07.500 --> 03:45:13.860 - and lose this whole work that you have put this through. 03:45:14.420 --> 03:45:19.420 - Put this through and maybe find a compromise 03:45:19.420 --> 03:45:24.400 - with the city for what is necessary here. 03:45:24.400 --> 03:45:28.660 - And we can see this on the agenda next month again. 03:45:28.660 --> 03:45:33.980 - And work on the areas that are problematic, 03:45:33.980 --> 03:45:38.700 - which is the front parking setback and the entrance drive. 03:45:40.580 --> 03:45:45.580 - And so with that, I would like to propose a continuance. 03:45:45.580 --> 03:45:54.740 - Do I have a second? 03:45:54.740 --> 03:45:58.980 - Okay, and as we move along here, 03:45:58.980 --> 03:46:01.940 - you certainly don't have to come back in a month. 03:46:01.940 --> 03:46:04.620 - But what we're trying to do here is, 03:46:04.620 --> 03:46:07.980 - what we have is a petition in front of us 03:46:07.980 --> 03:46:12.380 - that we can't act on to provide 03:46:12.380 --> 03:46:15.740 - all of the variance that you're asking for. 03:46:15.740 --> 03:46:20.740 - Therefore, we think in the interest of moving forward 03:46:20.740 --> 03:46:24.460 - to allow you to get somewhere 03:46:24.460 --> 03:46:26.660 - that you can develop this property, 03:46:26.660 --> 03:46:30.020 - either with a variance from us or coming into compliance, 03:46:30.020 --> 03:46:32.220 - we're offering that as a motion 03:46:32.220 --> 03:46:33.660 - and we will take a vote on that. 03:46:33.660 --> 03:46:36.300 - But again, it's not going to compel you to come back. 03:46:36.300 --> 03:46:37.940 - You can just simply walk away. 03:46:37.940 --> 03:46:40.440 - So, I have a-- 03:46:40.440 --> 03:46:43.120 - Just to make a comment, if I can. 03:46:43.120 --> 03:46:46.300 - I mean, I'm not saying I don't support continuum, 03:46:46.300 --> 03:46:49.080 - but isn't it true that, 03:46:49.080 --> 03:46:56.820 - you know, following the staff's recommendation, 03:46:56.820 --> 03:47:01.160 - in effect, would accomplish basically the same thing? 03:47:01.160 --> 03:47:04.780 - And that they would have to, 03:47:04.780 --> 03:47:08.740 - with the exception of the conditions, 03:47:08.740 --> 03:47:13.540 - you know, there's a variance on the parking. 03:47:13.540 --> 03:47:18.660 - They would just have to build it to code, right? 03:47:18.660 --> 03:47:21.120 - Isn't that-- - Well, item three. 03:47:21.120 --> 03:47:21.960 - Yeah. 03:47:21.960 --> 03:47:24.420 - I think-- - Yeah. 03:47:24.420 --> 03:47:25.940 - I'm not saying that's the right outcome. 03:47:25.940 --> 03:47:26.780 - I'm just saying that it's-- 03:47:26.780 --> 03:47:28.440 - Well, let's make sure that that's actually clear 03:47:28.440 --> 03:47:31.500 - that your understanding is the same with the staff. 03:47:31.500 --> 03:47:33.180 - Is that correct, Eric? 03:47:34.740 --> 03:47:36.140 - Did we get to the same place? 03:47:36.140 --> 03:47:40.940 - Yes, so you can approve variances. 03:47:40.940 --> 03:47:43.340 - You know, typically with variances approvals, 03:47:43.340 --> 03:47:44.860 - we do tie it to a site plan, 03:47:44.860 --> 03:47:47.300 - just to try to make sure that things are consistent. 03:47:47.300 --> 03:47:49.060 - But you can approve variances, 03:47:49.060 --> 03:47:50.860 - and they can modify other standard 03:47:50.860 --> 03:47:53.700 - or other aspects of the site to be compliant 03:47:53.700 --> 03:47:56.180 - with the variances that were approved. 03:47:56.180 --> 03:47:58.300 - Yeah. 03:47:58.300 --> 03:47:59.260 - Yeah, for a second. 03:47:59.260 --> 03:48:03.220 - I mean, I think for reference to the sake, 03:48:03.220 --> 03:48:05.980 - it'd be better to have the site plan that, 03:48:05.980 --> 03:48:07.420 - to have something that you're saying, 03:48:07.420 --> 03:48:08.740 - this is what got approved. 