WEBVTT 00:00:00.834 --> 00:00:29.758 - I'm gonna call to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, June 26, 2025. It's now 5.30. Are we recording in the back? I'll say that again. Recording in progress. I call to order this Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, June 26, 2025 at 5.30 p.m. Could we have a roll call, please? Ballard? Here. Burrell? Here. Fernandez? 00:00:30.562 --> 00:01:00.158 - Shaday here Throckmorton here We had minutes distributed do we have a motion to approve or do we have amendments? Motion to approve drive a second roll call barrel Yes, Fernandez. Yes today. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes 00:01:00.322 --> 00:01:07.998 - Yes. Ballard. Yes. Many reports resolutions or communications recognize Jackie. 00:01:10.178 --> 00:01:35.934 - Assistant director the one we have tonight is that the sixth petitioner? Tonight listed in your packet v26 25 all-american storage Sam heel has asked to be continued To the July Board of Zoning Appeals hearing they were able to get some kind of last-minute engineering that they want to go over with the city and that wasn't able to be done by tonight, so they've asked that you vote to continue that petition and 00:01:36.930 --> 00:02:04.638 - I'm sorry, I need a motion to continue V-26-25 to the next meeting. So moved. I have a second. Say it again. Second. All right. Roll call. Fernandez? Yes. Shaday? Yes. Throckmorton? Yes. Ballard? Yes. Burrell? Yes. Any other reports, resolutions, or communications from staff? No, from staff. 00:02:04.898 --> 00:02:33.662 - I'd like to make a motion to Change the order of hearing tonight and bring cu-24-25 to the first keeping the others From be 11-25 in order following that do I have a second? Roll call, please Should a yes, Throckmorton. Yes, Mallard. Yes, Burrell. Yes, Fernandez Thank you 00:02:34.018 --> 00:03:01.822 - All right so therefore tonight we will have the following petitions first of all let me let me just state the petitions that will be continued to July 24 2025 a dash 17 dash 22 Joe Kemp construction and Blackwell construction CU dash 33 dash 24 hat Reynolds LLC B dash 13 dash 25 Caroline Carolina Lopez B dash 22 dash 25 auto vest 00:03:02.754 --> 00:03:32.382 - And then we have just added V-26-25, and I think that's Steele, is that right? John Steele, what was the name on that? It's All American Storage, Sam Heal, thank you. All right, those will be continued. And then, therefore, tonight we will be hearing the following. We will start with CU-26-25, followed by V-11-25, V-1925, V-2025, 00:03:32.514 --> 00:03:58.910 - Twenty five V dash twenty one twenty five. OK. So with that we'd like to hear the first petition. This will be C U dash twenty four dash twenty five North College Partners LLC. Can I have a staff report please. And for those with a packet that's on page one thirty four. 00:04:14.978 --> 00:04:40.318 - Thank you. Sorry for the brief delay there. Change in order at the last minute. So take your time. All right. So case see Eric Grulick development services manager. So I'm here tonight to present a petition. 00:04:40.642 --> 00:05:08.638 - from North College Partners LLC for site at 717 South Henderson Street. The petitioners are here tonight to request conditional use approval to allow for a dwelling comma duplex in the residential small lot zoning district. So as I mentioned, this is at 717 South Henderson Street. This is zoned R3 residential small lot. The property was recently developed with a single family residence. 00:05:08.738 --> 00:05:36.638 - On the north side of the property, there is another lot that is owned by the petitioner that is just to the south of this lot that is platted, or I'm sorry, has a conservation easement on it. There is a 12 foot wide platted alley that runs along the north side of this property. And the petitioner is here tonight to request approval to allow for a duplex on the northern lot. And this would be accomplished by removing the existing building that is on the property, the existing residence. 00:05:37.122 --> 00:06:04.030 - and constructing a new duplex. So the duplex would be oriented towards Henderson Street and has been designed with a four square architectural design. This is something that is found in other residences along this block. There is a parking spot for two parking spaces located off of the alley on the north side of the site. So this would be a 20 foot by 20 foot pad to provide parking for the use. 00:06:04.130 --> 00:06:34.096 - The duplex would have two units as I mentioned with doors facing Henderson Street. Inside there would be a stairs to take you to the second floor. There would be one bedroom on the ground floor with two bedrooms on the upper floor. So you can see in the rendering here there is a patio that is shown or a porch more specifically along the front of this as the board is probably aware from other petitions that we have heard for duplexes. There are various use specific standards that pertain to these specifically 00:06:34.096 --> 00:07:00.318 - related to design of the building in relation to surrounding buildings incorporation of porches similar to other porches roof slope and design as well as parking orientation. So other neighbor or other residents is within here. And there are two specific examples within the neighborhood that have a four square design along this block that the petitioner has used as a model to design this. 00:07:00.770 --> 00:07:30.736 - Parking is located off of the alley. So that is similar and actually is required here since there is an improved alley and does incorporate a patio that is similar to other residences along here. With the use specific standards, we do find that this meets those requirements. Conditional uses for duplexes are also required to hold a neighborhood meeting. This is adjacent to the Bryan Park and Elm Heights neighborhood associations. So the petitioner did 00:07:30.736 --> 00:07:54.558 - to those neighborhoods. The neighborhood had a variety of questions, some related to mostly a lot of the use of the lot to the south that I mentioned has a conservation easement. There were questions regarding the amount of parking that is being provided and if that is enough for this property and this use. 00:07:55.010 --> 00:08:13.054 - And then there's some questions about reusing some of the existing materials within the existing residents for this proposed building. So the neighborhood concerns or questions. There wasn't a lot of concerns I guess or questions that the petitioner could establish or or 00:08:13.378 --> 00:08:43.344 - do much about other than providing additional parking. So the UDO does limit parking to when you have access from an alley to a 20 foot by 20 foot pad. So they've shown that as I mentioned on the north side of the site. And so that is the extent of what the UDO allows. The parking minimum is one parking space for this use. So the petition does meet that minimum. And so they are they are kind of bound by what the UDO allows for parking in terms of what is shown and provided here. 00:08:43.344 --> 00:09:10.718 - So with that, as with all these petitions, they are evaluated for the general compliance criteria. So as I mentioned, there are use-specific standards that pertain to a duplex. As I mentioned, this does address all of those in regards to the roof pitch, the patio incorporation, parking off of an alley, and the building setbacks. So it is compliant with all of the requirements within the UDO. 00:09:10.850 --> 00:09:34.782 - This is in line with the goals of the comprehensive plan as well that encourages infill development and diversity of housing within the community as well as complementary design. So those are all accomplished with the use specific standards and the petition meets all of those. So the petition would be required to install street trees along the front and those those have been shown as well. 00:09:34.882 --> 00:09:58.174 - The new construction does also require a new sidewalk along this property, which has been shown as well. So with that, we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings as outlined in your packet and recommends approval with the three conditions that are listed in staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 00:09:58.530 --> 00:10:24.382 - And at this point we will go to the petitioners and for those here tonight that are going to be speaking as petitioner I'm part of as part of the petitioner. You'll get 20 minutes that 20 minutes can be used now during the first statement or can be reserved until later you'll have two opportunities to use that 20 minutes. So do we have the petitioner with us. Come forward and if you would sign in there. 00:10:28.066 --> 00:10:57.566 - And then when you're ready state your name first and last name, please Do you do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth it is Okay, again, you'll have 20 minutes Well, first of all, I'd like to thank Eric for his presentation. I think it summarizes it quite well We tried to create a design that was already found in currently in the neighborhood You know, we Really tried to you know have everything be 00:10:58.114 --> 00:11:25.182 - You know as laid out in the UDO, you know, nothing no variances or anything like that request is so just a standard conditional use approval. But definitely happy to answer any questions. Thank you. You can reserve the rest of your 19 minutes 30 seconds to later if I have anything further. We'll come back to the board for questions of the staff and with petitioner. Do I have any. 00:11:27.938 --> 00:11:34.302 - So as I understand he got approval from the neighborhood or did he need approval from the neighborhood. 00:11:37.026 --> 00:12:03.806 - Bryan Park and Elm Heights neighborhood, you know We don't in these situations look for a kind of formal letter of support or approval But really it's just kind of an avenue to hear comments and concerns if there are things that the petitioner can address Then you know, they're required to kind of address those things that can be And so they've you know, they've made an effort to address anything that they really could but other than adding more parking which would require another would require a variance and 00:12:04.002 --> 00:12:29.118 - from the maximum parking pad that is allowed they've done everything that the UDO allows for to address those comments. All right. Thank you. Just one question. It's the conservation easement for that entire lot. Is that what you said. Lot 10. Yes the lot to the south is held in a conservation easement that is managed by the Sycamore Land Trust. 00:12:36.226 --> 00:13:01.310 - Any other board questions. With that we can go to the public for comments. Do we have anyone online or in chambers tonight who would like to make a comment and come forward and sign in and anyone from the public wishing to comment you have up to five minutes to make a comment. When you're ready state your first and last name. 00:13:04.258 --> 00:13:33.694 - Good evening. My name is Eric OST and I'm the current president of the Elm Heights Neighborhood Association 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 five minutes. Thank you. And thank you for this opportunity to provide comment regarding to this petition as Mr. Grulick mentioned there was a meeting with the Bryant Park and Elm Heights Neighborhood Associations and mr. Sackstetter and mr. Swinford 00:13:33.826 --> 00:14:00.446 - Tom Swinford who's the land preservation director for sycamore land trust attended as well as other members of the neighborhood in the neighborhood boards I think the summary of the comments was fairly Accurate, but I want to put some emphasis on a couple things one is parking Current UDO requires half a unit of parking per I mean half a spot per unit I believe 00:14:03.266 --> 00:14:27.486 - I don't know what to say about that. There are going to be three bedrooms in each of these units ostensibly six Residents plus guests the parking in that area is already very constrained. It's part of the residential zone one parking system So I think that parking is going to be an issue and 00:14:27.842 --> 00:14:48.574 - The other thing I would like to draw attention to is the conservation easement. And Mr. Grillick, I have a question. So it looks like the lot lines are nine is on the top and 10 is to the bottom. I believe the plat I saw had nine on the west and 10 on the east. Has it been replatted? 00:14:50.402 --> 00:15:19.006 - So if you want to make you can make your comments, okay Yeah, well because I didn't know if that was another step that needed to happen or in terms of the accuracy of this particular the materials presented to the board Regardless the conservation easement is on the southern half of this lot and it does have fairly detailed use Opportunities we'll say and I would like to have the board 00:15:19.234 --> 00:15:45.502 - have some commitment from the developer that they will I Don't know work with a sycamore land trust But just something because I think that that's going to be a concern. Mr. Swinford said this is a very unique Parcel, there are very few conservation easements of this nature so it's gonna I think require some attention and I just say that because I want to respect Sarah Clevengers and 00:15:45.602 --> 00:16:14.718 - wishes Sarah was a long-term board member of Elm Heights and she and her sister and Wells her father Contributed significantly to this community. So I'd like her intentions to be respected The structure Does meet the requirements but if you notice there were no windows on the second floor except for a dormer I mean, there's I think there's windows face Henderson 00:16:14.882 --> 00:16:38.174 - I'm not sure in terms of the convivial, you know atmosphere whether there can be additional windows placed in that or what there are other many other requirements in terms of Ingress egress fire code We you know, this does provide more housing and Our community has an affordability issue with housing 00:16:41.058 --> 00:17:01.598 - how we achieve greater housing, or as I like to ask the question, how can we create more homes where people live as opposed to more, simply more housing where people sleep? And ideally those homes would be owner occupied as opposed to rental. 00:17:04.098 --> 00:17:20.254 - That's not the question before you as a board but I think before us as a community as we move into the discussions regarding UDO revisions I think that that's a significant point of conversation as well as the actual need who needs housing. 00:17:20.482 --> 00:17:47.774 - What the future growth potential for Bloomington is the local economy. I think we need to look at all those things So anyway, I really appreciate this opportunity to speak and I'm not sure if anyone from Bryan Park is going to speak this evening But I hopefully I've relayed their their comments accurately. So thank you Thank you. Do we have anyone else in chambers wanting to speak? if not anyone online 00:17:52.514 --> 00:18:18.174 - Online they would like to speak. Please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat to the host and we can recognize you I'm not seeing anybody Okay with that we're back to the petitioner the petitioner can address any of the comments He's heard to this point using the remainder of your 19 minutes and 30 seconds, but you're under no obligation to do so. I 00:18:21.154 --> 00:18:48.638 - Parking was available. We are under our previous standards We would have loved to have extended that pad past the 20 by 20 But in the effort to meet the current UDO as it stands, you know, we were limited by that the current lot lines have been Adjusted to reflect, you know 9 and 10 in their current Configuration in order to keep the conservation easement on its own lot so that it can be untouched based because of 00:18:49.314 --> 00:19:18.942 - the wording of the UDO and how the conservation easement worked. The two lots together was unbuildable if the conservation easement ran on both lots on the southern half of both lots because of the sidewalk requirements. I'm happy to spend the rest of my time. Very good. With that we'll come back to the board for action. We will entertain either a motion or further questions to the staff or the petitioner before motion is made. Do I have any questions or comments. 