All right. So I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Today's date is July 24th 2025. If you would please call the roll. Burrell here Fernandez Casinco here Throckmorton here Ballard here. All right. So we actually are in full attendance tonight.
 Um, we do have, uh, Oh, I'm sorry. Did minutes go out? I didn't see those today. Did everyone have a chance to see it? I didn't see it. So I'll abstain. Do I have a motion or changes to the minutes? I'll move to approve the June minutes. Second. First and second to any comments or changes. See none. Let's go ahead and take the vote for approval. Fernandez. Yes. Cosinco. Yes. The rock Martin abstain.
 I didn't read them. Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Okay. Thank you. We do have some petitions continued to our August 21st 2025 meeting and that is a dash 17 dash 22 Joe Kemp construction and Blackwell construction conditional use 33 dash 24 for hat rentals LLC.
 And variance dash 13 dash 25 Carolina Lopez or Lopes. I don't want to misspeak on that. Those are continued. Tonight we will be hearing the following petitions B dash 22 dash 25 out of this LLC B dash 26 dash 25 all American storage Sam Heal B dash 29 dash 25 value built construction. And I believe it's earnest either Chi or as I.
 and conditional use dash 30 dash 25 Steve and Sue McCracken. Is that correct. On staff side. Those are the OK. No changes. OK. Again for those that are new what we will be doing is we'll get a report then the petitioner or petitioners representatives can come forward you'll have 20 minutes that 20 minutes can be used on an initial presentation
 your time can be reserved and used after there's been questions and comments from both the board and the public and it'll be used for a final presentation and then there will be a motion and vote. Please be aware that those are your two primary times as a petitioner to speak and when we do questions and answers what we would ask is the board will ask either the petitioner or the
 The staff questions we'd like you to then address those questions that are asked rather than take that opportunity to do more of a presentation Please stay to the questions that we're asking Those do not count against your time Okay with that our first Our first petition is the variance v-22-25 Auto vest LLC and if we could please give us a staff report As
 This is manager. As mentioned, this is a request from auto vest LLC for property at 2130 South Walnut Street. The petitioner is here tonight to request several variances, including a variance from front parking setback requirement and landscaping standards in order to allow for the expansion of a vehicle display area for the use vehicle sales or rental in the mixed use corridor zoning district. So specifically,
 is requesting a variance from front parking setbacks in order to allow for new portions of the site to be used for parking, variance from tall canopy trees that are required within the islands within parking areas, a variance from the amount of shrubs that are required, a variance from the number of tall canopy trees that are required, and a variance from the required distance, maximum separation distance for street trees. So as I mentioned, this is at 31,
 2130 South Walnut Street, it's zone mixed use corridor. All the properties to the north and south are also zone mixed use corridor. To the west, you have property that is owned by parks and it's part of the switch yard. And then just to the east of this, you have Bloomington High School South, which is zone mixed use institutional.
 So the overall petition site encompasses several properties. One of those is an existing Kia dealership that is located on the south end of the site. The petitioner has acquired several properties to the north of that dealership and will be looking to remove all of those buildings and parking areas to expand the display area for vehicles for sale for the Kia dealership.
 The property also has the clear Creek on the west side of the property with this associated floodplain and riparian buffer as well as a substantial amount of trees on that. The property in general is relatively flat along the east side of the site and then there's kind of a steep drop off as it
 drops down and that's where you have all of the floodplain and the trees that are being preserved in the riparian buffer. So as I mentioned, the petitioner is requesting to expand this use on the site by removing all of the buildings and parking area to the north to allow for that to be converted to new display area. So in your packet, you do see a site plan which is also again displayed on the screen here. So this incorporates several new islands within the site as required, islands are required
 are not more than every 10 spaces. Each of those islands is also required to have a tall canopy tree as well as four shrubs. So one of the variances that are being requested tonight, as I mentioned, is to not require each of those islands to have a tall canopy tree. Instead, the petitioner has shown those to be planted with the small species trees. They are showing all of the shrubs that are required within those islands, but they are requesting a variance to not require the tall canopy trees.
 The other two variances that they are requesting in regards to landscaping involve the total number of shrubs that are required with this petition. The petitioner is showing a total of three hundred and twenty three parking spaces. So that would require a total of nine hundred and sixty nine shrubs with the three hundred twenty three parking spaces. They are also required.
 81 tall canopy trees. So those canopy trees and those shrubs have to be within a certain distance of the parking area in order to count towards the parking lot landscaping requirements given the location or the areas that they have available to utilize for parking.
 They are requesting a variance to not require the full amount of shrubs. So they're requesting to allow 454 shrubs versus the 969 that would be required and a variance to allow 24 tall canopy trees rather than the 81 tall canopy trees that are required. The other variance that I mentioned they are requesting is from the maximum spacing for street trees along the front. The UDO says that tall canopy trees are required along a street not more than
 30 feet from center the petitioner due to several utility lines along here are utilizing a small medium tree which are fine. But the UDO says that if you're using the smaller species tree that the street trees can't be more than 15 feet from center. So they are requesting a variance from that 15 feet to allow for them to be 40 feet on center.
 So with that one of the conditions of approval that we have proposed and I'm showing it on this exhibit here just to have a visualization of what we're proposing and what is being shown in the site plan. As I mentioned the petition is requesting a variance from the number of tall canopy trees that are required and we've seen this with several car dealership uses and they've explained the
 challenges with those tall canopy trees in relation to the area that is being displayed or that is carrying the cars for display. And so we've certainly acknowledged some of those challenges.
 However along the front along the Walnut Street frontage there is a pretty significant gap between the parking area and the sidewalk. It's about 15 feet. So that does provide enough area to have that separation to allow the tall canopy trees. So one of the conditions of approval that we've included is that an additional 10 tall canopy trees be included along that front. Since there is a lot of room there to get those in and still have the separation we did feel was appropriate also in this
 exhibit here I've shown the spacing for the street trees the petitioners requesting to have a 40 foot separation versus the 15. So again we are recommending denial of that particular variance but I'll talk about that in just a second as I step through the criteria but I just wanted to point out those two elements there on that exhibit so that the board can kind of see what we were looking at in relation to the requests.