03:48:08.740 --> 03:48:10.100 - It's just, you know, like if we're coming back 03:48:10.100 --> 03:48:12.100 - and they don't build it right away, 03:48:12.100 --> 03:48:13.140 - come back in two years, 03:48:13.140 --> 03:48:14.660 - what's the actual thing that got approved? 03:48:14.660 --> 03:48:16.700 - It's better for you all to see the thing that gets approved. 03:48:16.700 --> 03:48:19.060 - You can do it the way Eric is saying, you know, you-- 03:48:19.060 --> 03:48:20.900 - Yeah, with the item three there, right? 03:48:20.900 --> 03:48:22.460 - Yeah. 03:48:22.460 --> 03:48:23.300 - Is that right, Jen? 03:48:23.300 --> 03:48:25.100 - Yes, well, item three is true no matter what. 03:48:25.100 --> 03:48:25.940 - Okay. 03:48:25.940 --> 03:48:26.780 - But-- 03:48:26.780 --> 03:48:32.380 - Yeah, and I would say, as we say sometimes, you know, 03:48:32.380 --> 03:48:34.220 - if you do wanna do that, give them guidance. 03:48:34.220 --> 03:48:35.380 - Like, what is the thing you think 03:48:35.380 --> 03:48:37.220 - maybe they could work on with us? 03:48:37.220 --> 03:48:39.220 - You know, that's always the hard part. 03:48:39.220 --> 03:48:44.260 - Well, when I look at the design they have, 03:48:44.260 --> 03:48:50.820 - the driver will come through the building to get the food. 03:48:50.820 --> 03:48:55.820 - If we put the building on a southeast corner, 03:48:55.820 --> 03:48:59.640 - the driver can't get the food. 03:49:00.580 --> 03:49:04.220 - Well, I mean, just like they do at the ball, right? 03:49:04.220 --> 03:49:07.700 - The car could come along Kimball, turn, 03:49:07.700 --> 03:49:10.780 - and have the window there 03:49:10.780 --> 03:49:13.420 - and be pulling the food out of the window. 03:49:13.420 --> 03:49:14.260 - Yeah. 03:49:14.260 --> 03:49:17.980 - But remember, we need a very long driveway, 03:49:17.980 --> 03:49:19.740 - very long drive through for them. 03:49:19.740 --> 03:49:20.580 - For setup. 03:49:20.580 --> 03:49:21.800 - Yeah, for setup. 03:49:21.800 --> 03:49:24.500 - They are not your normal place. 03:49:24.500 --> 03:49:28.780 - Like, I mean, when I drive in other fast food places, 03:49:28.780 --> 03:49:33.780 - they have, you know, six cars or maybe four cars. 03:49:33.780 --> 03:49:38.060 - You go to Chick-fil-A anytime, I mean, in the peak hour, 03:49:38.060 --> 03:49:42.380 - you're gonna have 50 cars there going through. 03:49:42.380 --> 03:49:47.140 - So the design that they have is ideal. 03:49:47.140 --> 03:49:50.060 - This design that you have proposed 03:49:50.060 --> 03:49:53.140 - is an ideal design for their business. 03:49:53.140 --> 03:49:56.460 - Their business is different than other fast food businesses. 03:49:56.460 --> 03:49:59.500 - That's why I don't wanna shoot this design down. 03:49:59.500 --> 03:50:04.140 - But how can you work with Eric till the next meeting 03:50:04.140 --> 03:50:10.220 - that will get near or satisfy, you know, 03:50:10.220 --> 03:50:12.700 - the front parking setback? 03:50:12.700 --> 03:50:15.020 - And you're already saying you'll work 03:50:15.020 --> 03:50:18.900 - with the impervious surfaces, coverage, you know, 03:50:18.900 --> 03:50:22.460 - the landscape area and the loading and refuse. 03:50:22.460 --> 03:50:24.060 - We already took care of that. 03:50:24.060 --> 03:50:29.060 - So I guess focusing on the front parking setback 03:50:29.060 --> 03:50:34.540 - in the, you know, that's it, correct? 03:50:34.540 --> 03:50:36.980 - And would taking out some of the parking spaces 03:50:36.980 --> 03:50:38.900 - allow there to be an adjustment? 03:50:38.900 --> 03:50:42.820 - No, the parking spaces are gonna be there. 03:50:42.820 --> 03:50:46.900 - He's using impervious surfaces for the parking spaces. 