00:19:22.210 --> 00:19:49.246 - Excuse me make a motion Move to adopt the proposed findings and approve CU dash 24 dash 25 with the following conditions as listed in the packet I Have a motion in a second any further discussion from the board Seeing none I'll call the question cultural a vote. Yes would be to approve a 00:19:50.178 --> 00:20:18.430 - The petition and a vote of no would be to deny. Yes. Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Today. Yes. Congratulations. The petition passes and we were going to then pick up at the start that we originally had which is V dash 11 dash 25. 00:20:18.658 --> 00:20:46.398 - And that will be page five of the packet if you're looking at tonight's packet Give us all a second to get there It's all good All right staff report, please when you're ready Thank you again Eric grueling development services manager. So this petition be 1125 is a petition from Smith and Hayes Properties LLC for a site at 300 West 6th Street and 00:20:46.690 --> 00:21:15.678 - The petitioner is requesting a variance from use specific standards to allow for ground floor dwelling units within the first 20 feet of the first floor within the mixed use downtown within the downtown core overlay. So the board previously heard this petition about two years ago, August 24th, 2023 for the similar request and it was denied. The petitioner came back in March of this year, I'm sorry, April of this year. 00:21:15.842 --> 00:21:45.662 - with a slightly revised plan that incorporated a one and a half foot wall, one and a half foot deep wall within the building to separate the ground floor residences to slightly change this petition from what was heard in 2023. So the petitioner is requesting in essence the same variance but with a slight difference. The board as I mentioned previously heard this and continued it in order to give the petitioner time to make some changes to the petition. 00:21:45.762 --> 00:21:56.926 - The petitioner has secured a letter of intent to display art within here, within that dead space or that void space between the inner 00:21:57.282 --> 00:22:27.248 - proposed residences and the eastern facade along Morton Street. But in essence, the petition remains the same as previously heard. So real quick though, I'll just kind of summarize the overall site and petition. So this is located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street in North Morton. It has been developed with a ground floor commercial component. It has a dentist office. There are some apartments within the building on the upper floor and within the building itself. The other apartments within the building 00:22:27.248 --> 00:22:53.790 - building were added a few years ago and met all of the setback requirements, the 20 foot setback, as well as they were still able to achieve the 50% ground floor commercial space. So the petitioner's proposal is to create two new dwelling units within the building. And so this petition would, as I mentioned, incorporate a space along Morton Street in front of the 00:22:53.922 --> 00:23:22.462 - Residences they'd be about a foot and a half deep that would have artwork displayed in there So the petitioner has submitted a few renderings kind of of what the front might look like with that space in there and within the packet I mentioned there is a letter of intent that would have a commitment for it for the incorporation of the art within that space but one of the the challenges and and this is something that we talked about and 00:23:23.138 --> 00:23:52.766 - at grant length last time is the UDO, obviously, for development standards variance. You know, we have to make findings that there is some peculiar condition that is about, that is with a property that presents a practical difficulty, that presents a hardship, that is unique, something that is not created by the petitioner, something that is inherent about the property itself. And so that is where the board and the department struggled last time. 00:23:52.866 --> 00:24:16.062 - You know, as I mentioned, there are spaces within the building where residences can be added and have been added. The space where these proposed residences are did previously have commercial space in there. It was used as a commercial space. The space where the proposed residences are was being remodeled for the residences without a permit. 00:24:16.162 --> 00:24:43.262 - And so that that created the the challenges that we're dealing with today is this space was already set aside for the residences Wasn't made available to the commercial space But as that space that commercial space has already been leased, you know, this space for these residences is already there It's existed. It's been walled off. And so the petitioner is trying to come up with the use for that But that that is kind of a self-imposed hardship. That's a self-imposed 00:24:43.746 --> 00:25:13.712 - difficulty that was placed that wasn't inherent about the property. And so that that is the challenge and one of the findings that we were not able to make positive findings for. So in regards to the three criteria that the approval will not be interested to public health safety morals or general welfare. You know we don't certainly find any negative impacts from that. The granting of the variance would not relieve any safety standards or requirements for that. However in relation to the use and 00:25:13.712 --> 00:25:43.664 - and value adjacent to the property. We did make negative findings here. One of the reasons why we don't want ground floor units directly on sidewalks is it does not provide pedestrian experiences along streets that we desire within the community. So this is not about the viability of commercial space. The petition site meets the 50%, so we're not discussing whether or not this space can have a commercial use or is viable in that regard. So we did not find 00:25:43.664 --> 00:25:55.006 - I'm sorry we did find that there would be negative impacts on the use and value as there would be impacts along the street and to the community as a whole. And then most importantly. 00:25:55.618 --> 00:26:21.886 - that the strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties of use of the property. We did not, as I mentioned, did not find that there were any practical difficulties that were peculiar to this property in question. As I mentioned, this space can have commercial uses in it. It has always had historical commercial spaces in it. There are places within the building that residents can be added and have been added. 00:26:21.986 --> 00:26:46.398 - So we do not find that there are any practical difficulties that are peculiar to the property that is able to justify and recommend approval of the variance. So with that, we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and deny case V-11-25. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. 00:26:46.882 --> 00:27:00.862 - Thank you. It's time for the petitioner. We have 20 minutes and I'll ask before we get started. Will there be only one person speaking or a number if there will be a number. Can we please get you all sworn in now so we can get that over with. Have all four of you please come forward and sign in. I'll swear you and then we'll start your clock. 00:27:19.298 --> 00:27:48.190 - And we'll go down the line when she's done there and each one of you will say your first and last name And do each of you affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Thank you Once you're ready there, we'll start the clock when you're ready, sir. Thank you Well, thank you members of the board's own appeals. We hope that we have a 00:27:48.578 --> 00:28:02.814 - The petition that's being brought forward is almost identical to 00:28:02.978 --> 00:28:23.262 - Directly across the street at the stride center where there is window space and that wall Between it difference being of course, these would be residential units not a commercial Use, but the concept is the same thing as is directly across the street from us we Have tried to address 00:28:23.362 --> 00:28:38.526 - Uh, the planning staff's concern for the pedestrian experience within the confines of the conditions that this particular property imposes on us. It's a community gem. This property has been here for a long time and be well loved. 00:28:38.626 --> 00:29:08.592 - But it carries with it several problems that are imposed by the 20-foot facade, front facade requirement of the UDO. And so I want to remind the board of the peculiarities that we talked about when we were before you before. One, of course, is the fact it's a historic building. There's only one entrance on that Morton Street side, and we can't make another one. So to deny this and to stand firm 00:29:08.592 --> 00:29:30.654 - On there being a commercial use in that site or in that space rather would be to require that the locked get a courtyard gated residential entrance To this same space be abandoned and that those people that have rented units in there in a locked gated residential space 00:29:31.042 --> 00:30:01.008 - They don't have that anymore because we have to have a commercial use in that space. And so we think that's a peculiarity To this site. We can't cut a new front door in that front in that front space. It's a historic building It's the only one in the Morton Street block And so for that reason we think it also poses a peculiarity the north door as I said if if required if denied and we were to stand firm on the the Udo's 20-foot facade requirement and 00:30:01.008 --> 00:30:26.654 - that north door and locked gate requirement for tenants would have to be ignored and eliminated. The entry to the building itself now and for years and years was always that southeast corner, not the east, not the south, and so we don't get the benefit of that. It's a southeast, and that's where the dentist's office enters its space right now. 00:30:27.394 --> 00:30:57.360 - The other one we talked about before is the utilities to this building are located and they serve the building from the west side or the beeline trail side of the building. And so to hold firm to the 20 foot front facade requirement would then be to say that we think we should bring the entrance to the residential spaces in through the utility service rather than through the open space that you saw the picture of. Another one is foot traffic. 00:30:57.360 --> 00:31:07.070 - about and I think somebody asked if we'd update foot traffic numbers. Ms. Huttenlocher will talk to you about updated but the foot traffic in this particular location due to a 00:31:07.394 --> 00:31:37.360 - Somewhat more narrow sidewalk, especially when one considers the placement of parking meters Really you have overwhelmingly higher numbers of foot traffic and therefore pedestrians experience back on the beeline side as opposed to on the Morton side that the front facade requirement would attempt to preside Preserve and so the foot traffic and the pedestrian experience we think is a peculiarity that leans in favor of 00:31:37.360 --> 00:32:00.350 - leads to the conclusion that the Variant should be granted. Mr. Hayes is here owner of the building. He's going to talk about one thing We want to make sure we talk to you about because it was addressed at the last meeting was arts We have a very enthusiastic agreement that Dave will talk to you about with pillars Bloomington area arts guild 00:32:00.514 --> 00:32:30.480 - former name and we've got a letter of intent that's in your packet and they are most anxious to be able to display local artists work and that's what it will be within those windows that are affected. Ms. Hutton-Locker will talk to you about her updated numbers with respect to foot traffic and also she's got a couple of pictures here because there was a concern last time about whether the apartments are too dark inside for tenants and she's going to talk to you about that and especially with respect to traveling nurses with 00:32:30.480 --> 00:32:58.462 - EMTs with firefighters of people who have night shift jobs and want there to be Less natural light than others and mr. Bruce is here to talk to you I don't think we did a great job last time of talking to you about the transom windows that were always Intended to be in these places and we've you've got an image in your packet and mr. Bruce will talk to you about those transoms So missed with that mr. Hayes will address you next All right. I'll be brief David Hayes great-grandson 00:32:58.722 --> 00:33:26.270 - Jim Hayes, the founder of Hayes Market, so proud owner of that building. You mentioned the artwork, the Pillar Arts, it's actually the Arts Alliance of the Greater Bloomington, Inc. As you mentioned, they're fired up and enthusiastic and excited about displaying art from local artists on Morton at zero cost, because the letter of intent, even though we're renting the space, we're charging them zero. 00:33:26.786 --> 00:33:46.782 - And they're going to take the art off and on at their discretion. Of course, I have final say with the type of art that goes in, mainly for personal character reasons. We don't want something that's obscene up there, of course. So we're excited about that. So we think it's a win for the artist. We think it's a win for the community. 00:33:46.978 --> 00:34:12.606 - We think it's a win for us obviously as well to be part of that and then it also I wanted to mention something about the commercial space We tried for three years to convince people that that was a viable commercial space But the entry into the gated community into another fob door down a hallway where two young girls lived to enter a space with Just made zero sense, right? So I I know we 00:34:12.706 --> 00:34:39.134 - Have our motto we treat your kids like they're our own locally owned and operated You know landlord and we mean it. So I want it to be secure. I want it to be safe I want our our we have cameras everywhere 24 hours a day So that's all I have to say because we're on the clock and I didn't understand how that worked last time and I ate it all up So Krista Hutton lockers next Hi Krista Hutton locker 00:34:39.522 --> 00:35:02.046 - I brought new numbers for the traffic flow on the beeline trail the last time they were more winter hours and we were a three to one ratio this time I've watched several more hours of footage both Morton site in the beeline for example our beeline usage to the Morton Street hundred and twenty two people on the beeline trail. Nineteen. 00:35:02.178 --> 00:35:29.502 - The Morton side then I took a different day didn't different set of hours paid attention to the weather that made sure it was decent I've got a hundred and thirty nine people on the beeline trail 21 on the Morton side Then also we have a couple photographs I just wanted to point out this is the unit directly across from the proposed units and then the unit directly above it I have one window 00:35:29.762 --> 00:35:56.094 - in unit 204 it's one of my more popular units and I have two windows in unit 103 and it stays rented as well. There are more windows in these new units than these other two units that are occupied currently by a nighttime probation officer and an EMT that works night shifts. They both prefer these units that have windows or no windows in the bedrooms. 