 So with that all variances are required to be evaluated on three criteria. The first is that the approval will not be injurious to the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community in regards to the street trees separation. We did find negative findings in that regard. Obviously the requirement to have street trees and spacing along there is to create a uniform design along streets having a 40 foot separation between small and medium
 is a lot larger than obviously what the code allows for and creates significant gaps which would require this or enable this property to be a lot different in terms of a uniform streetscape along a street that we would want to see. So we did make negative findings in that regard. We did not make or we're not able to find any other negative impacts in relation to the other four requested variances in relation to the approval being injurious.
 in relation to the use and value of the area adjacent to the property that would possibly be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
 Again, we did not find any negative impacts adverse impacts on the uses or values Adjacent to the property for these requested variances as I mentioned or alluded to a little bit The site has a substantial amount of landscaping on the west half of the site. That's heavily planted with trees another understory vegetation So the lag or the the variance requests you have less landscaping around some of the perimeter of the area and on the site as a whole Is somewhat offset by the large
 of vegetation. You know going back to the aerial almost half of the site is encumbered by that floodplain of Clear Creek and the trees and the riparian buffer and steep slope. So the petitioner is pretty much utilizing the only developable area that is left on the site the east half of the site to utilize for the additional display area. So given the amount of vegetation that is on the remainder of the property we did not find any adverse impacts as I mentioned on the adjacent use and value
 value. And then the third criteria, that the strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property and that the practical difficulties are peculiar to the property in question. There are separate findings obviously for each of those in relation to the requested variances.
 In early in regards to the landscaping for the street tree spacing separation requirement we did not find any peculiar conditions that prevent them from meeting the spacing requirements. There are no topographic challenges no infrastructure improvements that don't allow the trees to be closer no drainage features or any other inherent characteristics.
 that present a practical difficulty or a peculiar condition that prevents the street trees from being closer together and meeting the code requirements.
 in regards to the minimum number of shrubs and trees that are required both on the parking lot perimeter as well as in within the island. We did find peculiar conditions in relation to the amount of property that is actually developable and the location of the building that present prevent parking spaces from being installed that would meet setback requirements. So the location of the building as well as all of the environmental constraints and the amount of developable areas certainly present
 some peculiar conditions for the property that do present a practical hardship in meeting some of those landscaping requirements. However as I mentioned we did find or see that there is space along the front that you can still install tall canopy trees immediately adjacent to the parking area or relatively close that do fulfill a lot of the desires of the landscaping ordinance in terms of shading asphalt and parking areas. So we did identify
 that they can put in more trees along the front where there are none shown now. And so as I mentioned we do have a condition of approval to that regard.
 And again with the front parking setback I did mention that the location of the building presents a challenge in installing parking as well as all the environmental constraints. So we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the variances from the number of shrubs required the number of tall canopy trees required the requirement for tall canopy trees within the islands and parking setback but deny the variance for
 The required street tree separation with the four conditions that are listed in staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions At this time we'll ask either the petitioner the petitioners rep or the petitioners Representatives to come forward if there's going to be more than one person speaking I'd like to go ahead and swear them all in at the same time Even if they're going to come back later if it's just one sign in once you've signed in just state your first and last name and then I'll swear you in
 Daniel Butler buying opinion associates. 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. Thank you. You have 20 minutes what you do not use will be reserved for later. All right Thank you for hearing our case. We're back with a similar
 Kind of project that I think you heard a couple months ago. I'm doing a type of dealership So this type of thinking this type of use and so we have similar variances similar kind of things that we're asking for a little bit different than what you heard in the past I'll try my best to kind of describe the process this this particular project kind of refurbishes a
 area that needs it and You've probably driven by there many times and it's old businesses that have been sitting you know vacant for quite some time and so it's an exciting project in that sense to have It'll be a brand new
 pavement everything with new landscaping New Islands and you know some of the code that is written into the ordinance We really believe was written in with the intention of you know commercial businesses And so we're asking you know when we were working with staff over the last few months and just trying to think about what's reasonable
 Because we don't want a traditional parking lot or a traditional dealership that you've probably driven by many times where it's only a sea of Impervious what that's not we're going for and that is not what Bloomington's about and we understand that so we've adhered to all the landscaping standards All the parking standards that you'd see in a normal commercial business and then we nail narrowed it down to some variances for you to hear tonight and so
 The the staff is recommending approval on three of those So I want to focus on just one of them the one that is being recommended for denial and kind of describe Why that doesn't really work for this and does create a practical difficulty for this type of use so when we did the the dealerships to the south of this particular one, we had a similar request and what
 differentiates this property from the one that you heard a couple months ago is that half of the Approximately half of the property in the back will be preservation area and won't be touched Meaning that we'll have preserved You know trees and vegetation back there in perpetuity and not to be touched. So that's one Upside with this property that you didn't get at the last one and we plan on preserving that along with that, you know coming to
 Consensus or a compromise a little bit on the north side of our property where it's not advantageous It's not good as you probably recognize for there to be large canopy trees right next to All these spots will be filled with display vehicles and not vehicles that be running or regularly be you know dripping you know oil on a regular basis because they won't you know, there'll be new new cars for the most part and
 so we are putting in large canopy trees on the north side of the property to and Trees throughout the parking lot, but we're asking for those to be small Now when people are driving by right now on walnut the properties to the south are Spaced at 40 feet on Center Street trees. So this would not be with this would be within
 What's already out there along the other dealership? So we're not asking for anything actually along some of that area There are a few places where I think they've you know, don't have any So we're not asking to do none In regards to street trees that are a long wall And we understand the importance of that the look of that the type of corridor that we want in Bloomington But we're asking for there to be a compromise and a practical difficulty of seeing into the property every 15 feet on center. It's
 over time you won't be able to see into this, and that's not a good thing, and we feel like it's practical difficulty for this particular type of use. Now he's also recommending a condition that we would also ask you not to take in adding 10 more trees along that same frontage, so mixed with 10 extra canopy trees right next to display vehicles,
 Along with the 15 foot on Center Street Trees that creates a lot of green that would not be able to see in as well. And so we're asking for Your can consideration on that particular piece I Don't think there's anything else that I want to mention at this time, but any of I
 Focused on probably the one that is being recommended for denial But any of them that you want to discuss our questions on please feel free to ask. Thank you Thank you And you'll have about 15 minutes left and I do want to commend you on focusing on the one thing that was in dispute That's very refreshing and I appreciate that which is the item that we do need to focus on. So thank you for that it's back to the boards for questions for the staff or the petitioner you may want to just stay there any questions
 The What he's referencing Eric with the Jeep dealership there. Those are at 40 Was that done as a variance? You said you came before the board?
