WEBVTT 00:00:00.322 --> 00:00:12.176 - City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals for the September 18th 2025 roll call please. Ballard here. 00:00:12.176 --> 00:00:23.575 - Burrell here today here. Next on our agenda will be the approval of the minutes from August 21 2025 00:00:23.575 --> 00:00:29.502 - move to approve minutes August 21st 2025. I second. 00:00:34.370 --> 00:00:44.142 - I can't vote. Well you can vote if you want to. You don't have to have attended to vote. But if you 00:00:44.142 --> 00:00:54.500 - would prefer to abstain we can continue them to the next hearing. What would you like to do. I'll abstain 00:00:54.500 --> 00:01:01.438 - from voting today. So let's continue. Continue. So make a record that. 00:01:01.730 --> 00:01:11.605 - The approval of the minutes is continued to the next meeting. This evening we have some petitions that 00:01:11.605 --> 00:01:21.479 - are continued to the October 23rd 2025 meeting and that's a dash 17 dash 22 John Kemp Construction LLC 00:01:21.479 --> 00:01:28.190 - and Blackwell Construction Inc. We also have see you dash 32 dash 25. 00:01:28.546 --> 00:01:45.743 - Spring Point Architects, Barry Clapper. We also have CU-33-24, Hatt Rentals, LLC. Also continued are 00:01:45.743 --> 00:01:52.894 - CU-33-25, Yehee Engineers, St. Ramey HOA. 00:01:53.474 --> 00:02:09.152 - V-39-25 Brownsmith Studios LLC Lucas Brown. We also have V-40-25 H.R. Green, Inc. Don Cowden Foundation, 00:02:09.152 --> 00:02:23.038 - Inc. And for the petitions this evening, we have V-35-25 Griffey Properties Ethan Michelson. 00:02:24.322 --> 00:02:43.972 - We also have V-36-25, Mohsen Kianadasha, Kianazade, Kianazada. We also have CU-37-25, built LLC, Madeline 00:02:43.972 --> 00:02:53.982 - Sanders. We also have CU-38-25, sex there, sex there, 00:02:54.178 --> 00:03:18.938 - Ooh, sex standard properties LLC. With that in mind, may I have the presentation for the first petition, 00:03:18.938 --> 00:03:24.126 - please? Good evening. 00:03:24.226 --> 00:03:31.193 - For our first petition this evening, we'll be looking at a determined sidewalk variance for a single 00:03:31.193 --> 00:03:38.366 - family dwelling located in the residential medium lot R2 zoning district. As you can see, this property 00:03:38.366 --> 00:03:45.333 - is located on the northeast side of the city. Along Headley Road there, that property as well as all 00:03:45.333 --> 00:03:50.782 - the surrounding properties are zoned R2. There is some mixed use institutional 00:03:51.010 --> 00:04:00.578 - property to the east, all owned by the trustees of Indiana University. It is a 0.79 acre property. And 00:04:00.578 --> 00:04:09.311 - at issue here is a, when construction of this home was to occur, it required the construction 00:04:09.311 --> 00:04:18.600 - and installation of a 12 foot wide multi-use path along the property frontage as laid out here with 00:04:18.600 --> 00:04:20.830 - the original site plan. 00:04:23.522 --> 00:04:33.336 - The request for the determined sidewalk variance comes about because there is no other multi-use path 00:04:33.336 --> 00:04:43.151 - currently along Headley Road and development is not seen to be very likely in the near future. And it 00:04:43.151 --> 00:04:49.886 - would be better constructed and installed when future projects occur. 00:04:50.786 --> 00:04:58.791 - This sidewalk also has topography limitations. All along Headley Road, you will see that there is vegetation, 00:04:58.791 --> 00:05:06.578 - as well as particularly with this property, there are some tall canopy trees that would have to be removed 00:05:06.578 --> 00:05:13.928 - for this path. So looking at the combination of the topography all along Headley Road, the fact that 00:05:13.928 --> 00:05:20.478 - Indiana University does control a portion of the property as well, and so any future path 00:05:20.706 --> 00:05:27.483 - would have to bring IU as well as the other property owners into building this 12 foot wide multi-use 00:05:27.483 --> 00:05:34.726 - path as well. And so looking at our findings that we have to consider for this determined sidewalk variance, 00:05:34.726 --> 00:05:41.437 - the first one is that the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, or morals of 00:05:41.437 --> 00:05:47.550 - general welfare. We find it would not be injurious to the public health, safety, or morals. 00:05:50.466 --> 00:05:57.214 - as there are currently no pedestrian facilities to connect to on the adjacent properties. And so connecting 00:05:57.214 --> 00:06:03.838 - or installing this path would not benefit pedestrians at this time. For the second criteria, the adjacent 00:06:03.838 --> 00:06:10.211 - properties would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. We find that the use and value of 00:06:10.211 --> 00:06:17.022 - the areas adjacent to the property would not be affected adversely as again, there are no current pedestrian 00:06:17.022 --> 00:06:18.334 - facilities installed 00:06:19.746 --> 00:06:25.218 - And while it would be beneficial to have a multi-use path along the entire length of this property's 00:06:25.218 --> 00:06:30.689 - frontage, the construction would be best forestalled until other development or projects necessitate 00:06:30.689 --> 00:06:36.215 - the path's construction. And again, with the practical difficulties peculiar to the property, we find 00:06:36.215 --> 00:06:41.632 - that a multi-use path to be installed at this time would require the path and the location that may 00:06:41.632 --> 00:06:47.104 - not be appropriate if the pedestrian network is installed along this corridor at a future time. This 00:06:47.104 --> 00:06:49.054 - property and surrounding properties 00:06:49.794 --> 00:06:55.679 - are on the periphery of city boundaries, very rural