00:35:59.586 --> 00:36:27.966 - I think that was it. Hi, good evening. Doug Bruce, the architect for this project and David's vision. Just a couple of things. We have a rendering here, and I think it's in your packet as well. So these transom windows, when we created this wall so that we could still have the privacy for the units, what we're trying to show is that these aren't dark dungeons that was brought up at the last hearing. 00:36:28.162 --> 00:36:57.726 - The south unit is a one-bedroom unit and there are four of these windows that start at 18 or 8 feet high At from the floor and they're 18 inches in height and they're like 38 or 40 inches in width that unit has four of them along Morton and then the north unit which is a one-bedroom unit or is it the studio unit has two of them along Morton and 00:36:58.402 --> 00:37:20.350 - Again the tops of them are at eight feet the bottoms of them are 18 inches lower and So they're still just above they're not something that you're going to just peer in and look you'd have to really stand up on your toes The north unit also has a window looking into the courtyard. That's a full-size window so so really it's 00:37:20.514 --> 00:37:45.150 - The the rendering really shows you what the south unit the one-bedroom unit is like with the light coming in yet you have the sense of privacy and so again, I think as Bill spoke because of the utilities on one side and because of the narrowness of the sidewalk along Morton and I think the traffic the pedestrian traffic counts show that that most people at this block this peculiar block 00:37:45.442 --> 00:38:15.006 - Taking the beeline and not walking along Morton. There's no curb there either which is different than most areas in downtown So the cars and the bumpers pull right up to the meters and then as as mr. Beggs mentioned also Something else that's very peculiar here to this site. Is it the south part of this site? The corner entry the sidewalk there is over 20 feet wide from Sixth Street so that 00:38:15.138 --> 00:38:42.526 - How this this is not a new building. This is a building that has been here for ages And so as the UDO has changed this building has not and that's what we think is very peculiar about this site So thank you for your time Thank you any other comments or will withhold the rest 925 okay nine minutes and 25 seconds will be remaining with that will come to the board with any questions for the petitioner or for the board, please 00:38:46.082 --> 00:39:13.374 - Just wanted I wasn't sure if I heard mr. Begg's comment correctly regarding Access to the space If I heard you right you were saying that if this was a commercial space the only entrance would be off of the courtyard What why couldn't it why couldn't the existing door on Morton Street be used as a 00:39:13.474 --> 00:39:32.574 - Access to a commercial site good question because that is a stair. That's a dedicated stairway that doesn't There's no there's not room in there it's a stairway that's already existing but if I understand the rendering it looks like there is a door from the bedroom into that area 00:39:33.602 --> 00:40:00.318 - Into which area please inside the door into the vestibule. It's a code compliant. It's not a used door. It's not an in and out door every day. It's a code compliant partial door. I think there's a better term for that that an architect would use but it's a it's not a full entrance door like the one you see in that picture there. I think the question that I was hearing was it could be used as one though. 00:40:01.122 --> 00:40:29.310 - Except there's not space for it. There's only space for what if the interior was designed as a commercial space it could be used, correct? I don't think no because it's not wide enough from a code perspective There's not room to get a wide enough door inside there as a typical for example ADA. You couldn't get a wheelchair in there Any other questions I disagree. I mean 00:40:30.626 --> 00:40:55.966 - There is room for a three-feet door there, if you move it. I mean, if you place it correctly and get rid of that art wall, if you call it, to enter from that door. My question, though, is this place 00:40:56.162 --> 00:41:21.470 - Has this already been built as a residential space and is it already currently rented. The answer is no and no answers are no and no. Last time you heard us the start of a story probably too much of one. The contractor that had been hired didn't follow the rules. 00:41:21.826 --> 00:41:50.430 - The owner didn't realize that he started out when the owner figured out what was going on. He stopped that contractor who is not in business now. And in fact these last three years have involved many dollars trying to recover what that contractor did to put him in the position he's in right now to have to be here to ask you for this variance. So no and no is a short answer. So the space have not been developed. 00:41:50.690 --> 00:42:14.686 - not developed it was committed that builder started on it and We didn't know it and then when we found out and I maybe there was a city saw it but it stopped when the owner figured that out and he then tried to recover his losses from that and was unable to to the tune to the tune of as of now several hundred thousand dollars and 00:42:19.938 --> 00:42:46.366 - assistant director our understanding is I mean it was it was all open inside and Work started illegally. It was noticed by the city stop work order. I think was issued. I'm not positive and Some work has been done on this residential portion and they chose to continue Work on the commercial side Where the dentist office is so that was all done? 00:42:47.394 --> 00:43:10.014 - Choices made about which side was residential in which side was commercial has been made and committed to by putting the dentist office in before this discussion was Completed so so you can see in the windows. It's not complete but work has been done in those on that side It was chosen the fact is we can't lease it 00:43:10.114 --> 00:43:33.854 - We've spent next Tuesday will be three years in a month trying to get the place leased for a commercial use Yes, that builder did start on a residential use on that thing when we figured it out We stopped it when we became aware of it We stopped it but it wasn't it hasn't been a situation as if somebody has made a decision to try to put apartments in there without That's what we're doing here tonight is we're seeking a variance that 00:43:33.954 --> 00:43:59.774 - Once the builder had been stopped but will be now as I say next Tuesday it'll be three years in a month of trying to lease that space for commercial uses without success. Any other questions from from the board. I only had one question concerning the count. It's just a. 00:44:02.466 --> 00:44:31.646 - Just a general question, which is would it be reasonable to think or to surmise that if there was a retail or commercial use of that space on Morton that those numbers would be different along Morton as people came in to a lease space in my opinion No, because most of my kids will come through this back door on the back gate I'm talking about if it was rented as a commercial space not as a residential space 00:44:32.258 --> 00:45:01.886 - Would the the numbers passing by this on the sidewalk on Morton would it conceive would it be conceivable to say that there would be more than the 19 that you counted of the 21 that you counted I would say Joe that it would depend on the type of business that was in there if it was a hairstylist probably not you know if it was a tattoo parlor probably not I don't know, but if it was a Some establishment with a lot of traffic then sure it would it would increase the food and the point I'm trying to make is right now there is no 00:45:02.530 --> 00:45:32.510 - Retail or commercial space being used there and if you did put commercial or retail space in those numbers will be different No one's gonna put something in no one shows up Yeah, so that my point is that it's it's nice that you have those numbers now But those numbers are skewed to the fact that you don't have retail there So I appreciate you bringing us the numbers But for me, that's not a very compelling argument because we don't know how many people would be on Morton So therefore that's that sidewalk could be used much more That's my only point is it reasonable to be able to make that kind of a conclusion? 00:45:33.442 --> 00:45:58.718 - And maybe maybe I hear that now that you raise it that way. Maybe it will help to say this. What we were led to understand is that the pedestrian experience is a particular concern of the staff. And so those numbers are meant to show the board traffic in the entire street not just to this building. So that's the point. Your point is well taken. I get it. 00:45:59.202 --> 00:46:22.622 - It doesn't change the numbers as to areas and destinations north and destination south of this particular site in the current configuration. Correct. Correct. Do we have any other questions. Just a quick one. Three years is obviously a long time. What's been the feedback as to why. 00:46:28.002 --> 00:46:56.734 - We have Tim we have one two three four five six different ones Convenience store denied space with two there's no there was no too small space for entry Lack of free parking quick no quick in and out a beautician denied no washer and dryer Parking for clients a bakery lack of street frontage. I mean you want I mean there's been lots of attempts 00:46:57.858 --> 00:47:26.142 - Let's see. We spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in 22 We actually have them as a tenant at 6th and Rogers. They're looking for additional office space Again, they they didn't like that. They didn't have any parking and also the cost We tried to offer to the dental practice to expand no interest there we talked about even moving one of my offices down there and I just don't have any use for 00:47:26.274 --> 00:47:55.998 - That kind of isolation moving a person down there when my office is down off of You know down off of South College that passed 1st Street. So But the the the mix of the of the Of the residential in that commercial in that area. It just doesn't work for people So anyway, hope that helps. Yeah What he told you about was wasn't 00:47:56.546 --> 00:48:24.894 - not including the listing period with Chris Cochran while it was listed and that feedback went directly to him that also was unsuccessful during this same period. So just a follow up to this. So what are your options if this is not granted? What are you guys gonna do with the space? I mean obviously you've probably had to weigh that. I mean and again I know 00:48:24.994 --> 00:48:48.990 - Shouldn't be about money, but it's you know, it's like three years like a hundred eight thousand dollars of lost rent So the answer is nothing. We're not gonna we won't be able to do anything We'll just have to wait and see if someday somehow a UDO gets a new one gets put on that eliminates that which You know could be my lifetime could may not be so but 00:48:49.346 --> 00:49:18.462 - You know, I mean, I want to protect. I didn't ask for any variances when we did that project. I was promised a 10 year tax abatement that didn't happen because of the time frame I was doing it during Kobe. Mayor Hamilton and them said, hey, they didn't ask for anything. So I've never asked for anything on this building. And I did not want to change the integrity of that building at all. But we're just going to have to leave it as it is. 00:49:20.258 --> 00:49:48.190 - Thank you. Would you would you object to sharing with us whether you're trying to rent it at market rate or is it higher or have you heard any feedback in those terms for that space? I have a waiting list right now for our one bedroom unit and they was I'm sorry. I'm talking about commercial the commercial space. Sorry. 00:49:50.146 --> 00:50:14.526 - We've offered I mean if someone would come in six months free just to get going You know You know, we I mean retail space Downtown should at least be 12 bucks a square foot minimally You know, we were offering it like just give us an offer, you know, just tell us what you can afford the chamber were really close, but they went through some budgetary and 00:50:15.010 --> 00:50:39.966 - Things and did some staff. I think reductions possibly they were fine with the space they had So yeah, there's I Mean, I suppose but gave it away free someone but then that's never been proposed. But yeah, so Thank you any other questions before we go to the public Okay 00:50:40.226 --> 00:51:08.254 - We'll open it up to the public then anyone from the public here in chambers who'd like to speak to this petition. Seeing none do we have anyone online. Eric if there is anybody online please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat to the host and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anything. 00:51:09.890 --> 00:51:37.246 - Okay we'll go back to the petitioner you guys have I think it's nine minutes and a half roughly is that correct. Go ahead and put the clock back up for them and you can use the remainder your time to address. Yeah I don't want to talk just to be talking or just to use the time so I don't plan that but I just do want to call the board's attention to within the packet we have provided we had done this at the last hearing and I don't think it was clear exactly what you were 00:51:37.666 --> 00:51:59.486 - given but in your packet you have been furnished a an alternate set of proposed findings with a proposed condition as well. We gave you that letter of intent with pillars as well and we showed you this time there was a concern about what's it going to look like inside. I guess that's probably a 00:51:59.810 --> 00:52:20.830 - peculiarity of the site and so we tried to give you that to show you that as well and so from our perspective this record is full of hardships relating to peculiarities or deriving from peculiarities with this property and so we would respectfully request that the board grant this variance pursuant to the proposed findings that we've submitted. 