 Yeah, I'm sure that that was part of the variance request for that dealership. However, variances, obviously, are never precedent setting. You know, we evaluate each request in and of itself. And so, again, you know, as I mentioned in the report, you know, we certainly understand their desire, but, you know, the variance criteria is that there is some peculiar condition that prevents somebody from doing something, something that prevents or
 provide the practical difficulty. So that's that was where we were challenged with is we did not see any peculiar conditions that prevented them from being closer. And follow up that real quick. How many tall canopy trees are they wanting to put and how many are you requiring with a 10 extra. You're saying 10 additional canopy trees. Yes. So their request is to have 47 I believe.
 tall canopy trees. I'm sorry 24 rather than the 81 that are required. And yes we certainly recognize that there is a substantial amount of preservation on the west end of the property. However all landscaping has has different purposes different accomplishments. So
 tall canopy trees within certain area of asphalt, you know, accomplishes something different than just biomass on a property. You know, the trees within a certain area of parking area shade that area, you know, helps prevent a lot of the heat island effect that we're all experiencing and is discussed in a lot of documents. And so having those along that area, you know, presented an opportunity. We certainly recognize some of the other constraints, but there is area to get that along the front. And so that seemed appropriate to have a recommendation to have those 10 additional along the front.
 Great. Thank you. Any other questions. Yes. So the 41 this question is for Eric. So the 41 tall canopy trees when you when you say those are in the parking lot not in the front. Correct. Not in the front lot in the landscape plan. Yeah that would be helpful. Some of those are based on existing trees that they're preserving along the north side of the property.
 Some of those are being placed along the west ends of the property. There's a sanitary sewer easement and sewer line that runs along the west side that prevents that location from being utilized. So the area that they really have available is really limited. So that's why we were looking that even a little bit closer to say hey
 There's there are trees that could be planted here. Some of the other trees that they're showing are outside that 10 foot area but most of them are along that north property line and a little bit on the west. So we're really trying to look at optimizing the little amount of land that we can get in to have some more tall canopy trees. Is it correct that the whole preservation area has several canopy tall canopy trees.
 We don't have an inventory of the trees that are actually in that area I would imagine that there are certainly a substantial amount of those that would be species that are identified as a tall canopy tree species But again, as I mentioned, you know different landscaping has different purposes based on where it is, you know Some of it was just getting living materials on a site and then other landscaping has different purposes in terms of shading and shielding parking areas Okay my last question then is
 to the petitioner. So is it a peculiar condition that if you have those tall canopy trees in the front landscape area, would that be harmful to your product that sits there? I mean, I'm talking about the cars that will be sitting on display, I guess. That is correct. We believe over time to have them where he's asking for them.
 There would be danger of you know branches leaves on a regular basis very difficult on a dealership with display vehicles To have large canopy trees and again, I just want to reiterate We have made a compromise our owners made a compromise to do that already on the north side of the property to help buffer
 Someday if a restaurant or whatever it reutilizes that particular property, which is not it's vacant right now And so we've already we feel like we already have compromised on that side and we are doing I think about 13 large canopy trees on the north side of property brand new ones And so we're asking we didn't want to ask for that too. And so we're asking for mainly along the display from walnut now would you be
 But you will still have some tall trees in the front or are they all gonna be smaller and you want them 40 feet on center? That's correct We actually cannot have the street trees Any bigger than the small because there are overhead lines there and they won't allow us to have the large canopy there So the only choice is if we were to follow the current code, it'd be 15 feet on center for small Trees and so we would still like to do
 Something and so we're asking for 40 feet on center and that lined up with what we Had previously years ago received to the south for that dealership Okay, thank you For you about okay, so the I'm looking on the Google Maps and That there's no consistency with each dealership for the trees in the front line and I just
 for being new on the zoning board. So I guess why would the, I don't know, is it four or what have you, they have zero or one, they have one. And then I guess is it at different times that people are coming to get variances and when at the time of the year they build, depending on the variance for what is required?
 Yeah so the street tree separation was a little bit different. It was 30 feet on center. I'm sorry 40 feet on center when the dealership. I think you're talking about the ones further to the south of this. You know the street tree separation was a little bit different at that time and they came forward with a request of their own. It was unique and the board heard certain arguments and conditions and
 Um, you know, there was discussion about that. But as I mentioned, you know, variances are not precedent setting. You know, we don't want to establish a trend that each one is evaluated on its own merits. Um, and, you know, certainly deserves to be re discussed just because something was done on one property, uh, you know, 10 years ago doesn't mean we're stuck with that on every property along that quarter for the rest of our lives. Thank you.
 And that does go to repeating we we say that almost nearly every meeting which is Just because something has happened at a previous variance request. It's not that's not precedence. We don't work on precedence. We work on the individual Peculiar circumstances of each property. So thanks for that question any any others before we go to the public Okay, I saw someone check in is there's someone online who I see chat Indicators
 Anyone online that would like to speak on behalf of the public. If there is anybody online please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody else online. OK. I know sometimes it takes a second. All right.
 Seeing no one then we are back to the petitioner Do you have any final comments you'd like to make or would you like to just go to questions and answers? I'm certainly fine with questions the answers. I think that we do understand your comment about Setting a precedent and understand I I just want to remind everyone that that that had previously been received and it will have Probably a similar type of look and we're not interested in you know, no
 Along there. We're interested. We still understand the need for the type of look that Bloomington's looking for and so we thought that this would be a good Compromise and still allows this type of use to flourish in this area But I have this type of look along that corridor and so would require variance in that case. Thank you We are back to the board for action could have further questions if you have those of the petitioner or of the staff Otherwise, I will entertain a motion
 A quick comment. I understand the setting precedent, but also it's a benchmark I think we can have to use in this case as a visual and if I'm looking at that Google Street map and I'm picturing 40 feet of that Jeep dealership and you're saying another two trees relatively in between Where they are right now Eric, do you know how tall those trees would get? Is there I mean, I know it's not yeah another the small medium trees usually in about 15 20 foot range and
 Okay. Whereas a tall canopy tree would be more in the 80 60 70 80 foot range. You know so I'll just point out you know the tall canopy trees those species those get very tall and also those species drop off all of their limbs over time. So you know when you're looking at these trees 30 years from now 40 years 50 60 70.
 You're going to be able to see right through the understory because those trees have grown above everything else. They're shading the parking lot like they're supposed to do. And so you're not going to have any visual obstructions you know through the understory like you would kind of foresee. Thank you. So question to the petitioner. So with the tall trees we're going to have limbs falling leaves nuts everything on top of the cars.
 And as even though as they grow and get taller then visually yes I agree with Eric you'll be able to see through easier because the canopy rises but still the debris is the issue that you is that the is that the issue that you are concerned. Yeah there's two. One is.