03:50:46.900 --> 03:50:50.300 - So he needs the parking spaces as well. 03:50:50.300 --> 03:50:53.380 - Well, they're over the maximum, aren't they? 03:50:53.380 --> 03:50:54.220 - Yes. 03:50:54.220 --> 03:50:56.460 - What I'm saying is if they cut back on the number, 03:50:56.460 --> 03:50:58.300 - would that give them more room to move? 03:50:58.300 --> 03:51:01.620 - Well, that's something they need to, yeah, talk to. 03:51:01.620 --> 03:51:04.460 - So, I mean, those are exactly the types of questions, 03:51:04.460 --> 03:51:06.160 - I think, that would have to be presented. 03:51:06.160 --> 03:51:07.000 - Correct. 03:51:07.000 --> 03:51:08.620 - Okay, thank you. 03:51:08.620 --> 03:51:10.100 - John? 03:51:10.100 --> 03:51:12.600 - So we do have a motion and a second, 03:51:12.600 --> 03:51:13.840 - but it has not been called. 03:51:13.840 --> 03:51:17.140 - So I would still give the opportunity to rescind 03:51:17.140 --> 03:51:18.260 - if you wanted to reconsider, 03:51:18.260 --> 03:51:19.700 - but otherwise we can call the question 03:51:19.700 --> 03:51:21.220 - and vote on the continuation. 03:51:21.420 --> 03:51:22.260 - Okay. 03:51:22.260 --> 03:51:26.980 - Is there any objection to calling the question? 03:51:26.980 --> 03:51:31.980 - I would just say I'm willing to give people time 03:51:31.980 --> 03:51:34.060 - to try and figure it out. 03:51:34.060 --> 03:51:36.980 - I think the fundamental question is gonna be 03:51:36.980 --> 03:51:40.860 - whether or not the site can work 03:51:40.860 --> 03:51:44.620 - given the nature of this particular restaurant. 03:51:44.620 --> 03:51:48.840 - If the biggest issue is the setback 03:51:49.840 --> 03:51:54.840 - and the alignment of the building 03:51:54.840 --> 03:51:59.480 - or the placement of the primary restaurant, 03:51:59.480 --> 03:52:01.540 - it sounds like that's gonna be a huge challenge 03:52:01.540 --> 03:52:03.640 - from the petitioner's perspective, 03:52:03.640 --> 03:52:07.700 - but I'm willing to give people the time to see if they can. 03:52:07.700 --> 03:52:13.640 - But that's, I mean, just the way that their business operates, 03:52:17.680 --> 03:52:22.040 - the way it's designed now with the primary stacking 03:52:22.040 --> 03:52:27.040 - of the drive-thru running north and south along Kimbell, 03:52:27.040 --> 03:52:31.000 - it's there because that is the longest distance 03:52:31.000 --> 03:52:35.720 - north to south. 03:52:35.720 --> 03:52:43.560 - I mean, engineers may be able to figure it out. 03:52:43.560 --> 03:52:45.940 - It's gonna be a big challenge. 03:52:45.940 --> 03:52:49.720 - But if that's the only way it's gonna get approved, 03:52:49.720 --> 03:52:53.600 - then I'm willing to continue it and give it a, 03:52:53.600 --> 03:52:55.080 - see if there's a way to get it done. 03:52:55.080 --> 03:53:00.000 - But I suspect if I heard Eric right, 03:53:00.000 --> 03:53:02.200 - I mean, that's gonna be the biggest issue, 03:53:02.200 --> 03:53:05.420 - is meeting the basic code. 03:53:05.420 --> 03:53:11.480 - Some of the other variances are probably not nearly as, 03:53:15.740 --> 03:53:18.280 - showstoppers, at least from my perspective, 03:53:18.280 --> 03:53:23.280 - but it sounds like to me that placement of the building 03:53:23.280 --> 03:53:28.060 - closer to Kimball is kind of a showstopper 03:53:28.060 --> 03:53:30.820 - from the planning department's perspective. 03:53:30.820 --> 03:53:33.000 - So I just think that if we continue it, 03:53:33.000 --> 03:53:33.960 - in terms of guidance, 03:53:33.960 --> 03:53:35.600 - I think the staff knows what we're saying. 03:53:35.600 --> 03:53:38.920 - I just, petitioners are gonna need to understand that too, 03:53:38.920 --> 03:53:42.580 - that it's not gonna be a matter of just tweaking 03:53:42.580 --> 03:53:43.420 - a couple of things. 