00:52:27.362 --> 00:52:54.494 - Yeah, we're back to the board for any questions or motion either. Go ahead, John. I have a question for staff. If I recall, I know it was a couple of months ago when we first started this, I guess it was March. And at that time, at the beginning of the meeting or the hearing, there was a discussion about whether or not this was really eligible to be considered under our code. 00:52:55.714 --> 00:53:19.646 - Because not a sufficient amount of time had passed and that the project was not significantly Different than the prior consideration that was denied. Yeah, so there was actually different language. There was language in the UDO That said something in that effect But the admit that the rules and procedures do allow for something to come back and you don't have to prove a substantial change or anything 00:53:19.746 --> 00:53:28.446 - So the boards did not have to make that there were any substantial changes to the petition or the property in order to hear it. So you are allowed are allowed to hear it. 00:53:29.666 --> 00:53:58.718 - Um, so I just want to remind the word, you know, this, this petition is not about a request from the amount of commercial space that is required. Um, you know, this space doesn't have to be commercial. It could be uses for the tenant. Um, it can be anything. So, you know, as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, this is not about, you know, the viability of the space, um, but that what is unique here that doesn't allow the residences to be within the building. Um, you know, when we approved the remodeling permit for the dentist office, this space was walled off. 00:53:58.914 --> 00:54:28.766 - You know this was not shown as available to you know the dentist use that was moving in there. So it had already been separated at that time. And again as I mentioned you know that was something that was created by the petitioner. You know whether they knew the contractor was doing the work or not. You know that's that's not the issue. You know it was an action of the property owner the property owner allowed that to happen. So that's a self imposed hardship. That's something that they created. So before we get to and we haven't had a motion yet but we are to the board for that. 00:54:28.962 --> 00:54:54.110 - We could entertain a motion, but I will say that I think what's again difficult with this is that Again, we would be forced to come up with alternate findings since we would be going against the city's recommendations and those alternate findings Have to be within what we're allowed to do And I think what I was just hearing Eric say is that yes, it can be used for residential purposes, but it does still have to maintain a 00:54:54.434 --> 00:55:19.902 - The code which is the setback which is kind of a big issue there and that that's where you're if I understand Eric that's kind of where you're making that well what I was what I was trying to say is you know could be amenity space it could be a study space if you use by the way it can't be a residential space right in it because yeah, yeah, so and I think that that's what makes it hard because and and this would be addressed to the petitioners and the public in general which is you know, we can't just violate the UDO without 00:55:20.354 --> 00:55:45.598 - Some rationale we have to have that rationale and that's what makes it frustrating because if if the board finds to To deny this it would be because we can't find a rationale for being able to overturn What's clearly stated in the UDO? If we are able to come up with findings of fact that would allow us to 00:55:45.730 --> 00:56:07.102 - To go against the UDO that would be what's critical. You guys have been in front of us This is the third time I think so, you know what our what our particular challenge is, which is we were looking to you To give us something a little more in terms of and you did give us those Suggested proposed findings you know and if if the board is not swayed and 00:56:07.202 --> 00:56:33.182 - think that those are sufficient up that would be our problem of not feeling like that we can go against the code. So I'm just saying that in general because this is it's a difficult thing for this particular building and we understand the situation. So I wanted to say that now before we had any further motion and I think oftentimes people come to the BZ and they think that we're not being thoughtful or consider or understand the challenges and we do. But at the same time we're not a renegade board. 00:56:33.794 --> 00:57:02.334 - So we do have certain things that we have to follow. So bear with us as we try to figure out what's the best way to go here please. Any questions or comments from the board. Just a question for staff. So so this space could be a workout place. Yeah it could be it could be literally any use other than a dwelling unit. Correct. So a workout place. I mean they could provide a workout place and charge people to use it. 00:57:02.658 --> 00:57:31.326 - Sure it could be a laundry area could be a study space could be exercise room. You know it could be any any number of things. Thank you. Yeah that was you had a question. Yeah basically my question as well as to the petitioner. There are options. I understand what you're saying but obviously you could take you could up your rents to put amenities in there that other groups that rent downtown do. 00:57:31.874 --> 00:57:58.846 - I agree with Joe though. This is it. It's really it's an unfortunate place as part of it being self-imposed but part of it being I feel like the consideration of I do think you make some valid points on the peculiarities and I also think Now that we can interpret the financial impact and as part of our findings, I think the city Planning needs to hear that like three years. We don't want any local business sitting in 00:57:59.458 --> 00:58:25.406 - With with that, you know any kind of vacancy for that long of time trying to go through this process. So Yeah, I just I think there are options I think I think it's very limited and I think that's that's unfortunate But I do I think this is maybe a broader conversation about you do changes that would allow for First floor residential and I think that may be happening down the road, but it's not there now so That's all I've got 00:58:25.762 --> 00:58:51.646 - Any other questions from the board or comments from the board before we entertain a motion. Ryan anything. I appreciate what Tim just said because that's kind of the issue here. But I do think that we have come up to the line of how can this become usable within code currently. And you're I'm sorry I forgot your name Krista. 00:58:52.130 --> 00:59:21.950 - Chris has said that there's a waiting list. So there's clearly a demand for that location and the space that you, the renderings are beautiful. So I do agree that there might be a way to adapt it within code at the time being until such time as the UDO changes that you would be able to at least regain some of your investment because it's true now, you know, we do take into account a little bit more of what kind of damage it could do to you economically. Any other? 00:59:22.050 --> 00:59:49.438 - Questions. I'll get the ball rolling here and just recommend that the board of zoning appeals adopt the proposed findings and deny be eleven twenty five. I have a second. Second I have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion before we take a vote. 00:59:51.074 --> 01:00:19.294 - The vote would be yes would be to deny a yes would be to deny a no would be to vote down the motion and come up with another motion. With that I'll call a question. Yes. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Unfortunately the motion has been denied. We do thank you for. 01:00:19.458 --> 01:00:47.646 - Your continued work on this and good luck when working with the city Okay, we've been at one hour does anyone need a quick break otherwise we'll go to the next one we good Okay moving on to the next one We are up for V-19-25 Lance and Gretchen Widener 01:00:47.906 --> 01:01:16.766 - 1215 North Woodburn Avenue, may I have a staff report, please? Yes, let me just set up my screen Yes, David Brent has a zoning planner and GIS analyst 01:01:16.962 --> 01:01:44.798 - This is petition V dash 19-25 at 1215 North Woodburn Avenue petitioners Lance and Gretchen Weidner are requesting a variance from front parking setback requirements and a request for a determinate sidewalk variance to allow for construction of a new duplex in the mixed-use medium-scale district the surrounding properties are also in the mixed-use medium-scale district shown here in red and 01:01:45.602 --> 01:02:12.510 - Residential multifamily shown in yellow. The parcel is one hundred fifty feet by thirty two. I'm sorry. It's 50 feet by one hundred and thirty two feet. There is currently a single a one story a single family home. The petitioner plans to replace the structure with a two story duplex as allowed in this zoning district by right. 01:02:15.298 --> 01:02:43.070 - The proposal includes a 27 foot by 32 foot parking area to be accessed by the alley to the west The dimensional standards of the mixed use medium scale district call for the parking area to be located 20 feet behind the front building wall of both North Woodburn and West Kenwood The proposed structure does adhere to both the 15 foot front setback on each of those frontages and the remaining 01:02:43.234 --> 01:03:08.670 - area that they would be allowed under current code to Dedicate to a parking area is highlighted in red. It's a little faint but that area is not wide enough for a for a single parking space The petitioners proposal would also require a Five foot wide tree plot and six foot wide sidewalk along the frontage with West Kenwood and 01:03:09.634 --> 01:03:32.318 - Uh, there's not currently a sidewalk along that stretch of Kenwood. Uh, this is the property, uh, with, uh, Woodburn to the left and West Kenwood to the right. And this is Kenwood facing westbound. I'm sorry. 01:03:34.754 --> 01:04:03.198 - This is the other side of Kenwood. It is only one block long. It's less than 500 feet In regards to criteria the parking is not expected to be injurious to the welfare of the community the parking areas access from the alley which is similar to other properties in the area and required by the UDO in this case the sidewalk the determinant sidewalk variance is also not expected to be injurious to the general where welfare of the community and 01:04:03.522 --> 01:04:24.990 - that there is unlikely to be any adverse impact to bike and pedestrian traffic through that area. As I said Kenwood is one block and only 13 feet wide. This area serves mostly just the residents. It's not a very highly trafficked area. 01:04:28.962 --> 01:04:56.862 - Neither variance is expected to impact the value of the adjacent areas of the adjacent properties in a substantially adverse manner. It should have very little impact and the new structure would comply with setbacks that the existing structure does not comply with. So that would be that would be a benefit to the area to come into compliance there. 01:04:57.026 --> 01:05:23.614 - The proposed structure and facilities would be very similar to other surrounding properties. The parking the strict application in terms of the UDO would result in practical difficulties in that it would not allow for any surface parking on the property if the front 01:05:23.874 --> 01:05:42.910 - building setback and front parking setback were followed on both frontages. This proposal requests that only the front parking setback on the front parking area setback on Kenwood be relieved. 01:05:44.898 --> 01:06:02.942 - and in regards to the sidewalk, the strict application of the UDO would result in practical difficulties that require the installation of a sidewalk on a corridor that has very little pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The transportation plan 01:06:03.106 --> 01:06:33.022 - States that neighborhood residential streets with expected average daily trips of less than 500 vehicles per day are expected to have an operational speed of less than 20 miles per hour and that a lack of sidewalks can be appropriate in this case Peculiar condition is found in the narrow width of Kenwood Drive Which creates a very narrow street and low Traffic speed and volume That make a shared street design more appropriate 01:06:38.850 --> 01:07:07.102 - And there are criteria for determinant sidewalk variances, which are included here. We do not have findings for this criteria, but it can be included for the board's consideration. So our staff recommendation based on the written findings is that the department recommends the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings for V1925 and approve the requested variances with the following conditions. 01:07:07.234 --> 01:07:35.198 - That a building permit is required before construction zoning commitment is required for the determinant sidewalk variance Prior to the issuance of a building permit and that required street trees will be put in on each frontage That concludes my presentation let me know if you have any questions Do we have the petitioner here like to speak to this I 01:07:35.490 --> 01:08:02.910 - And is there only you or are there multiple. Is it just you. Speaking. Yep. OK thank you. Once you say your first and last name please. Matt Ellenwood with Matt Black architecture. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 01:08:03.330 --> 01:08:32.286 - I do. Thank you. You have 20 minutes. You can hold some in reserve till later. Thanks. Yeah, I'm actually here with the owner Lance Whitener, but I'm going to just cover a few things. David, do you have any of the other additional drawings? Thanks. David did a nice job kind of reviewing the property and the condition. It's kind of an interesting lot with other development that's happened around it and 01:08:33.154 --> 01:09:01.182 - kind of just want to continue with that and do something that fits within that context. And so I just thought we'd show a little bit of what's a little more of what's around it and then what we're proposing so you can get a better vision for it rather than just that kind of basic site plan. So thanks to you could start with the first one actually across the street just for context. Oh that is OK. So this is just an elevation of the be the 01:09:01.954 --> 01:09:31.582 - North side which is along Kenwood and then the east side would be wood burn I'm soon gonna get a feel for the the proposed duplex unit and then the next Slides just basic floor plans. There's similar units front back there four bedroom units three bedrooms up one bedroom down Go ahead to the upstairs Yeah, and then you add to the next. Thanks 01:09:32.482 --> 01:10:00.638 - So this is the existing context to the right there kind of beyond the tree is the existing structure where the new proposed would go. So you can see here there are existing to story kind of structures there along the street already. And then continue the next. Now this is on the off of the alley kind of opposite from the viewer just looking at or 01:10:02.370 --> 01:10:31.614 - kind of to the west Our property is to kind of the middle the picture there that existing structure to the left of the basketball goal Just just to kind of show you that you know, there's obviously an existing parking Demand off of the alley here. I'm not sure if it's just for the one property But we would be proposing a similar parking scenario to the left of this where that tree is and then there's the Kenwood to the left of that so 01:10:33.474 --> 01:11:03.230 - Now this is across Kenwood a recent development also a duplex unit with parking in the in the rear off of the alley. They've kind of they have a larger parking area than than we're proposing. They've kind of gone past you know the face of the building along Kenwood there. So we're proposing to stay you know keep our parking in line with the face of the building along Kenwood so it wouldn't you know come out as far toward the street. 01:11:03.522 --> 01:11:30.654 - And then this is that same structure more at the intersection closer to Woodburn. So Woodburn would be to your right of the image and Kenwood on the left. So there's a similar type scale to what we're proposing on our development. Really the main main difference is the parking scenario in the back of our property. I keep it in line with the structure. So that's mainly it just to get a 01:11:31.010 --> 01:11:59.006 - sense of what we're proposing. If you have any questions be glad to answer this. Thanks. Thank you. What's the time they have left 16 30. Okay. We'll hold the 16 30 for later. We have questions from the board to the staff or the petitioner please. I may miss it. Is this a are you going to sell these duplexes or random. Sorry. Yeah there'll be rentals. 01:12:03.042 --> 01:12:25.694 - Questions yeah, please. I do have one question. This is for staff The Condition number two Is that what's the the purpose of that? We the zoning commitment what what is the zoning commitment? 