 Recommendation he's put it he put a recommendation as a condition and those are to add ten more trees since we're asking not to do that piece and that would be those ten canopy trees along that Walnut corridor and then the other piece would be smaller trees 15 feet on center and over time a lot of those smaller Type trees will not do what he's describing those would be within that visual
 You know because a lot of those types of trees are you know smaller, you know grow outward Less talk, you know not as much growth. And so there would be two concerns Each dealing with one is the condition and the other one is the variance Any further questions if not, we'll take a motion I
 make a motion. I can't find the number. It's on page nine. Yeah. To approve the dash 22 dash 25 to approve all variances and remove number three from the recommendations a total of 10 tall canopy trees are required along the property frontage.
 And for the third condition, peculiarity will be the type of business that established that, that will be established there. Basically to say that the tall canopy trees might harm the inventory of this commercial property.
 I have a motion just one slight thing. I would take out the language of of the president We've set and just stick with the peculiar which was it could damage. Do you agree? Okay, good. So we have a motion to approve with the negation of item number three Due to the possibility for damage to the inventory. Do I have a second? You will also need to make positive findings for
 Variance condition number one the approval will not be interest because we did make negative findings to that regard. Sorry I thought that was a positive. I thought I saw no. So we said that the granting of the variance did not require street trees every 40 feet is expected to be interest to the public health agencies. You'll need to make positive findings for that. So do we just add a not interest. Sure. But as a matter of procedure we do need to have those findings stated.
 Anyone have language. I misread that Eric I thought that that was clear in an item number one right. That it wouldn't be injurious. Which one did I miss there. The first second third the very first one landscaping street trees.
 So this is under the section the approval will not know is expect I thought it said is not expected. That's Not required tree, okay Not in front of injurious on line two, yes and put a period after Community on line three and strike the rest of the sentence and
 That meter needs there. No, I got it. Okay, that means yes Second so I have a second Any further discussion on that so Once we take the vote approval a vote of yes would be to approve the variance With the changes to item number one with the notation and item number three being removed due to the injury to the
 to the petitioner. If no further discussion we'll go ahead and call the call the question. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Passes 5 0. Congratulations. Thank you for your time. Good luck. OK. Next one starts on page 18 for those following along in the packet.
 This is V dash 26 dash 25 Sam Heal could be healing. We'll find out soon enough. Can I have a staff report.
 Jackie Scanlon, assistant director, planning and transportation. Let's see here. OK, the request before you tonight is for a property located has two address 2401 and 2501 North Walnut.
 The request is a development standards variance request for a determinant sidewalk variance for a portion of the required pedestrian facilities in the mixed use corridor zoning district. So some of you will remember that we saw this property last year and so it contains all American storage on kind of old business 37 on North Walnut.
 on the west side of the road. So they received variances for setbacks on the North property line and for the pedestrian facilities that they needed to build on North Old State Road 37 at the bottom of the hill. They did request a variance for pedestrian facilities along North Walnut as well for about 140 feet there. And that variance was denied at that time.
 So again, this is the property. It currently contains a self storage unit and the Cascades Inn is immediately to the north and residential to the east and then Cascades Park to the west. So the petitioner would like, they would like to build a new building so that triggers full compliance for the property. Here's kind of a more eagle-eyed view of the property. You may note last year when we saw this petition,
 The property line was not in this shape. There was some discussion about this property, and we found a right of way dedication done to the state at some time back. So we worked with the auditor's office, and this is the correct property line. So their property line kind of veers off here a little bit. But because of the wording in the UDO, they are required to build the pedestrian facility to the end of their property line.
 that is between the property and the road. So on this portion of the property, this is about 450 feet. They are building the path that is, will build the path that is in the transportation plan. And so you can see that this area is obviously pretty flat and not a lot of physical barriers there to meeting the requirement at that location.
 The issue is when we get to the southern portion. So this year, they are requesting a determinant sidewalk variance for 108 feet. So after last year's denial, they kind of went back, worked with their engineering team to get a better idea. Let's see. Can I make this bigger? I do not like this new screen setup. OK. Just a sec. Let me see. Hm.
 To kind of get an idea of what exactly is there and if it's possible, so This petition was on the agenda for June We had worked with the staff of the planning and transportation department had worked with the engineering department and also our long-range staff to
 kind of talk about would it be possible to put this path and if it was moved further east. The engineering staff did think that was possible and it's obviously desirable for us for long range planning for pedestrian connections. But then we had this exhibit. They were able to respond to us.
 right at the time of the June hearing. So that's why the petition was continued. And so it's this portion here this 108 feet that they're requesting the variance for. And the reason being that there is steep slope at this location. And I think I did not spell this out well enough in the staff report. But additionally the way that we get public facilities in the right of way
 That aren't just built by the city is through private development. So in this case for all-american storage, they'll they're building the required pedestrian facilities from the transportation plan because They are building a brand new building and so typically properties are budding other private properties and so it's kind of like a Domino effect if they build theirs then the guy next to it he goes to redevelop He builds his in this case There's almost 250 feet of publicly owned property or right-of-way between the end of their property
 property and the next private property so you can kind of see this blue line here and so if they built theirs to this location which would be just north of the roadway across walnut we are still responsible as the city for the next two hundred and forty five feet before it hits another private property so
 When we were looking at it that way and talking to the engineering department, because of the slope constraints here at this particular location, so again, the part they're requesting the variance for is in here where it starts to get redder, which these are two-foot contours, and that is why there is a railing along here now, a guardrail, because it drops off quite a bit.
 It was determined by the engineering department and again in consultation with long range transportation in the planning department and development services that it would probably make more sense to have that all designed as one piece than to have there 108 feet and then our additional linear footage at some time in the future because there will probably need to be some substantial changes here to put that path in more than I think we were able to determine based on the information we had at the last hearing.
 So the department based on the findings of fact in the staff report and those I have said here tonight The department recommends that the board of zoning appeals adopt the proposed findings and improve this variance With the condition that a zoning commitment for the determinant sidewalk variance must be recorded and submitted Prior to the approval of the building permit. They'll need for their new building. I can answer any questions Thank you. That's to the petitioner. Do we have a single or two? If so, have you both come forward?
 Both sign in I'll have you both say your first and last names and then we'll swear you both then Don Kacharek with Smith design group. Thank you Sam heel with all-american storage. Thank you Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
 Okay, you have up to 20 minutes again what you don't use will be reserved for final comments I don't have a whole lot to add Thank You Jackie. That was a good presentation Just it's I've kind of there are some pictures in the report that show kind of the conditions one facing kind of towards big red liquors and you can see the guardrail on the right-hand side and then there's a couple others where
 They're from down below and we had to I had to actually traverse from Cascades Park up to get to it because it's too steep to kind of get down but there's a lot of large loose boulders and rock outcroppings just kind of there and it's it just be extremely difficult and expensive to build this portion and we have on the plans we have the remaining 400 or so feet that they are willing to build. We're just asking for this portion. So
 Any questions for me or say I don't have anything to add at this time. We'll just save for questions. Very good. I'll kick things off to make it easy. Most of what you're addressing me because I'm the one that asked you to look at it. So I remember this case very well. First of all I want to thank you for doing what we asked which was look at it because I knew when the request was made that this might be a possibility that we didn't know what was down there and it did need to be examined because again
 the welfare of Matlock Heights where they have increased traffic between there and the motel because of the new bar that opened etc. So thank you for that. I have actually no problems because that's all I asked for and they're not going to ask for a removal of the rest of it. So the neighborhood can still cross over and use the sidewalk which was the critical thing. So that's my comments. Any questions or comments. Seeing no we'll go to the public for comments.