03:53:43.420 --> 03:53:46.600 - That's a pretty big fundamental requirement 03:53:46.600 --> 03:53:50.240 - that they may or may not be able to meet, 03:53:50.240 --> 03:53:53.080 - but that'll be a judgment for someone else to make. 03:53:53.080 --> 03:53:55.420 - I mean, can I ask real quick, 03:53:55.420 --> 03:53:58.140 - like out of the respect of everybody's time really here, 03:53:58.140 --> 03:53:59.400 - is that even feasible? 03:53:59.400 --> 03:54:00.800 - I would ask the petitioner that. 03:54:00.800 --> 03:54:02.720 - Is it worth us giving you another month, 03:54:02.720 --> 03:54:04.440 - or are you gonna just be deadlocked on this 03:54:04.440 --> 03:54:06.640 - and come back and say, we couldn't do it, 03:54:06.640 --> 03:54:09.540 - this is all we could do, that's gonna waste time? 03:54:09.540 --> 03:54:11.800 - Or is it something you guys could take back, 03:54:11.800 --> 03:54:13.640 - as we're saying, I'm with Flavi on this, 03:54:13.640 --> 03:54:15.340 - I don't want to turn this down. 03:54:15.340 --> 03:54:16.380 - I think this is an opportunity. 03:54:16.380 --> 03:54:20.040 - I think it's unique to what you guys do and how you do it. 03:54:20.040 --> 03:54:22.520 - I think it could fit in really well here. 03:54:22.520 --> 03:54:25.880 - But is that feasible if we give you another month, 03:54:25.880 --> 03:54:27.260 - where you guys be able to go back, 03:54:27.260 --> 03:54:29.400 - give us an eighth rendition of this, 03:54:29.400 --> 03:54:32.140 - to try to make it work? 03:54:32.140 --> 03:54:34.440 - To be clear, we've been working on this 03:54:34.440 --> 03:54:37.680 - since last March, this has been under development 03:54:37.680 --> 03:54:39.640 - in Chick-fil-A's court for a year now. 03:54:39.640 --> 03:54:41.160 - And throughout the course of this year, 03:54:41.160 --> 03:54:42.760 - we've created six site plans, 03:54:42.760 --> 03:54:45.640 - and most of those have gone before Eric. 03:54:45.640 --> 03:54:47.920 - We're happy to take another month and take a look at things, 03:54:47.920 --> 03:54:51.480 - but as Flavia mentioned, and as I mentioned earlier, 03:54:51.480 --> 03:54:53.240 - you can't place the building in the southeast corner. 03:54:53.240 --> 03:54:55.240 - It's not gonna work, because we can't deliver food 03:54:55.240 --> 03:54:56.640 - to the passenger side of the car. 03:54:56.640 --> 03:54:59.080 - I'm not gonna reach over and take food 03:54:59.080 --> 03:55:01.920 - from somebody delivering to the wrong side of the car. 03:55:01.920 --> 03:55:03.720 - So if you're willing to give us a month, 03:55:03.720 --> 03:55:04.860 - we're willing to take a look, 03:55:04.860 --> 03:55:08.080 - but I mean, substantially, the things that are gonna change 03:55:08.080 --> 03:55:08.920 - are gonna be minor. 03:55:08.920 --> 03:55:10.900 - The building is gonna be more or less in the same place, 03:55:10.900 --> 03:55:12.600 - and we can work on some of the things 03:55:12.600 --> 03:55:14.000 - like the parking setback, 03:55:14.000 --> 03:55:17.680 - but as a whole, the site plan won't really be able 03:55:17.680 --> 03:55:21.760 - to change probably to the degree that the board wants it to. 03:55:21.760 --> 03:55:27.560 - Okay, thank you. - Look at page 72. 03:55:27.560 --> 03:55:29.800 - I mean, you're talking about the front parking setback. 03:55:29.800 --> 03:55:32.000 - That's our sticking point there. 03:55:32.000 --> 03:55:33.400 - There are no practical difficulties 03:55:33.400 --> 03:55:34.800 - that are peculiar to the property 03:55:34.800 --> 03:55:37.920 - to prevent it from being developed in a wide range. 03:55:37.920 --> 03:55:42.920 - The use of the dual lane drive-through is self-imposed. 