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 To acknowledge that it was being withdrawn and haven't heard back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