 You can you use the raise hand function or send a message to the host if you have a comment on this petition? Nothing on zoom nothing on zoom back to the petitioner. Do you have any final comments? Okay, so it's back to the board for action I'll speed things up by saying I move for approval of to adopt the proposed findings approve case v-26-25 with the following condition of a zoning commitment
 For the determinant sidewalk variance must be recorded and submitted prior to the approval of a building permit. I second the first and second any further discussion. Yes. I have a question. Does the city have any actual plans to build the sidewalk to the south. I don't think that I don't think that there are imminent plans right now. It is part of the transportation plan. So I think
 If development happened to the south then that might be an impetus to get that connection going But I don't think there's anything right now. It's a tough area Yeah, and I you know, I don't know John if you were here with this last one Okay, so, you know most people know I live in that neighborhood and I've commented about how it's been effective because every development that's happened They've added a sidewalk. So there's very little that doesn't have access and it's mainly that one section because of how close that topography cuts into the road but other than that the issue of
 Matt like heights being able to move northward on the sidewalk was really critical. So Any other comments call the question The Rock Morton. Yes, Ballard. Yes, Burrell. Yes, Fernandez Casinco. Yes Congratulations passes five zero. Thank you for doing the work that the board requested. That was very That's exactly what we kind of look for and I appreciate that. So best of luck. Thank you for your time
 You too. OK. For those following along on page 38 this will be V dash 29 dash 25. And let me get the details. And the details are this is value built ink and it's to the staff for a report please.
 Thank you, Eric Krulick, development services manager. So this is a request from Value Built Inc. for a property at 1017 East Aaron Court. The petitioner is here tonight to request a variance, a determinant sidewalk variance more specifically in relation to the construction of a new single family house on this residence. The property is owned single family residential or residential medium lot R2. As I mentioned, the property is vacant and the petitioner is looking to install
 all construct a new house on the property. There is a sidewalk along Azalea Drive that is along the south side of the property.
 And the UDO requires that when you have construction of a new house on a classified street, you are required to install the required pedestrian facilities along that street. Since this property has frontage on two streets, it's a corner. It has Aaron Court on the west side and Azalea on the south side. With the construction of the new home, they are required to install pedestrian facilities and tree plot along both frontages as per the transportation plan. So the transportation plan requires
 a seven-foot sidewalk and an eight-foot tree plot along Azalea, which is what they are requesting a determinant sidewalk variance for tonight. They would be installing the sidewalk and street trees along Aaron Court, but they are requesting relief from that sidewalk requirement in order to allow for the existing facility, which you can see here, to remain along Azalea. So the current facility along Azalea is a four-foot wide sidewalk with a five-foot tree plot. As I mentioned,
 We're going to require a seven foot sidewalk and an eight foot tree plot along Azalea.
 In addition, the engineering department was able to go out and evaluate the sidewalk. There were a lot of panels that were deemed to be far above the cross slope allowance for ADA accessibility. So a majority of that sidewalk was deemed to be not functionally compliant in that regard. So it would have to be removed. So the petitioner is requesting the determinant sidewalk variance in order to allow for the existing facility to remain.
 If the variance was granted, they would still have to replace those panels that were deemed to be out of compliance. But in terms of having to bring it into full compliance, the determinate sidewalk variance would apply in that. So in regards to the criteria and findings, the first one, that the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.
 When you have a new construction on our property, especially in a single family neighborhood where everything is built out, you have very few opportunities to get compliant facilities in. So this is the only opportunity to get a compliant facility on this property. And so requiring the sidewalk to come into compliance with the full seven foot allows for facilities here that are in compliance with the transportation plan that looks for what we want to accomplish in the neighborhoods. So we did find that this would be injurious to the public health
 safety and moral general welfare, and that the wider facility does improve safety, has a greater tree plot, which improves safety as well. And so we did make negative findings in that regard. We did not find any negative impacts on the use and value of the properties adjacent to this. However, again, with the third criteria, that the strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, and that the practical difficulties
 are peculiar to the property in question. We did not find any peculiar conditions about the property that prevented a compliant sidewalk from being installed. There are no topographic constraints, no infrastructure constraints, no environmental features. So we were not able to find any peculiar conditions about the property that would allow us to make findings in that regard as well.
 So with that we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and deny the requested variance and I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you to the petitioner do we have a petitioner petitioners representative, please come forward And when you come forward if you would sign in and then state your first and last name for me, please. I
 I'm Ernest with Valuable petitioner. OK. And 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 you have up to 20 minutes whatever you don't use now you can use later before a motion is taken. I doubt I'll use the 20 minutes. Thank you Eric for presenting that. So essentially we're here seeking relief from the transportation plan and the required pedestrian facilities as the transportation plan state.
 since, so just to give a little backstory, you know, essentially what we do is we try to basically build spec homes that, you know, provide workforce housing. Primarily, we don't really do any of the higher end homes, so we're looking for homes that kind of target the $350,000 to $400,000 price range. We've built probably a couple hundred homes over the last five or six years, a lot of them in Ellitsville. So, when this lot came on the market,
 you know, it was in a neighborhood we built before in a couple different times and we saw it like the Lot and thought it would be you know a good addition to the neighborhood to add roughly a 1,400 square foot ranch over a walkout basement You know on this lot that's conducive for the walkout So when we're looking at, you know trying to target a price point around like 380 390 and then we go through the permitting process and
 Find out that this sidewalk that we thought was good that we would add on to to you know You know go from that sidewalk sidewalk to the house would have to be replaced with a seven foot sidewalk That kind of stopped us in our tracks and you know where that's why we're here seeking relief from that just because that $20,000 replacement of sidewalk essentially either you know gets added to the price of the home or you know comes
 Basically is the entire margin of a project like that. So we just wouldn't do it. We just sell the lot and move on So that's why we're here today You know every projects a little bit different, you know some of the projects that we do really have a lot of room to You know create pedestrian facilities The thing is the transportation plan changes since you know every you know changes and there's It's not
 The UDO is something that we look at and you know try to plan on but not usually when we're looking at single-family homes and not usually something that we consider you know having to replace 140 feet of sidewalk you know when we're building something. So that's basically all I've got. Thank you. We're back to the board for any questions at this point. I have a question. It looks like part of the sidewalk has been replaced more recently.