03:55:42.920 --> 03:55:48.060 - So I would, based on that finding by the city, 03:55:48.060 --> 03:55:54.120 - I would respectfully suggest that you're maximizing 03:55:54.120 --> 03:55:58.840 - that drive-through lane because that's what you do. 03:55:58.840 --> 03:56:01.680 - That then begs the question of, 03:56:01.680 --> 03:56:03.320 - is this the best site to develop? 03:56:03.320 --> 03:56:05.360 - So we're in a position as a board 03:56:05.360 --> 03:56:08.360 - that we have to have a reason and a rationale 03:56:08.360 --> 03:56:10.320 - for overriding code. 03:56:10.320 --> 03:56:14.200 - You've given us a self-imposed issue 03:56:14.200 --> 03:56:17.640 - with a very large piece of property 03:56:17.640 --> 03:56:21.440 - that makes it very difficult for us to do that. 03:56:21.440 --> 03:56:26.440 - So where I would gently nudge back would be 03:56:26.440 --> 03:56:32.400 - you could consider changing that drive-through lane 03:56:32.400 --> 03:56:34.320 - a little bit so that you meet code. 03:56:35.320 --> 03:56:36.400 - You could. 03:56:36.400 --> 03:56:38.960 - I'm not saying, I'm not telling you to do that, 03:56:38.960 --> 03:56:43.400 - I'm just saying that because the word could 03:56:43.400 --> 03:56:46.560 - is viable here, you could do that. 03:56:46.560 --> 03:56:50.840 - That doesn't give us cause to override the code 03:56:50.840 --> 03:56:51.880 - because you could. 03:56:51.880 --> 03:56:57.080 - I just wanna explain where we're at. 03:56:57.080 --> 03:56:59.800 - We can't, no matter how much we love 03:56:59.800 --> 03:57:02.360 - the idea of you developing this space, 03:57:02.360 --> 03:57:07.360 - we still are, you know, we can't override something 03:57:07.360 --> 03:57:09.640 - without due cause. 03:57:09.640 --> 03:57:12.960 - So to follow up on what Tim is saying, 03:57:12.960 --> 03:57:15.600 - I mean, the question is, do you think in a month 03:57:15.600 --> 03:57:18.160 - you could find a way to nudge it back 03:57:18.160 --> 03:57:20.560 - because we're not asking you to move the building? 03:57:20.560 --> 03:57:25.660 - And is it worth us to pass that or would you rather 03:57:25.660 --> 03:57:27.720 - just have a denial and then come back in six months 03:57:27.720 --> 03:57:29.320 - or just find another place? 03:57:29.320 --> 03:57:31.080 - I mean, we would certainly welcome a continuance 03:57:31.080 --> 03:57:33.400 - and we're happy to take a look. 03:57:33.400 --> 03:57:35.840 - You know, certainly the continuance is more favorable 03:57:35.840 --> 03:57:38.800 - than the denial, so if you're willing to give us a month, 03:57:38.800 --> 03:57:40.920 - we will take a look and see what we can come up with 03:57:40.920 --> 03:57:43.880 - in collaboration with Eric in the Planning Department. 03:57:43.880 --> 03:57:46.880 - Did I misstate that or is that fair? 03:57:46.880 --> 03:57:47.720 - Yeah. 03:57:47.720 --> 03:57:48.540 - 'Cause I don't wanna speak for you. 03:57:48.540 --> 03:57:50.040 - No, no, no, I think that's very, 03:57:50.040 --> 03:57:53.280 - I mean, I think it's, again, I think they're making 03:57:53.280 --> 03:57:54.880 - the effort, the continuous effort here. 03:57:54.880 --> 03:57:57.180 - We all know that sometimes we get to these places, 03:57:57.180 --> 03:57:59.560 - it's been a year, things get frustrating. 03:57:59.560 --> 03:58:02.240 - I mean, it's 9.30 at night, I think coming back 03:58:02.240 --> 03:58:03.800 - in a month with a clear head and maybe you guys 03:58:03.800 --> 03:58:05.680 - come up with something in the meantime 03:58:05.680 --> 03:58:08.680 - is worth voting that forward. 03:58:08.680 --> 03:58:11.060 - And I wanna dovetail off that too, 03:58:11.060 --> 03:58:13.480 - which is we've done this a long, long time. 03:58:13.480 --> 03:58:16.440 - And we also are quite aware, and again, 03:58:16.440 --> 03:58:17.640 - I'm gonna stress before I say it, 03:58:17.640 --> 03:58:19.600 - I'm not suggesting you are. 03:58:19.600 --> 03:58:21.320 - There are petitioners who come to us and say, 03:58:21.320 --> 03:58:22.880 - you know, I've had enough of going back and forth, 03:58:22.880 --> 03:58:24.800 - I'm just gonna take it and try to get the variance. 