01:12:26.242 --> 01:12:54.974 - Yes a standard condition that we have for all determinant sidewalk variances. So that's the purpose of that is to let future owners of the property know that this determined sidewalk variances on record and helps alleviate or alleviate any challenge. Hopefully try to make those a little bit easier should we have to call it in sometime in the future. Yeah I just can't imagine a future property and come owner coming in and demanding the sidewalk. Sure. I mean it helps them be aware that this is there. I got you. 01:12:58.658 --> 01:13:27.902 - This is for the staff on page I think it's 39 page 39 of the packet on that overhead. We have the overlay Are you able to put that up? He's 39 put the packet I'm just I just want to speak to the parking set back and not the sidewalk Yeah, this one can you make it larger I 01:13:29.250 --> 01:13:56.382 - I want to make sure I understand so currently the existing structure that's the front there on the right side Is it within the setback standard? Existing so that that existing structure does not meet current building setbacks, which would be 15 feet from the property line So I'm looking at the 15 foot mark, which is into that little roof line a little bit, correct? That's correct. So that that new building could go forward and 01:13:57.826 --> 01:14:25.726 - That 15-foot line, right? Is it 15 to 25 or does it have to be where it's currently sitting? So the where the property The work does the proposed building need to go exactly where it is or can it go forward? It cannot go forward It like it can't go towards a wood burn any more than it already is it is a minimum Yeah, I just want to know about the Kenwood Drive towards Kenwood Drive it it can't go any further 01:14:26.594 --> 01:14:47.550 - That was my question. I just want to make sure I'm reading it, right? That's as close as it can get to the street It is as close as it can get to both streets where where it's designed Understood. Thank you Any other questions? All right, we'll go to the public anyone wanted to make comment. Is there anyone in chambers? Let's speak to this petition Seeing none. Is there anyone online? 01:14:49.602 --> 01:15:15.614 - If there's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat to the host and we can recognize you. I am not seeing anyone from my end. Okay. With that any final comments from the petitioner you have 16 was it 16 minutes 16 30. 01:15:17.378 --> 01:15:44.382 - Yeah, no further comments. Thanks. All right. Thank you back to the board either take a motion or Any further questions for the staff or the petitioner? John I will move that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt a proposed findings for V 1925 slash ZR 20 25 0 5 0 0 7 2 and approve the requested variance 01:15:44.642 --> 01:16:12.158 - With the following conditions one a building permit is required prior to construction To a zoning commitment for determined sidewalk variance be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit and three street trees not more than 30 inch or 30 feet on center are required along the both frontages I Have a motion in a second any further discussion from board. I 01:16:13.666 --> 01:16:42.654 - Seeing none I call the question a vote of yes would be to approve the request. A note would be to deny Fernandez. Yes. Today. Yes. Throckmorton. Yes. Ballard. Yes. And I have some approval on that. Congratulations. Thank you for your time. Good luck. And we'll jump down to a page 41 of the packet. 01:16:45.634 --> 01:17:04.030 - That will be case V dash 20 dash 25. And this is let me get my is it city of Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department 1510 South Strong Drive. Can I have a staff report please. 01:17:06.338 --> 01:17:31.838 - request for the city of Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department for a variance from the environmental standards of section twenty point oh four point zero nine zero in relation to the requirement for the platting of easements to allow for the installation of a multi-use path on a property in a planned unit development. So this particular project is located on a piece of ground owned by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners. 01:17:31.938 --> 01:17:44.894 - And has been a long standing project within the city parks and recreation department to place a multi multi use trail through the power line corridor that runs from Rogers significantly to the west. 01:17:45.026 --> 01:18:08.574 - and so the petitioners are coming forward to Request a variance from a section of the UDO that requires the platting of easements anytime. There's land disturbing activities That have certain environmental features on there. So if the UDO requires if you have Creeks or inter-American streams that are subject to the riparian buffer standards that you have to plant 01:18:08.738 --> 01:18:29.438 - plat or record an easement that protects those areas. If there are properties that have karst features you have to identify those features and then place an easement across those. If you have a property with closed canopy on there you have to plat easements that set aside those areas of tree preservation. If you have 01:18:29.858 --> 01:18:51.806 - land disturbing activity on properties that have steep slopes. You have to identify those areas of steep slopes and then place those in easements as well. So the petitioner's proposal to install a path through here does qualify as a land disturbing activity. However given the size of this property it's almost eight acres in size. There's a significant amount of 01:18:52.034 --> 01:19:02.526 - land environmental resources on here that would have to be surveyed and identified to have those easements planted or recorded to protect those. So the. 01:19:02.690 --> 01:19:32.656 - Petitioner is requesting a variance from those standards that require the easements to be secured the pros project meets all of the environmental standards It does not encroach into the cars features. It does not disturb the steep slope area There are no trees that are being taken down as part of this there is one stream crossing on here But a stream crossing isn't allowed disturbance activity. So it does not violate that So the petitioner is not requesting relief from any environmental 01:19:32.656 --> 01:19:38.814 - preservation standards is just the easements that are required to be secured as part of that activity. 01:19:39.074 --> 01:20:09.040 - And so you can see here kind of an exhibit showing the power line corridor through this area As I mentioned this is on the property that is owned by the county The county has you has has been looking at this property for a very long time for a wide range of uses So there will be another most likely petition coming forward at some time in the near future by the county to develop this property And so the platting of the easements would best be accomplished with a much larger development proposal here, you know requiring the 01:20:09.040 --> 01:20:38.992 - easements to be secured at this time for the tree preservation you know could place a lot of the property in that easement that would then encumber or prevent future development and require those easements to be modified at a future time and so the the level of work that is being would be required for the petitioners project that doesn't disturb any of those easements doesn't really have a good correlation here and so this is just a site photo looking west from Roger Street so you can see kind of the entry of the path here that would follow the power line 01:20:38.992 --> 01:21:01.630 - corridor through the property. And so the petition has been working with Duke and the county for a very long time to kind of accomplish this project here. So with all development standards variances of course we do have to make findings for the three criteria. We do not find that there will be any injuries to the public health safety morals or general welfare. 01:21:02.114 --> 01:21:29.214 - As I mentioned all of the environmental standards within the UDO would still be adhered to. This is just requesting relief from the easements. We did not find any negative impact on the use and value adjacent to the property by not requiring the easements. As I mentioned it was all of the environmental standards in the UDO would still be adhered to. And we do find that the strict application would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. 01:21:29.314 --> 01:21:33.758 - As I mentioned, it would require a substantial amount of survey work to 01:21:33.954 --> 01:22:03.920 - place these easements within legal descriptions. And as I also mentioned it could encumber a lot of the property and easements that would need be needed for development in the future. So certainly the delaying of these easements is more appropriate when there is a larger development project that is coming forward for the property as a whole. And so the granting of this variance does not relieve any future entities or development of this property from having to plant those easements. Those would still be required with any future 01:22:03.920 --> 01:22:30.974 - activities and this this variance approval is valid for this project only so we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve this variance with the two Conditions that are listed in staff report that I mentioned and I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you. Is there someone from the board and rec here come forward sign in and State your first and last name after you signed in 01:22:45.122 --> 01:23:05.886 - Rebecca Swift on the operations and development division director for Bloomington Parks and Recreation 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. All right, I won't take full 20 minutes. It's pretty short and sweet We're just looking as Eric summarized looking for a variance from having to plait these different environmental easements 01:23:06.018 --> 01:23:34.878 - We are still gonna be upholding all the environmental standards laid out in the UDO, including 25 feet setback from all known karst topography, from all known riparian corridors, and we're also likely gonna still include some tree line fence protections anywhere that the construction corridor is within 10 feet of the existing tree line. So it's already a pretty disturbed area, looking forward to activate it with some wonderful use, and this has been a long project talked about for over 30 years, so really grateful to bring it to the finish line, hopefully. 01:23:37.442 --> 01:24:05.630 - to the board for questions for either the staff or the petitioner pull up the picture of the proposed route of the path and I would just ask the petitioner first of all this is I'm thrilled this is this is happening. I think this is a wonderful connection. Do you guys know if there is there be any consideration of like connecting into RCA Park at all. 01:24:06.210 --> 01:24:33.182 - Yes there will be a connection directly into our state community park and a little offshoot that connects to the Osage habitat for humanity build that just was complete. Okay wonderful. Okay thank you. Any other questions at this point. This is for staff. I just want to understand the easement we're talking about. We're not talking about natural easements we're talking about environmental easements. Correct. Yes that's correct. 01:24:33.634 --> 01:24:39.230 - So the petitioner has already worked out the language to allow the multi-use path within the Duke easement. 01:24:39.330 --> 01:25:09.296 - So as I mentioned, you know, the UDO says anytime there is land disturbing activity on a property that has any of those regulated environmental features of which there are a significant amount on this property You have to do a significant amount of survey work to determine where those features are and then write up legal descriptions for all of those easements And so yeah, so that they are just requiring requesting a variance to not require those easements to be secured So they already have the easements the property 01:25:09.296 --> 01:25:35.486 - Property easements I'm not talking environmental but property easements with the you said they're going through plan unit development. Yes they've applied for a site development permit now. So we're reviewing that. However the issuance of that or this activity would require those easements now. So that's why the variance is necessary. 01:25:39.202 --> 01:26:05.694 - The neighbors about any Concerns about a trail going through the neighborhood. I have not yet We did host a public meeting last year to try to engage the neighborhood and we sent out mailers We also sent out notices for this appeal meeting and have not heard any response John Are you good any other questions from at this time? I 01:26:06.626 --> 01:26:33.150 - Okay we'll go to the public then for comments as anyone in chambers want to make comments about this petition. Seeing none anyone online online that would like to speak to this petition. Please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat to the host and we can recognize you. Good. I'm not seeing you. 01:26:33.890 --> 01:27:01.214 - All right. Any final comments from the petitioner based on any of the questions you've heard at this point. No thank you. We'll go back to the board for action either a motion or further questions or comments. Zoning appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve the twenty twenty five with the following conditions. Granting of the variance does not relieve any future land disturbing activities from the requirements of the U.D.O. And number two this approval is valid for this project as proposed only. 01:27:02.114 --> 01:27:28.222 - Ryan Ryan's up there. He's got his first motion. Thank you Do I have a second? All right motion a second Any further comments or discussion on the motion? Seeing none I call the question a vote of yes would be to approve the request a vote of no would be to deny Yes, the Rock Morton, yes Ballard yes, Burrell. Yes. I 01:27:29.186 --> 01:27:57.950 - And that's a 5.0 approval, unanimous, thank you. Way to go, Ryan. We're gonna take just one moment. We're not gonna adjourn. We're just going to pause for a second and reset. All right, she makes her way here. We will continue on with our final petition this evening, V-21-25, Grey Star Development Central LLC. The Fel Iron and Metal Inc. 01:27:58.146 --> 01:28:25.630 - And can we please have a staff report. While we pulled up I'll just say my name is Gabriel Holbrock zoning planner for the city of Bloomington. This is a request for. 01:28:26.114 --> 01:28:49.854 - 503 North Rogers Street. It's very close to our location here If you could walk through this wall behind you and keep walking a little bit you'd pretty much get there The property contains 5.4 acres it's located on the west side of Roger Street between 8th Street and 10th Street it's immediately south of the beeline trails intersection with Roger Street and 01:28:50.498 --> 01:29:19.710 - The Beeline Trail runs along the northern northeast boundary of the property between Rogers and Fairview, Fairview Street. The property also has frontage on Fairview Street from Ninth Street up to the Beeline Trail. Part of that is across from Reverend Ernest D. Butler Park. It also has frontage on Ninth Street between Jackson and Fairview, although it doesn't go all the way to the corner of Fairview and Ninth. 01:29:20.674 --> 01:29:40.830 - It's located the properties located in the mixed use downtown zoning district and within the showers technology downtown character overlay in the comprehensive plan. It's designated as a downtown area. The existing land use is a scrap metal yard operating as Bloomington iron and metal or BIM. 01:29:48.386 --> 01:30:15.422 - The petitioner proposes to redevelop the site as a mixed use multifamily development. This is an overview of the site plan. North is up. The curved edge along the upper right is the beeline trail. As you can see, there are a total of four buildings. Three of them are primarily residential. 