 I'm sorry, please step. Sorry. I didn't know if staff was answering that or that's okay You have something to go ahead. Oh, it's not original, but I don't know how old it is The only question I have is the that image is
 In the packet where there's the offset Could you explain that whose image is that is that your image? No, the where it has the offset from the Where it meets it's on page 44. Sorry. I thought I was sharing here. Yeah on page 44 Okay, what's what is that there to represent because I see the old sidewalk in the upper right corner and then I see this white
 Section Is that your picture that is okay what is meant to represent like the jog from the current sidewalk is the tree plot changes goes from a 4-foot tree plot to an 8-foot tree or sorry 5-foot tree plot to an 8-foot tree plot. So the entire sidewalk gets moved over Just out of curiosity Eric it can they
 Can that sidewalk meet or yeah. So what. So what. So what that exhibit is showing there on page 44 and what the petition was trying to say would be an offset if if the sidewalk were to be placed at the back end of the right away line. But in those situations you know we work to try to merge those together in a way that is pro-ag required pro-ag compliant. So it would not be an offset there would be a
 transition point where they would merge together. So if this were to go through and have to be built there there'd be a tapering. Yes correct. Okay. That would be on this property not the other property. I mean there is right away on the adjacent property but more than likely we would minimize you know
 Removing existing facilities on the adjacent frontage. So probably be mostly on this but that's something we'd coordinate with the engineering department You know would probably be relation to maybe any broken panels on the adjacent one But you know, I think yeah, I think the question I have is I want to make sure it'll go to a point I'm gonna make later which is That's an older neighborhood and things may possibly change and so therefore the next
 May need to have a change to the sidewalk and I just want to make sure that the sidewalk Whatever the end point is before tapers Is that such a point that if the next neighbor is required to change the sidewalk that they don't do a taper and then a taper back You know what I mean? Yeah, it's a stupid little silly thing But I just want to make sure if something like that wouldn't happen, correct, right? So we would so on this property here, you know You would have 90% 95% of it that would be at the appropriate location and then it would have a taper so if something happened on the adjacent property then it would match this one and
 And so you'd be reducing you'd be deleting that taper because that'd be whole the whole thing would be uniform. Exactly. That was my thank you for that. And that's a little that's just a little thing but that depends on what the outcome of this petition is. So thank you. Any other questions. My question is to Eric. You mentioned that the existing sidewalk has some areas that need to be replaced or repaired.
 Yes. So they'd have to be replaced. So the engineering department went out and they measured the cross slope as well as you know ascertain the condition of the concrete. So a lot of those had the side slopes that were greatly exceeded the 2 percent cross slope that's allowed for ADA accessibility. Talking about that the concrete pads have moved. Yes. Yeah. So the panels they had separated separated and moved and created
 Yeah. So the sidewalk is probably 30 years old. So obviously over that length of time you know you've had a lot of movement of the ground freeze and thaw. And so that's just kind of contributed to the degradation of the sidewalk panels. My other question is so if you have an eight foot tree plot and then you have a seven foot sidewalk I mean does that mean he's going to be against the front setback.
 For the building. Yes, so the setback of the building is not measured in relation to the sidewalk. It's measured from the center line location of the building wouldn't change with the sidewalk location Question and this kind of relates but so you're saying they'd also they're willing to do it on Aaron Court put sidewalk through there Is that we okay does that make
 Call it the question because does that make any sense to have a sidewalk going into a cul-de-sac area? Because that just connects to a driveway that would connect to like it doesn't make sense to me That they anybody in there would rebuild and then say let's connect over existing driveways that I don't see the logic in that Can you explain why that would be a requirement in this type of?
 Particular situation. Yeah, so there's no exemptions for cul-de-sacs or situations where it only connects to one other property Anytime you've got a property frontage with new construction and in this case here because the sidewalk is required along Azalea It's also required to extend along the adjacent properties So both property frontages have to have a sidewalk because there is one that is present on Azalea So the petitioner just chose not to request a variance from an air from Aaron court
 You know, certainly they could have but they elected not to request a variance from Aaron Okay, cuz that wouldn't to me make more sense To have it exempted from their connecting the driveways that nobody's gonna use Versus this but that's just Sorry the sidewalk and Aaron is an intense sidewalk and with the grade especially but I
 Yes, so that was not part of the petitioners request Unfortunately, we're what we can hear tonight. So, you know if the petition wants to modify the request, you know We can continue it and hear it again next month The other thing that you bring up with that is is there any way again for the city to allow just a Addition to the existing sidewalk to bring it within the width required width without having a total rebuild. I See head shaking. Is that a no?
 I saw your head nod is that a yes. Is it a no. I am so sorry. The city will step forward. Sorry. Recognize you Jackie.
 No, we haven't had a lot of that. It's a rare occasion that Engineering will let you just add on to an existing facility like that The only time I think I've seen that done is when the sidewalk was actually the top of a culvert and so it couldn't be removed but otherwise the whole thing has to come out so that you can make sure that the Percentage slopes are correct across the whole width. Thank you That's John I don't know if this is a question or not, but I guess it is I mean I fully appreciate the
 rationale for Applying existing code to new projects, but it just I mean it's It adds a cost when we have an affordable housing problem And it's not like there's a bunch of other undeveloped lots left in this neighborhood So I just don't really
 see the marginal benefit to the public good of driving the costs up for the last house up when I guess if somebody does an addition to their house or any kind of external modification they'd have to bring it up to code but you're just it's it's not the purview I guess of the BZA but it just seems that there's a practicality of all of this that
 doesn't seem to follow a sensible strategy. I would agree completely with that. And I also know I think the petition has been here before where we haven't granted this. And those have been in situations where it was older neighborhoods and there was an ability to connect sidewalks continuously. That made sense. This does not to me. This to me is a flip from take it off Aaron court.
 Coming back to exactly what John said about they're going to offset the cost to the consumer. It has to be that way. Why don't we work with them to say save your sidewalk. Come back. Save your sidewalk on Aaron. Don't waste your money there. That makes no sense. Bring it back and then not require if this was connecting to another seven foot sidewalk anywhere around there actually drove by this site to look. There's no nothing anywhere around and those homes are not going to get knocked down and rebuilt.