03:58:24.800 --> 03:58:26.960 - And then I'm gonna make a statement in the chambers 03:58:26.960 --> 03:58:29.560 - to say, this is it, or else I'm walking. 03:58:29.560 --> 03:58:31.640 - And then a month later, if we give 'em a continuous, 03:58:31.640 --> 03:58:33.320 - they come back with a change plan that works, 03:58:33.320 --> 03:58:35.040 - or they come back a year later. 03:58:35.040 --> 03:58:37.440 - So we also balance that too. 03:58:37.440 --> 03:58:39.100 - And again, I will restate it again, 03:58:39.100 --> 03:58:41.980 - we're not saying that's your technique 03:58:41.980 --> 03:58:42.820 - and that's what you're doing. 03:58:42.820 --> 03:58:43.640 - We're not suggesting that. 03:58:43.640 --> 03:58:47.480 - But we have found that pushing sometimes gets us 03:58:47.480 --> 03:58:50.040 - to where we need to go, and we are the last stop. 03:58:50.040 --> 03:58:53.760 - I'll suggest or ask also, 03:58:53.760 --> 03:58:55.080 - something that the petitioner mentioned 03:58:55.080 --> 03:58:58.440 - which was interesting was improvements to Third Street. 03:58:58.440 --> 03:59:00.920 - So that may be something that you may ask us 03:59:00.920 --> 03:59:04.480 - to work on with them that were this to be something 03:59:04.480 --> 03:59:05.560 - that you were interested in. 03:59:05.560 --> 03:59:07.560 - What kind of improvements on Third Street 03:59:07.560 --> 03:59:09.320 - would we think would be necessary 03:59:09.320 --> 03:59:11.360 - based on the volumes they've put out there? 03:59:11.360 --> 03:59:14.120 - Yeah, 'cause I mean, a pullout lane or whatever, 03:59:14.120 --> 03:59:17.220 - I think that you're gonna have a lot of traffic there. 03:59:17.220 --> 03:59:19.400 - And I'm not saying that's bad, 03:59:19.400 --> 03:59:21.520 - I'm just saying that I think we made a mistake 03:59:21.520 --> 03:59:24.520 - with culvers by not being a little bit more proactive 03:59:24.520 --> 03:59:27.480 - because that was a major problem 03:59:27.480 --> 03:59:31.300 - until the rental shop closed and was torn down. 03:59:31.300 --> 03:59:35.840 - And they also, I don't know how we did it, 03:59:35.840 --> 03:59:40.120 - but they had an outlet on Third at that point too, 03:59:40.120 --> 03:59:44.360 - which, right, they had a secondary outlet on Third 03:59:44.360 --> 03:59:46.640 - coming out of the parking lot, Culver's does. 03:59:46.640 --> 03:59:50.040 - So this is not an option that we have for Culver's 03:59:50.040 --> 03:59:52.340 - right now, especially with the drive-through. 03:59:52.340 --> 03:59:54.240 - So it's a little bit different there. 03:59:54.240 --> 04:00:00.520 - So we have a motion. - We have a motion on the floor. 04:00:00.520 --> 04:00:01.360 - Yeah, thank you. 04:00:01.360 --> 04:00:05.800 - I'm sorry, John, anything further 04:00:05.800 --> 04:00:07.480 - before we do take a vote on that? 04:00:07.480 --> 04:00:10.720 - No, I was just gonna encourage us to act on the motion. 04:00:10.720 --> 04:00:13.960 - Okay, so the question is being called. 04:00:13.960 --> 04:00:15.120 - Can I have the roll? 04:00:15.120 --> 04:00:17.480 - Again, a vote of yes will continue this 04:00:17.480 --> 04:00:21.280 - till the April 24th, 2025 board meeting. 04:00:21.420 --> 04:00:23.660 - (faintly speaking) 04:00:23.660 --> 04:00:24.500 - Yes. 04:00:24.500 --> 04:00:25.320 - (faintly speaking) 04:00:25.320 --> 04:00:26.160 - Yes. 04:00:26.160 --> 04:00:26.980 - (faintly speaking) 04:00:26.980 --> 04:00:27.820 - Yes. 04:00:27.820 --> 04:00:28.660 - (faintly speaking) 04:00:28.660 --> 04:00:29.480 - Yes. 04:00:29.480 --> 04:00:30.320 - (faintly speaking) 04:00:30.320 --> 04:00:31.760 - Yes. 04:00:31.760 --> 04:00:33.240 - Okay, so the motion will continue. 