01:30:15.714 --> 01:30:43.870 - And the fourth is a parking garage, which is on the left middle. The unit. Hey guys, if you're going to talk, please go outside. We'll give them a minute to exit. Continuing on. So the unit count in the program is still 01:30:43.970 --> 01:31:10.334 - progress but the petitioner has stated that they anticipate 370 multifamily units within the proposed buildings the development also includes 3,000 square feet of commercial and retail space in the building closest to Roger Street on this Site plan. It's the blue box that you can see kind of there on the right The development is subject to major site plan review by the Planning Commission, but it must receive 01:31:10.562 --> 01:31:39.678 - several variances before the site plan can be approved. If this looks a little bit familiar, the board heard a variance petition in November 2023 from a company called Buckingham Properties. Buckingham requested five variances, including the four variances that this petition from Grey Star is now requesting. The board did grant all five variances for the Buckingham petition. 01:31:39.874 --> 01:32:07.518 - But the previous grace, sorry. Unfortunately, this petition is not able to utilize that variance because one of the conditions on that one was it's only for the proposed buildings as shown on the submitted site plan. So this is a similar proposal, but it is clearly different from the Buckingham proposal before, so it's coming back to you. Some of the same reasoning comes into play 01:32:07.618 --> 01:32:36.798 - when you think about whether to grant the variances, but we do need to go through the process again, looking at this proposal. Two aspects of the proposal that I want to highlight are that because of the footprints at least, the development must qualify as sustainable and must provide on-site affordable housing units or make a payment in lieu to the city's affordable housing development fund. 01:32:37.346 --> 01:32:53.534 - Additionally, the proposed site plan includes a new multi-use trail that will be open to the public approximately along the south edge of the site, providing a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection to Rogers Street at the beeline over to Reverend Butler Park. 01:32:54.850 --> 01:33:22.238 - This very petition including the petitioner statement as well as the submitted site plan express a commitment to achieve both the affordable housing and sustainable development incentives and to provide a public multi-use trail connection through the site. General compliance with the UDO and with these commitments will be verified by the planning commission during the site plan review. So due to unique constraints of the site the petitioner is requesting for variances from standards within the UDO to allow this proposed development. 01:33:25.186 --> 01:33:53.886 - The first is is the largest or the one that is the what this is really all about. This is this is the essence of it would be to allow ground floor dwelling units in the showers technology overlay district ground floor dwelling units are not allowed. This was put in the code in order to implement the character areas purpose of 01:33:54.082 --> 01:34:19.614 - quote, to promote mixed use development focused on light industrial manufacturing and office uses, end quote. That will be essential to the mission of the certified technology park that covers the area. The UDO does allow upper floor dwelling units in the character area and recognition that a secondary purpose of the area is to target, quote, live, work, young professionals, single family, empty nester, and retiree housing markets, end quote. 01:34:23.138 --> 01:34:51.742 - So this is, uh, because of the unique constraints of the site and difficulty developing it with, uh, the more employment focused uses that would be a part of the trades district. Um, they're proposing to have ground floor dwelling units in all of the buildings. Uh, and the petitioners contention will you hold from them, uh, is that this, 01:34:51.842 --> 01:35:21.086 - does not take away from the purpose and goals of the certified technology park, but can help enhance it by providing a place to live close by. There's also a variance from the front building setback maximum. So in this district, the front setback is a maximum, not a minimum. So it has to be no further than 15 feet from the proposed right of way. 01:35:21.186 --> 01:35:44.766 - The details are in the packet. It gets a little complicated because it goes from the proposed right of way, which is wider than the existing right of way. But in any case, a little area highlighted in yellow is showing a setback from the existing right of way of 107 and a half feet. 01:35:44.930 --> 01:36:13.566 - What would be that which is equivalent to 90 and a half feet from the proposed right-of-way? 90 and a half is more than 15. So they're requesting a variance to allow it to be set farther back. So you'll see that the property narrows down As the beeline comes into Roger Street. So the east from property line along Roger Street is approximately 50 feet in width of which 01:36:15.778 --> 01:36:37.246 - I guess the dimension isn't called that, but around 20 feet is the proposed entry drive and eight feet is the multi-use trail. So those things are already taking up a considerable amount of that frontage. So it is a fact that there's not a lot of room in there to put a building. 01:36:39.330 --> 01:37:06.686 - So the next two variances I'm going to treat together right now because they both have to do with the facade design. The first is that the showers technology character area requires an upper floor step back above the second story. So the first two stories need to be within that 15 feet maximum setback. And then above the second story, the code requires the 01:37:06.850 --> 01:37:34.782 - facade of the building to step back at least 15 feet and then any higher floors up to the maximum allowed are at least that far back. That's what the requirement is. What they're proposing are step backs above the fourth story. So here's an example. This is building A along Fairview Street, which it's the west facade of building A. So imagine we're standing in Butler Park, 01:37:34.914 --> 01:38:04.062 - looking across Fairview Street at this building here. And you can see the first three stories have that brick facade. And then the facade material changes. So there's a visual change above the third story, but it's still in line. It's still that same vertical location. And then it steps back behind that. In this rendering, you can see a little bit of that 01:38:04.450 --> 01:38:30.238 - step back floor. I mean this helps illustrate that one of the purposes of the step back is it's hard to see that fifth story up there behind the step back. So it does provide a step back. The depth depends on, there's three facade modules which you can see from left, middle, and right. The left and right are at that 15 feet or less 01:38:30.434 --> 01:38:57.342 - as required by the UDO, and then the middle one is recessed, also is required by the UDO for facade modulation. So the depth of the step back on the fifth story is more than 15 feet, looks like it's 18 feet for the two facade modules on the ends. It's a little less than 15 feet, it's 11 feet for the facade module in the middle. 01:38:59.618 --> 01:39:28.798 - Building A requires a variance from the step back because the step back height is above the fourth story instead of above the second story and because the step back depth for the recessed facade module in the middle is less than 15 feet. So the other part of the other variance is to have 20% of the ground floor facade be windows and doors. 01:39:28.898 --> 01:39:53.438 - So in the Showers Technology District, the first floor facing the street, the requirement is for it to be 40% windows or doors. So that goes along with not allowing ground floor dwelling units. The assumption is that there would be some kind of non-residential use there, whether it's office or retail or what have you. 01:39:53.538 --> 01:40:20.606 - and that 40% glazing or doors and windows would be appropriate for that kind of use and help interact with the streetscape. So that's why that standard is in there. But going along with requesting to have ground floor dwelling units, they're requesting to have windows that are better, more appropriate for dwelling uses. So the upper floors, the requirement is only 20% 01:40:20.994 --> 01:40:48.190 - acknowledging that there might be dwelling units up there. So they're simply proposing to have that same 20% amount on the ground floor. So they're requesting a variance for that. So as you can see on the Fairview frontage, the percentage of windows and doors is similar on all the floors so that the first floor needs a variance to be less than 40% facing the street. 01:40:48.962 --> 01:41:08.830 - So from Rogers Street, this is building B. You can see that retail portion. I assume that when a tenant moves in there, it'll have a catchier name than just retail, but it gives you an idea. I see that sign there. And there is a step back because that retail portion is one story and it steps back. 01:41:08.962 --> 01:41:37.566 - Behind that, the step back depth is well more than 15 feet. And you can actually see farther back that above the fourth story, there's a much farther step back as well. So this one actually also needs a variance from the step back requirement because the step back happens after the first story, not after the second story. So we don't have it going up two stories and then going back. 01:41:37.794 --> 01:42:06.334 - One of the criteria we'll get to that you think about with a variance is, does it cause harm to the community? Does it cause harm to neighboring properties? I mean, there's also the hardship criteria. But for the first two, one way to look at this is, does this facade design cause harm to the community or harm to neighboring properties? Well, that's for you to decide. 01:42:09.090 --> 01:42:35.966 - The windows on that ground floor facing Roger Street you can clearly see are way more than 40% so it complies with that standard so that variance doesn't need to apply to this one. This is building B along the B line. It's kind of, you know, has angles stepping down or stepping across. 01:42:36.194 --> 01:43:04.350 - But each of those facades, there's no step back requirement from the B line, but there is the facade requirement. In fact, along the B line, the requirement is that the windows and doors comprise at least 60%. They're proposing 20 in line with the residential use along there. So this is just sort of an image of that. This is building C from 9th Street. 01:43:04.514 --> 01:43:24.446 - It's the south facade of the building. You can see a step back there. So now it's above the third story, as you can see, but you can also see off to the right that there is a lower level. So the three stories that you see closest to 9th Street are levels 2, 3, and 4. 01:43:24.834 --> 01:43:52.382 - And then the level five, which is the fourth story from ninth street is, is stepped back 15 feet. What doesn't show up as well in this rendering is over on the left-hand side, you see a little bit of a tower peeking up. That whole thing is a step back, um, 15 feet compared to the building wall that we can see closer, but it has, it goes straight up. It doesn't have a step back at all. 01:43:53.186 --> 01:44:22.782 - So building C requires a variance because the step back height is above the third story instead of above the second story. And because the recessed facade module over there on the left doesn't have any upper floor step back. Again, the ground floor windows and doors, they're proposing at least 20% in line with having dwelling units there where the code would otherwise require 40%. 01:44:23.074 --> 01:44:49.086 - the garage, parking garage structure from Fairview. And as you can see, there's sort of two facade modules. There's what we can call a tower that's closest to us. And then it steps back a little bit for the part that's on the right. The part that's on the right is 01:44:49.506 --> 01:45:16.190 - It appears to be two stories. They have revised the design a little bit. It looks like it's actually only going to be one story. In either case, it doesn't go above where a step back needs to be. So that part's fine. The part with the tower does go up three stories here without any step back. So that requires a variance as well. The petitioner anticipates that the windows will 01:45:16.386 --> 01:45:44.542 - of the parking garage on the ground floor portions will comply with the facade opening standards as well as with separate standards for parking garage facade design. So it doesn't need a variance for those, but it does need a variance for the upper floor step back. So to the proposed findings in the packet are 01:45:45.538 --> 01:46:14.814 - Several pages of findings. The highlights here are that for the first criteria, it is not injurious to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. For each of the UDO standards that the petition is requesting relief from, the proposed project achieves or addresses the goals and purpose of the UDO standard by other means, ensuring that the intent of the UDO to protect public health, safety, morals, and general welfare is upheld. 01:46:14.978 --> 01:46:43.262 - read from a little bit about the ground floor dwelling units. There is currently ample developable area within the certified technology part and the SD character area to develop the light industrial manufacturing and office uses related to innovation and technology that the character area seeks to promote. Dedicating some of the land within the SD character area to primarily residential use will not interfere with the current stage of development of the area as a technology park. 01:46:43.426 --> 01:47:09.534 - In contrast, there is currently a pressing need for more housing, including affordable housing, throughout Bloomington and the surrounding area. The proposed development can help toward meeting the current pressing need for housing. Approval of the requested variance to allow ground floor dwelling units at this time will not foreclose or significantly restrict the future development of the trades district or the rest of the certified technology park as a hub for innovation and technology. 