 It's not going to trigger. Those are 30 and 40 year homes to me that I think the illogical aspect does need to be taken into consideration under number three because I think the strict application the peculiarity is that there's nothing else around it that has seven feet to connect to. And also the peculiarity is I don't think well the Aaron Street is a side note I guess but
 I'm just putting that out there as kind of a midwit, you know trying to figure out a way to Make this work more logically because I mean to your to your point Tim is like so you require a sidewalk stub into Aaron court And that's gonna be it I Mean it's not gonna be a sidewalk and I don't have an issue with requiring sidewalks around cul-de-sacs either I think that's a public safety
 Issue for sure, but when you've got a fully developed development, but for one lot It it just Doesn't make a lot of sense to require that full Deployment of the code because then you've got You know one house with a stub of a sidewalk and there'll never be there's not going to be a sidewalk connected
 Let's take a minute and hear from the public and then we'll come back to the board Is there anyone from the public who'd like to make comment about this petition? Yes, it looks like we do have one person Okay, and I'll explain to that person if you can hear me that what we'll do is ask you to state your first and last Name and then wait for a moment for me to swear you in and then you'll have five minutes to speak Do you understand that? Yes, okay state your first and last name Stuart Smiley
 Okay. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. You have five minutes. Thanks for hearing me. I live on Azalea, just up the street from where this project is proposed. I also ride my bike on Azalea on a daily basis. And I just had a few comments. First off, I think this
 7 foot sidewalk with an 8 foot setback would look ridiculous when compared with the rest of the sidewalks in the neighborhood. Also these lots are not huge lots and we're talking about taking up 15 feet of a lot for the setback or the tree space and the sidewalk. And that's going to leave whoever ends up buying this house with a tiny little side yard.
 That doesn't seem fair. And then when I'm biking on Azalea, I can see, and my sidewalk as well, the sidewalks aren't in great shape. And there's even sections where there's no sidewalk for some reason. And so I don't think that this particular builder should be
 penalized for when the sidewalk there is in better shape than most of the sidewalks along Azalea. Yeah, that's all I had to say. I think the variance should be granted. And the part on Aaron Court, I don't even see what the point is of putting a sidewalk there. I agree that nobody is ever going to use a sidewalk on Aaron Court. It's a tiny little court.
 If you leave the sidewalk and you want to go to any of the driveways on that court you're going to go straight across the court not on any sidewalk. Thanks. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the public either in chambers or online who would like to make comment. Sorry there's one more Jennifer Lentz. I'm not sure Jennifer what is your I'm assuming 10.
 I'm not sure who Jennifer Lentz is online. Jennifer are you there. I saw her check in at the beginning of the meeting. Yeah. Jennifer what is what is your your name. Oh I'm so I'm so sorry I did not see you there on the other end. You should be able to speak now. Jennifer OK. Hi.
 Would you please state your first and last name and then wait for a moment? Yes, I am Jennifer lens 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 to speak. Thank you Okay, thank you. I am also here to speak in support of the petitioner I also live on Azalea Lane kind of not right near Aaron court, but down the street and
 And I kind of, Stuart Smiley sort of said most of the things that I was gonna say, but I would like to reiterate them. First and foremost, this neighborhood has been here for a while. The sidewalks in general aren't in good shape. And the only sidewalk that's really usable is the one that's on the other side of where this property would be. And that's because on the side of the street where the property is,
 there are portions where there is no sidewalk. So there are spaces that don't have a sidewalk. So for people who are walking in the neighborhood, walking their dogs or whatever, they don't really walk on that side of the street anyway. And to have a seven foot sidewalk contiguous with a four foot sidewalk also seems to me very ugly. And while I know that this board isn't about
 aesthetics and what's appealing. But for the people who live here having a seven foot sidewalk when the rest of the neighborhood has a four foot sidewalk seems to me against the aesthetic of the neighborhood. And so for something that is not effectively usable and is also going to be kind of unattractive I really don't see a lot of reasons to deny the request for the variance. And that's about all I have to say.
 Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online or in chambers from the public who would like to speak to this petition. I'm not seeing anybody else online. All right. With that we're back to the petitioner. Do you have any final comments. You have a good deal of time left if you'd like to use it. Thank you. OK. I'd just ask you to stand by there. We may have questions for you and make it easier.
 Back to the board for action or further questions of the staff or the petitioner. Why did you decide to not request a variance for the court sidewalk. It was it was actually part of our original email to request both variances but we decided to choose the one that we felt was you know we since like
 In one of them we're adding a sidewalk and the other we're just replacing one. We thought it would be a compromise in hindsight We should have requested and we might come back. So That would be my question you guys doesn't make more sense to continue this even though obviously we have other things coming but to come back with it because
 Realistically either way we can come back with a new variance on the air and court part Yeah, but I think there's a is that a six month delay No, so that would just be a new request. So there's only a delay if the petition is denied So the board can certainly continue it if you want the petitioner can request a continuance and they can well, that's what I'm saying But even if we if we approve the
 The requested variances and studies can supply the sidewalk. I thought it would be so they can come back and request a different variance So it would be in a month. Yes. Okay Thank you. Well actually Continued it would be better because I'm pretty sure we'd be pushed out another month based on the timing What like if I applied today? Yeah, you're you I'm like way. Yeah today was if I heard tomorrow is a filing deadline So continuing it might be better for everyone. It makes sense. Yes
 And I would be fine with that. So remind me again what is it does the petitioner ask for that. So the petitioner can request a continuance. They just can't withdraw once a vote has been taken. So they can request a continuance and the board can grant that. So no motion has been made. None is in front of the board at this moment. So the petitioner can request of this board a continuance petitioner can request of this board and I would like to request a continuance. Do we need to take a vote on that.
 It would probably be good to do that. Let's get a motion for continuous, please That and a Motion, I'm sorry. I missed the second who got it second. Okay, we have the motion in a second any further discussion Seeing none I call the question Yes, Burrell, yes Fernandez, yes, Casinco. Yes, Brock Morton. Yes. All right. We'll see you next month All right. Thank you for that
 We're on page 45 of the packet and this is conditional use see you dash 30 dash 25. Matt Ellen would is the petitioner and if we could please have a staff report.
 Good evening, Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. So we're looking at conditional needs to allow for a duplex and a residential small lot zoning district at 1004 South Palmer Avenue. As you can see that that lot and all the surrounding properties are zoned R3.
 From the quick aerial here you can see some of the existing roof lines and materials. This duplex has been created through an addition to the existing home with an integrated carport separating the two portions of the duplex. The addition will run past the rear of the home along the alley on the west side of the property. There is an existing drive and parking area
 on the northeast corner of the existing home. And as you can see here, the alley on the left would run back to the new addition as well as that carport. And because of requirements from the UDO with the carport access from the alley, the existing drive area would need to be removed. So if there are not two drives on one property.