04:00:33.240 --> 04:00:34.540 - Thank you for your patience. 04:00:34.540 --> 04:00:35.940 - We know it's been a long process, 04:00:35.940 --> 04:00:38.780 - but we do appreciate you accepting that. 04:00:38.780 --> 04:00:41.140 - And we do look forward to seeing you next month. 04:00:41.140 --> 04:00:44.520 - That's it for the petitions. 04:00:44.520 --> 04:00:47.860 - I just had a couple, again, housekeeping for the board. 04:00:47.860 --> 04:00:51.520 - So Jackie had given you a couple of questions 04:00:51.520 --> 04:00:53.420 - I wanted to go ahead and have followed up. 04:00:53.420 --> 04:00:55.980 - I'd like to know when that discussion happened 04:00:55.980 --> 04:00:57.820 - on that People's State Bank and whether I was in it, 04:00:57.820 --> 04:00:59.380 - because I wasn't really aware of it. 04:00:59.380 --> 04:01:01.000 - I just wanted to get a better understanding 04:01:01.000 --> 04:01:02.640 - of what was going on with that, 04:01:02.640 --> 04:01:04.100 - the loss of that drive-through 04:01:04.100 --> 04:01:05.980 - that we had a long, long discussion about. 04:01:05.980 --> 04:01:06.820 - Yep, I'll get you on those. 04:01:06.820 --> 04:01:08.520 - And the second is, I know that you had told me 04:01:08.520 --> 04:01:11.780 - some information, but at some time when we had agreed 04:01:11.780 --> 04:01:13.940 - on that parking lot across the street from the graduate, 04:01:13.940 --> 04:01:16.460 - I'm gonna go back and pound the drum on that again, 04:01:16.460 --> 04:01:19.900 - I could have sworn that there was contingency there 04:01:19.900 --> 04:01:22.220 - that during construction and soon after, 04:01:22.220 --> 04:01:24.420 - that parking lot would then be turned over for development 04:01:24.420 --> 04:01:27.360 - and not turned into a permanent parking lot. 04:01:27.360 --> 04:01:29.800 - And I remember specifically in that meeting saying, 04:01:29.800 --> 04:01:33.620 - I do not wanna look down 4th Street from that corner 04:01:33.620 --> 04:01:37.540 - towards the university and see two continuous blocks 04:01:37.540 --> 04:01:39.060 - of parking lots. 04:01:39.060 --> 04:01:41.220 - And so I know that that was brought up, 04:01:41.220 --> 04:01:44.180 - so I'm a little confused as to why it's still a parking lot 04:01:44.180 --> 04:01:45.940 - that's being used every day. 04:01:45.940 --> 04:01:47.100 - We will pull them, I'll pull the minutes. 04:01:47.100 --> 04:01:48.660 - I want some answers, Jackie. 04:01:48.660 --> 04:01:50.060 - I know, I know. 04:01:50.060 --> 04:01:51.940 - I will pull the minutes and get those for you. 04:01:51.940 --> 04:01:52.780 - So I had that. 04:01:52.780 --> 04:01:54.420 - So with that, the meeting is adjourned. 04:01:54.420 --> 04:01:55.620 - Thank you. - Thank you. 04:01:55.620 --> 04:02:04.360 - (upbeat music) 04:02:04.360 --> 04:02:09.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:09.360 --> 04:02:14.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:14.360 --> 04:02:19.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:19.360 --> 04:02:24.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:24.360 --> 04:02:29.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:29.360 --> 04:02:34.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:34.360 --> 04:02:39.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:39.360 --> 04:02:44.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:44.360 --> 04:02:49.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:49.360 --> 04:02:54.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar) 04:02:54.360 --> 04:02:59.360 - ("Pomp and Circumstance" by Edward Elgar)