01:47:09.666 --> 01:47:37.694 - The proposed development complements surrounding land uses and transitions density appropriately. To the second criterion, the full proposed findings are in the packet, but the summary is that the finding is of no substantial adverse impacts to the use and value of surrounding properties. None of the requested variances will limit the current use or future redevelopment 01:47:37.794 --> 01:48:07.582 - of any surrounding properties. And to the third criterion, again, the full findings are in the packet, but the summary is that there's unique property configuration, relatively narrow frontage on Rogers Street compared to the depth and total area of the property, and the limited opportunities for access from 9th and Fairview Street result in limited access and limited visibility of the site. 01:48:08.130 --> 01:48:37.022 - There are practical difficulties, strict application of the UDO results in practical difficulties in the use of the property, including practical difficulties for the specific use and site design that the petitioner has proposed, as well as site design in general because of the shape and multiple frontages. The requested variances provide the minimum relief necessary to overcome these practical difficulties. So based on the recommended findings that are in the packet, staff 01:48:37.346 --> 01:48:56.638 - The department recommends that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve all four requested variances with four conditions. So the four conditions are first that the project shall earn the affordable housing incentive established in the UDO as demonstrated in an approved site plan. 01:48:57.378 --> 01:49:25.502 - that the site shall provide a new multi-use trail with access easement that's open to the public, providing a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection for Roger Street at the beeline to Reverend Butler Park, as shown on the submitted conceptual site plan, and as demonstrated in an approved site plan. And the third, the variances are approved only for the proposed buildings as shown on the submitted conceptual site plan. Any future additions or new structures on the property shall comply with all applicable standards in the UDO. 01:49:26.146 --> 01:49:46.110 - And then the fourth, because the variances, some of the recommended findings have to do with the specific façade design shown. All building façades shall conform to the façade design shown in the submitted conceptual site plan, including materials, façade layout, and detailing. 01:49:46.690 --> 01:50:11.870 - Minor changes that are consistent with the intent of the submitted design shall be considered compliant with this condition, and the determination whether a proposed change to facade design is compliant with this condition shall be made by the Planning and Transportation Department. That provides some certainty that you're looking at what the buildings are going to look at, and you can make a judgment about the aesthetics and the effect 01:50:11.970 --> 01:50:41.310 - the character of the city by looking at them but also give them a little bit of leeway if it turns out that you know, it's That shade of brick isn't available or something like that with that That's the end of the staff report. Thank you May I ask all those from the petitioners party who intend to speak whether now or in the Final portion to step forward. Let's get all of you to do the same as we did initially. Let's have you all sign in first and 01:50:41.442 --> 01:51:07.646 - Once you're all done signing in then we'll get your names and get you all sworn in and then we'll start your presentation So go ahead and step forward and let's have everyone sign the the docket here. You're all signed in Okay, coming forward each of you and say your name into the mic Bert coffin with ESG architects Haley Burgados with gray star Carmen Deaton with Kimley horn and Tim Oaks 01:51:08.322 --> 01:51:35.326 - Thank you now do you all affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Okay, and again, you'll have 20 minutes. Whatever you don't use now You'll be able to address anything you'd like before any motion is taken by the board You may go ahead and begin and once you begin we'll start the clock Thank you for being so efficient I appreciate that Yes, they took the time during the changeover, thank you I 01:51:37.442 --> 01:51:57.758 - We have a really brief presentation and we'll keep it short and leave time for plenty of questions. So Haley regardless with gray star really appreciate everybody's time tonight. Appreciate staff up to this point. We've done a lot of coordination over the last several weeks and probably over a month at this point to get us to today. So appreciate the time. 01:51:58.466 --> 01:52:28.062 - If you want to just flip real quick to the next slide, I think our agenda really high level is just to introduce ourselves, tell you a little bit about Grey Star as a firm, and then I'm gonna let Burt do most of the speaking and talk about the site plan and the design. So this is a real quick snapshot of who we are. You know, Grey Star, some of you may know as kind of a big institutional firm, this is really our project team as it relates to the Midwest. We support kind of the Midwest day to day, most of us live in the Midwest, 01:52:28.258 --> 01:52:55.934 - And in the van Kim Lee horn nice Miller were local. So I'm really excited to have this team behind us ESG we've done 10 plus multifamily projects with in the Midwest Kim Lee horn a multitude both regionally and national and super thankful to have Tim's brightness here locally so you know not not here today is John Chris and Austin who sit in the Midwest as well and and we'll be supporting this deal moving forward and 01:52:58.274 --> 01:53:27.422 - This is the Greystar platform. I won't belabor this too much. For those of you that know kind of our name, Greystar was formed in 1993. Fast forward about 30 years, and we've become the largest multi-family developer and operator in the country. We've got about a million beds under operations today globally. We've got on the development side about 480 projects we've sponsored to date, which is approximately 150,000 units. 01:53:27.778 --> 01:53:53.406 - You know, I think that what that really stands for is just our proven track record for execution We're starting about 30 projects a year across the country And then I would just say our capital partners span a multitude of folks We're probably upwards of 65 active at this point. So we really lean into kind of the diversity of The firm and our skills, but I think on a day-to-day we act very 01:53:53.570 --> 01:54:13.374 - entrepreneurial in a regional sense. And so the five folks you saw on the screen previously are the folks you'll be talking to on the Grey Star side on the day to day in managing the project. But did just want to kind of share, you know, who Grey Star is at a high level. And then the next slide is really just meant to kind of highlight some of our regional 01:54:14.530 --> 01:54:43.262 - Portfolio a couple of these are done with ESG. Actually, we've found great success in the Midwest We've capitalized about 1.2 billion across 15 projects. We manage 25,000 units I believe about 2,000 of those are are here locally. So You know just really really kind of Proud of what this team is. We understand the Midwest. We love the Midwest. We love to see it grow and 01:54:43.394 --> 01:55:10.782 - I'm just really excited to be here today and appreciate everybody's time. So with that, I'll hand it over to Bert to kind of run us through the design real quick. Great. Thank you, Haley. Board members, thank you. Good evening. I'm Bert Kaufman with ESG Architects out of Minneapolis. Could we go to the next site plan? That's perfect. 01:55:11.938 --> 01:55:39.486 - Staff has done a really nice job of describing the project and the variances, so I'm gonna try not to repeat, I'm gonna do my best to try not to repeat the remarks, but I do wanna just briefly highlight some of the attributes of the project and talk a little bit about the design. Obviously, this business that's on the site now has been there for many years, and with it being for sale, it's ready for its next life, and we think that would be as high quality housing for the city of Bloomington. 01:55:39.714 --> 01:56:06.910 - The project will infill this topographically unique and it says staff has pointed out it just the shape of it is very unique Parcel with a development that we think will be a sensitive transition between the showers district, which is where we are I think and To the west to the residential to the west and south and and of course to the north as well from a design point of view were 01:56:07.298 --> 01:56:34.526 - Proposing a campus approach to visually unified the development the three residential buildings will all face the primary perimeter streets or the beeline trail and The parking facility will also face the fairview, but will be mostly Interior to the site this parking garage will serve all the residents of the development and will be accessed from Roger Street which is the primary entrance to the development and 01:56:34.722 --> 01:57:03.006 - and residents will easily be able to access their buildings from this parking garage. The site has an irregular shape and about 20 feet, I think it's perhaps even more in a couple places, 20 feet of grade change across the parcel, which is made for a challenging site layout. We're working with the topography as much as possible to tuck the buildings into the grade where we can. 01:57:03.138 --> 01:57:25.054 - This has the benefit of making them appear shorter from around the site such as with building see which staff showed the rendering of earlier instead of it appearing from 9th Street as a Five-story building it appears as a four-story building and the parking garage is similar. We're kind of tucking it into the hillside They're against Fairview 01:57:26.466 --> 01:57:51.038 - The unique geometry of the site also creates physical constraints that do not appear in most property parcels that at least I've worked on. For instance, the rounded curve of the property line at the B line trail is especially challenging. We approached the site design here by stepping the buildings as opposed to facing a few longer facades along the perimeter there. 01:57:51.682 --> 01:58:17.342 - So buildings A and B along that trail will be experienced as a series of smaller masses that emerge as you kind of move along the beeline trail. So they will kind of reveal themselves as you're walking or biking along that trail. We think this reduces the impact of the mass and it also creates a series of courtyard and green spaces that will be used for landscaping and stormwater features. 01:58:18.946 --> 01:58:31.966 - Massing is also addressed with the upper floor stories upper floor step backs as staff has noted buildings a and c have significant top floor step backs to reduce the appearance of bulk on those buildings 01:58:32.610 --> 01:58:58.110 - We believe a top floor step back allows for a more context sensitive design and is a traditional step back location where a change in material occurs and typically occurs. So sometimes on older buildings base middle top you see an attic story and sometimes that will often be a different material and it will often be stepped back a bit. So that is a nice we feel like that's a nice feature. 01:58:59.618 --> 01:59:16.286 - Additional step backs are difficult on this site because of the unique site constraints that we've Mentioned which really limit the ability to achieve efficient double-loaded standard floor depths, which are really critical for a successful development 01:59:18.242 --> 01:59:42.430 - Since the massing approach will create quite a bit of building variation in itself the architectural design and Material palette will be more restrained in keeping with some of the historic buildings within the immediate district including City Hall where we are right now Could you could you hold the clock for a second and go back to that slide, please? The only reason is procedurally is our packet contains a different graphic than this. I 01:59:43.746 --> 02:00:08.958 - Which one is accurate the one in our packet or this one this one contains the lake the ones being presented contain lakes The retail space is different and there's a few other design changes my apologies chair This is the incorrect one. So the one that was in the staff packet is correct. Thank you I just wanted to make sure that that was very Good of you to notice that okay That's okay, then that's what I needed to note to make sure that we're all referencing this the correct articles 02:00:09.058 --> 02:00:25.566 - So we'll go ahead and I'll let you get reset here and when you're ready, we'll restart the clock. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you So the three residential buildings will share a similar design language as you all have seen here with with brick 02:00:25.986 --> 02:00:49.054 - But but they will be differentiated with totally different brick blends. So each building won't be exactly the same You can kind of see that here from Rogers the building on the left will have building see a slightly different brick blend than the building be on the right the upper floors and building corners will feature a board and batten expression to lighten the appearance of these zones and provide added textural quality and 02:00:49.794 --> 02:01:17.246 - And ground floor entrances obviously will have larger and more welcoming transparent zones for residents when they enter and entries from the street as well So I'll close with just a few comments here about other community benefits for the project new sidewalks boulevards canopy street trees and front yard landscaping will improve existing existing pedestrian conditions and create an attractive and welcoming residential environment 02:01:17.346 --> 02:01:41.886 - This would be especially true on Fairview Avenue where there's not a sidewalk on the parcel side of the project As noted the new multi-use trail will connect Roger Street and Fairview Fairview Street Then this new transparent retail space Will be located at the main entrance to the site and I think it was explained very well why we need a variance for that step back set back and 02:01:42.722 --> 02:02:10.366 - The building frontage is facing the beeline trail will be landscaped heavily landscaped with new trees shrubs and pollinator friendly perennials We believe that currently there's no stormwater management system on the site So the new development will comply with the recently updated stormwater standards for the city of Bloomington greatly improving the existing conditions and With that I'll end my remarks and thank you very much 02:02:11.170 --> 02:02:39.582 - As they is anyone else gonna speak at this point or should we hold the clock? How much time do they have in reserve? All right, so you have ten minutes that you can speak to anything that comes up between now and then towards before a motion is made We'll go to the to the board for any questions to the staff or the petitioner at this point before going to the public In terms of the parking garage how many spaces will that be I 02:02:40.994 --> 02:03:09.726 - Approximately I Have not seen a number for that possibly petitioner could have a better answer there There is a maximum I Take it back. I have seen a number but I don't know I do not remember what the number was but I do we discussed there is a maximum parking allowance for the proposed use and they were proposing fewer parking spaces than the maximum and 02:03:09.826 --> 02:03:23.870 - But possibly someone from the petitioners could address how many parking spaces are in there? Oh, we should concern that it was more than a maximum or was it just Well, I think just that going out if there was concern in on Fairview. It's pretty narrow Street people coming and going 02:03:24.226 --> 02:03:52.670 - Like the volume of traffic. Yeah. One thing to point out as was mentioned in the presentation that the entrance to the to the garage faces Roger Street. So obviously because the their driveway connection connects to Fairview certainly people can come from Fairview or come out of the garage into Fairview. But the garage is where you enter and exit the garage. It's it's pushing people toward toward Roger Street. Plus it's in the middle of the block too right. Right. 