 The existing residence that has one bedroom the planned addition to create the duplex would have two bedrooms one on the ground floor and one on the second floor. And as you can see from the elevations where that carport would be there in the middle separating the two as well as the entrance facing alley for the addition.
 So looking at our criteria, the following criteria, excuse me, all petitions are subject to review percent to compliance with the UDO and other applicable regulations. And we find that a dwelling duplex in this zoning district meets those standards as each part of the duplex will have its own entrance. The existing and surrounding residents on the block face would have a similar
 roof pitch and design of materials. The duplex is not going to exceed bedroom allowances. And there are no other applicable regulations that would apply. For consistency with a comprehensive plan and other plans, comprehensive plan defines this area as mixed urban residential for future land use. And as this is an older neighborhood, there is expected to be a larger
 variation within architectural standards and designs, and also allow for redevelopment. And within the comprehensive plan, policy 5.3.1 encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment, and this, by adding this addition to create a duplex, it helps accomplish those goals of the comprehensive plan. For providing adequate public services and facilities, adequate public service
 Capacity already exists with the existing residents by adding the addition to create the duplex. There is not expected to be any additional impacts to utilities and those services but will nonetheless be reviewed with a subsequent building permit. And for minimizing mitigating mitigating adverse impacts we find there are no regulated natural or scenic features that would be impacted.
 The property is not in a historic district. And the owners did have a neighborhood meeting on June 2nd. And with those in attendance, there were no noted major objections and actually received general favorable feedback from those that were in attendance at that meeting. There's no proposed phasing with this plan. And based on those findings, we recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt
 these findings and approve the conditional use with the following conditions conditional use is limited to the design shown and discussed in the packet requires the petitioner to pass a rental inspection from housing neighborhood development and procure a rental permit for any units that we've rented and then again that existing drive and parking area on Palmer Avenue would need to be completely removed in that area seated and I am here for any questions. Thank you.
 Is there anyone petitioner or petitioners representative here whoever it is who intends to speak go ahead and come forward We'll sign you in all at once So each of you sign in and if you wait, we'll swear you and wanted it we'll swear you're all in at the same time Will you be speaking are you okay, so just the two I
 Each of you state your name into the microphone, please Steve McCracken Matt Ellenwood, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes Okay, very good. The first one can step forward and then we'll give you an opportunity for 20 minutes to speak Whatever again, whatever you don't use will be reserved for later. Go ahead. Okay, I think the only thing that I wanted to add to the presentation is we do
 We're designing it with Matt in a way that we'll be able to age in place. We're older now, and we intend to stay in the neighborhood for as long as possible. So we will be able to live on the first level of that floor. It'll have low thresholds and wide doorways, and the bathroom will be accessible. So that was part of the rationale. We actually lived across the street at 1005 South Palmer and bought this house with the idea that there would be room in the back to do this.
 I think that's all I have but I certainly can answer questions. No that's OK. Do you have anything to add. Yeah I don't really have much to add other than you know the Palmer's of the crackers have done a nice job with the property across the street. They fix that up. It's great contribution to the neighborhood and they're looking to do something similar here. Like they said you know a place for them to continue living and be part of the neighborhood.
 So, you know, they're not looking to just, you know, build something to just to make money on. So they've done all the proper steps to get here and hope it'll be a nice addition. And I can answer any questions about the thank you. We'll withhold the rest of your time for later if you choose to use it with that. We'll go to the board. Any questions or comments with the petitioner or the staff?
 I appreciate what you're doing and I always like to thank people for investing in our city was the the Decision to remove the little drive that's on Palmer was that something that you guys wanted to do or were asked to do We were asked to do that I think
 I don't know code that well but my understanding was that there could only be one opening for parking and we're intending a carport in the back off the alley and so that would be the one so we would have to remove that space in the front which is fine. We do intend to rent the front so they would have to park on the street. Palmer certainly can accommodate.
 Some street parking there isn't much now So I guess this is a question for the staff then for I'm not as familiar with this part of the UDO so even for a duplex that has Entrances that are not necessarily the same ones on one road ones on the other we still have to we can only have one For residential
 single-family duplexes You can only have one drive on the property and especially since there's access from the alley The UDO does specify that access should be from the alley What was the rationale for that it's just strict act
 Yes application, but what was the what was the thinking behind that only having one? Entrance access point Place to go through begin in yeah, sorry, so the area really development services manager So the udl is always for single-family only allowed one drive cut per properties only very rare Circumstances for a circle drive that you're allowed to have more than one
 So as a petitioner mentioned because they were proposing a carport on the south side they can only have one drive cut on the property so they had to remove the one on the east side on the street side. Yeah I mean I could understand that rationale normally but I mean if you got an entrance on they're not it's not like you're having two cuts on the same road which I totally understand but you know Palmer is just
 It's a pretty tight area. So anyway here's what it is. I'll ask petitioner has no issue with that. Obviously we would prefer to have to but it's not a deal breaker for us. OK. Any other questions before we go to the public.
 What we'll do then is we'll look to the public for any comments if you give us a moment here. Is there anyone online or anyone in chambers would like to speak to this from the public. Yes there is anybody online. Please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat.
 Do you see anyone? No one in chambers. All right. So with back with that no comments from the public. It's back to the petitioner. Do you have anything further you'd like to add here before we come to the board for action? No, no. All right. I have a question. Okay. We'll go to the board for comments questions or motion. So the new carport is 25 by 12. So does that mean it's a
 It will fit two cars. Probably not. We only have one car. OK. Well I'm trying to alleviate some of the parking situation. So with that is the car and the in the parking where the carport is I'm not telling you to increase the size of the carport. Is it possible to park two cars there. I don't believe so because we're also contemplating room for bikes.
 lawnmower a ladder, you know the clean so that So the answer I think is no Okay, but the structure itself does join between the two Yes, okay. I just want to make sure because the drawing doesn't look like it but the rendering does I wanted to clarify Thank you. Any other questions comments from the board before a motion? I
 Go ahead and make a motion to adopt the proposed findings and approve cu-30-25 with the three conditions as listed Second I have a motion in a second to Approve the petition with the three attached conditions Any further discussion or are you ready for a vote? No, okay, I'll call the question again a vote of yes is to approve the
 Conditional use. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. The conditional use petition passes five to nothing. Congratulations. Good luck. And I wish it would turn out just terrific. Do we have any unaddressed business in front of the board tonight. Is there any new business that anyone would like to introduce for next. Okay. Seeing that we stand adjourned. Thank you.