02:03:53.890 --> 02:04:20.702 - Any other questions? I'll just throw out, I do wanna talk a little bit about this street and everything. The only thing that jumped out at me initially that's gonna be a little funky is the B-line cross, which has always been a little weird there because of the angle at which the B-line attacks Rogers. So on the bottom right corner of this diagram, now we have a street entrance, and I guess my first question 02:04:20.994 --> 02:04:50.334 - I don't care who answers is this going to become a city street or is this considered internal? owned by the property The position may be able to address it better But our staff's assumption is that it is a private drive. It is not going to be built to city street standards So it won't be given a number it won't be 10th Street extension or anything. It'll just be given some kind of a name by the By the development or potentially no name, right? No name. Okay, that's the first thing my 02:04:50.594 --> 02:05:19.038 - The question then goes to the actual entrance there, because it does kind of look like a street, the size of a street, I assume for effective two-lane traffic. So I am concerned about that, so close to that turn there. Was that at all discussed, or is there anything we can do about our own B-line cross there, because it's an awkward angle anyway. And with the additional traffic that we're gonna generate there going in and out, 02:05:19.586 --> 02:05:45.214 - Is this I want to make sure the city has a beeline cross That's as safe as it can be has that been discussed and do you feel confident that this is going to remain safe? So to my knowledge it has not been discussed I believe that gray star has not yet spoken with the engineering department about that. I would say that at this level of design 02:05:46.082 --> 02:06:15.774 - At this level design, I don't know what that intersection is going to look like. Okay. But I do have confidence that particularly engineering department will represent the you know, their expertise and the knowledge of traffic in the city to be able to work with them to come up with something that that is going to work and there is certainly enough room there within the furniture within the right of way, especially if the variance is granted to step to set back 02:06:15.938 --> 02:06:45.918 - building more that there is enough room there to do whatever the Transportation professionals think is is the most appropriate there. I'm sorry John. Did you have some info? Having we the trades district the mill have been having conversations with the city's project manager for the CCC grant and there's discussions about creating a more formal kind of 02:06:46.402 --> 02:07:08.958 - pedestrian crossing for the beeline similar to like we have on South Walnut Street with the Activated light crossing so I think there's yeah, and that's happening before there was any discussions about this particular project It's just because there's there's just more and more pedestrian and bicycle traffic there now than there was initially especially on that end of the beeline and 02:07:09.666 --> 02:07:39.262 - And certainly they're adding proposing a new trail connections. This is gonna be well My main concern was that the city was would at least take that Be aware if this is gonna happen that it sounds like from what John said that it's already under Yes, and and they will have to go forward with it with a site plan petition site plan review that involves going to a development review committee Which has representatives from all the city departments? Well, well sure, but I wanted to make sure the city was on top of it. So well, we'll also make a note Yeah, because 02:07:39.490 --> 02:08:06.238 - Yeah, you know, I know that the petition will work with the city But that's something that I'm concerned about and I'm actually it sounds like it's already underway So that was the only reason for that that part of the question there. So thank you for that any other questions from them Okay with that let's go ahead and go to the public before we come back to the petitioner for any final comments Do we have anyone from the public who'd like to speak if so come forward sign in and we'll swear you in 02:08:23.298 --> 02:08:51.614 - Say your first and last name, please And do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Yes, you have up to five minutes. Thank you Appreciate the opportunity as a member of the newly created Transportation Commission the question that mr. Throckmorton raised was interesting to me I do think that I do trust that there's going to be an appropriate solution found there but I do want to put in a pitch for at the very minimum a hawk signal and 02:08:52.066 --> 02:09:17.278 - Which you can see down on the South on South Roger Street a few blocks south a stop sign That intersection is going to I mean, it's already busy we noted in a previous in a previous petition you were listening to that there were more people on the trail next to that building the Hayes market building than on Morton Street a full street so 02:09:17.698 --> 02:09:43.550 - You know, I don't think anybody should pretend that that intersection. I think again that it was a very accurate, a very astute observation that it's time we address that intersection somehow. I'm a little surprised that we're not looking at it as a place as a name. I'm sure that the petitioners are going to name the place, but that intersection with this development, 02:09:43.810 --> 02:09:57.534 - It's going to be more than just where the trail happens to cross. And it was a sort of a half thought out solution. Let's fully think it out. That's just the only thing I wanted to add to it. But I appreciate your consideration of this. Thank you. 02:10:24.898 --> 02:10:47.806 - Any questions. I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Do we have anyone else from the public. From the public. Rami if you're able to unmute. OK. Can you hear me. 02:10:51.682 --> 02:11:18.814 - My name is Kathy Romy and I just have a few questions. One, wondering how many total bedrooms will be in the 370 units. Also had questions about how many parking spaces would be available and I think someone else asked that question. 02:11:20.706 --> 02:11:49.534 - Does the developer have any idea how long the construction will take for this project? And my last question, are there any plans to upgrade Fairview Street? It's a very narrow, older street, and I see typically a lot of people are gonna be coming in and out of that entrance that will there. 02:12:00.450 --> 02:12:30.398 - Do you, do you have additional comments? Those are just my questions, yeah. Okay, very good, thank you. Is there anyone else online who has any, who would like to make a comment? If there's anybody else online, please use the raise hand function or send a message and we can recognize you. And do we have to address the two chat comments or is that something that you're monitoring? That was, that was Kathy Rami. 02:12:30.658 --> 02:12:57.822 - Thank you. No one else then from the public. I don't I don't see anybody else. Okay. So at this point before any additional questions from the board go back to the petitioner if you have any comments that you'd like to make. You have 10 minutes 30 seconds left in your time. Well it'll be use it or lose it at this point. 02:12:57.922 --> 02:13:26.494 - Okay, I'm just gonna address kind of some of the some of the overarching questions First just hitting on safety and traffic. I completely agree. We need to partner well With the city and engineering we welcome those conversations to make sure we get it, right? Safety is at the forefront of everything gray star does from commencing of construction Through operations making sure the neighborhood and the community safe. So no question there. We'll make sure those conversations You know formally happen and 02:13:26.594 --> 02:13:55.614 - And make sure we get that design right in regards to the comments about parking again our program still in flux a little bit. I would say generally parking is hovering somewhere around 250 260 stalls Kathy in regards to your question about final bed count same comment still working through kind of final mix but it will be a mix of studios ones twos and threes in line with the underlining zoning from a construction standpoint we'd expect about a 24 month 02:13:55.778 --> 02:14:23.774 - duration on this project. And then as it relates to Fairview, again, I think that's a conversation with engineering. So again, welcome those conversations. And the only other one I think I had to address probably was about the street. We envision that as an internal street probably to the project. But again, open to conversation there. But I think that probably is the short list. 02:14:24.610 --> 02:14:42.654 - I did just want to know you know I didn't emphasize this enough and in kind of my introduction to grace or I think we're gray star sets ourselves apart is we have a huge emphasis on place making you know we take this unique approach with communities and residents we serve. There is no one size fits all. That's why we. 02:14:42.786 --> 02:15:04.094 - Higher grade shops like ESG who put really beautiful designs together to make the fabric of the community stronger You know, we we acknowledge and like to partner closely with the cities and meet your guys's objectives while also kind of meeting our business objectives We understand it's a partnership and then lastly again just want to reiterate safety from the day we put a shovel in the ground to the 02:15:04.482 --> 02:15:32.894 - The doors open that's always top of mind for gray star and kind of at the forefront of how we think so With that, I think I I probably tackled most questions. If not, I apologize, but thank you again everyone for your time Thank you, you still have time anyone else from the petitioner who would like to use that time to speak now Okay at this point then it'll come back to the board for further discussion and emotion We'll come back to the board for either action or any additional questions or comments, please. I 02:15:34.754 --> 02:16:03.454 - Really quick I Had the same feeling with the original proposal on the site that the tech that the the Technology park remained a job creator, but I do think that this proposal is a good good transition from The downtown area into a residential area you guys did a great job on that I do wish there was a little bit more 02:16:03.554 --> 02:16:32.510 - office and retail space in there but otherwise I think that this is a great transition from the downtown area into the residential area Quick comment You know this this site has been a I Don't want to say an eyesore because that's not fair. I mean the historic use of this property 02:16:32.706 --> 02:16:59.230 - Served an important purpose for our business community for a long time. It's it's This part of town was very different when fell iron and Was was created and then I think it's now Bloomington iron and metal or there's been some changes but that use is really no longer appropriate for 02:17:00.066 --> 02:17:26.334 - You know the the rest of the development that's occurring in our downtown and with the trades district in that area. So you know I have a long memory because I'm old. But I mean at one point this was a either Rick or a surplus site because of the historic issues we had in our community with the PCB disposal. 02:17:26.946 --> 02:17:53.086 - So with that as a wind up I would just say that you know I'm excited to see a significant investment of the scale that will add to the vibrancy of this part of the trades district. Appreciate the willingness to make this kind of investment in our community. So with that I would make a motion that the 02:17:53.282 --> 02:18:21.150 - Board is only pills adopt the proposed findings for V 21 25 slash ZR 20 25 0 5 0 0 4 and approved the rest the requested variances with the four conditions included in the staff report I have a motion to have a second And any further discussion or comment comments I'll start with that which is 02:18:21.442 --> 02:18:46.366 - The those were the only two things that I brought that concern me and I'm glad that the city is already on it and that there's been action on that because I do think that that crossing could present a problem and I think that that could actually affect the development itself and and that we don't want that to happen and I appreciate your comments you made on that. I do also think that that street it's just the way that it's built does kind of 02:18:47.074 --> 02:19:15.358 - Screen and it should be an extension of 10th Street and I only say that because there has been continued work within the city and Extending streets and trying to give some rhyme and reason to what we're doing And that would actually would follow the the outline of 10th Street, which is kind of snaky over there And you know right past us here so down the road if it is going to be turned over to the city I think that you guys should probably have discussion early on Just so make sure it just fits with what we need 02:19:15.522 --> 02:19:45.054 - because I do know that down the road sometimes people just say we're just going to turn it over when they start getting potholes and stuff and we don't want to fill it and that type of thing not that you would do that but I do know that that's been a problem in the past so those are my two comments that I wanted on the record and I appreciate both sides the petitioner in the city in the comments and responses you've had to my questions on that so thank you any other comments or questions yes Flavia I was part of the the other plan development for this particular 02:19:45.154 --> 02:20:12.958 - site before, and I find this very elegant. The design, what you've done with the site, I think it respects the shape of the site, which is very unique. And also, it really brings forth the beeline as the emphasis for what is the highlight of this lot. 02:20:13.154 --> 02:20:42.942 - And I think the way you place the buildings is very elegant and and I think it's going to be a great addition to the city. Thank you. Real quick to that is I was on the commission as well when the initial presentation came. I know there's been a lot of work for staff as well as all of you but I couldn't agree more. I'm kind of glad you guys had to start from scratch in some ways to come up with what you came. You know we see a lot of different 02:20:43.042 --> 02:21:11.230 - Multi-unit developers come through here and and I agree. This is definitely one of the more most elegant Architectural renderings that I've seen for a space that is as odd as this is and so I think it's yeah Couldn't agree more with everybody how this is going to be a great transitional piece For that neighborhood right by the Tech Park. So thank you for all your work Before we take a vote I did want to just explain to those and and 02:21:12.002 --> 02:21:41.822 - Chambers here that you did see a sidebar that was taking place and the conversation here was simply procedural so that everyone knew what was happening up here we were just talking about how we were going to proceed on certain items so It doesn't happen very often, but I did want to be transparent on that side. We do have a motion We have a second a vote of yes would be to approve this request for variance a vote of no would be to deny it I will call the question. Please call Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Ballard. Yes, Burrell 02:21:42.114 --> 02:22:07.902 - Yes Fernandez. Congratulations. It's unanimously approved. We look forward to seeing how this turns out. Thank you. And do we have any additional business before this board tonight. Yes. My report for the parks department I incorrectly referenced that the variance was from section 20 point zero four point zero nine zero. It should be from 20 point zero four point zero three zero. 02:22:08.418 --> 02:22:23.198 - Well that's the case and in the final motion from Mr. Fernandez please add the seven before the four at the end of the second part of that number that was read please. If we're going to get down to the nitty gritty any other business for this board. No we are adjourned.