in nature, and a great degree of challenging topography 00:06:55.679 --> 00:07:01.237 - along Headley Road. Again, the further peculiarity that the majority of the property is also owned by 00:07:01.237 --> 00:07:06.740 - Indiana University, where redevelopment would require future additional pedestrian improvements, may 00:07:06.740 --> 00:07:12.516 - not be triggered, which would further complicate the likelihood that pedestrian improvements would happen 00:07:12.516 --> 00:07:14.750 - outside a much larger plan for the area. 00:07:17.986 --> 00:07:23.720 - and we feel this path would best be coordinated and installed when it can be connected to other properties 00:07:23.720 --> 00:07:29.239 - with multi-use paths at a future date to better facilitate path cohesion and maintenance. And as such, 00:07:29.239 --> 00:07:34.812 - the department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve this 00:07:34.812 --> 00:07:40.278 - petition with the following condition, that a zoning commitment for the determinant sidewalk variance 00:07:40.278 --> 00:07:44.350 - must be recorded within 60 days. And I'm here for any questions. Thank you. 00:07:45.474 --> 00:07:52.900 - Is there anybody here representing the petitioner. Yeah you may go forward and sign in and then once 00:07:52.900 --> 00:07:55.326 - you sign in I will swear you in. 00:08:14.626 --> 00:08:22.270 - Yeah. What is your name. Ethan Michelson Ethan Michelson. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony 00:08:22.270 --> 00:08:29.991 - you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes I do. You have 00:08:29.991 --> 00:08:37.788 - 20 minutes and you don't have to use all 20 minutes. You can reserve the right to use it later at the 00:08:37.788 --> 00:08:38.782 - end. OK. OK. 00:08:38.914 --> 00:08:48.768 - I really don't have a whole lot to add to Joe Patterson's excellent presentation. So thank you. Thank 00:08:48.768 --> 00:08:58.429 - you for that. I will maybe just sort of underscore a couple of a couple of points. So I I live next 00:08:58.429 --> 00:09:08.766 - door to the property in question. I live at 24 15 North Headley Road and the parcel in question used to be 00:09:09.186 --> 00:09:18.321 - It used to belong to 2415 North Headley. So 2415 North Headley used to have two parcels of land. 00:09:18.321 --> 00:09:27.926 - In fact, this is just sort of background information. And last year I inquired with the Department of 00:09:27.926 --> 00:09:37.531 - Planning and Transportation about constructing an ADU and turned out that that was not a great option 00:09:37.531 --> 00:09:39.038 - because the 800 00:09:39.138 --> 00:09:45.489 - 40 square foot limit for 80 use is the sum total of all accessory dwelling units including detached 00:09:45.489 --> 00:09:51.903 - garages and that would have left me with about 300 square feet and and and I just posed the question 00:09:51.903 --> 00:09:56.158 - is it possible to move the property line because the property line 00:09:56.546 --> 00:10:03.499 - Separating the two parcels ran through the middle of my house ran through the middle of 2415 and I was 00:10:03.499 --> 00:10:10.249 - working with Katie Gandhi at the time And and she said sure you can apply for a lot line adjustment 00:10:10.249 --> 00:10:17.201 - And that's what we did. That's how we created the the smaller point seven nine acre parcel that is now 00:10:17.201 --> 00:10:23.614 - two four zero three north Headley Road and that's that parcel is 60 feet wide that is what the 00:10:23.714 --> 00:10:32.485 - The the city has asked me to you know to to install a multi-use path in front but but but nowhere else 00:10:32.485 --> 00:10:41.170 - not in front of 2415 North Headley or anywhere else in the area and I think that's sort of the thrust 00:10:41.170 --> 00:10:49.685 - of the of the argument for the the determinant sidewalk variance that at the moment currently there 00:10:49.685 --> 00:10:50.622 - is not one 00:10:50.946 --> 00:11:03.240 - of sidewalk anywhere within at least a quarter of a mile radius. So that would be the entirety of Headley 00:11:03.240 --> 00:11:15.998 - Road, Matlock, Maplecrest, Treadwell, Browncliff. And so it would serve no purpose to have a 60-foot sidewalk 00:11:16.098 --> 00:11:26.188 - long multi-use path that if in the future, when and if the city decides to construct a multi-use path 00:11:26.188 --> 00:11:33.310 - along Matlock and Headley Road, because that is sort of an aspirational 00:11:33.410 --> 00:11:43.507 - kind of in the city's long-range transportation plan. I think it's an excellent idea. I mean, if you've 00:11:43.507 --> 00:11:53.409 - ever walked on Matlock or Headley Road, there are no streetlights. It doesn't feel terribly safe. And 00:11:53.409 --> 00:11:58.846 - so I and my neighbors in the South Griffey neighborhood 00:11:59.234 --> 00:12:08.291 - you know, certainly don't object to the construction of a unified multi-use path along the entire streets, 00:12:08.291 --> 00:12:17.010 - Matlock and Headley. But to have, you know, just a 60-foot section would serve, that would not improve 00:12:17.010 --> 00:12:25.897 - safety or the wellbeing of anybody. And in fact, when I sent the notification out to my neighbors within 00:12:25.897 --> 00:12:28.606 - a 300-foot radius of the house, 00:12:28.738 --> 00:12:39.062 - Notifying them of today's hearing. I received some unsolicited responses, several from neighbors who 00:12:39.062 --> 00:12:49.386 - were quite surprisingly passionate in supporting me and objecting to the construction of just a tiny 00:12:49.386 --> 00:12:56.030 - 60-foot section of multi-use path. Several of them characterized 00:12:56.130 --> 00:13:04.370 - such a sidewalk as an eyesore, you know, just a piece of, some thought it would be concrete. I don't 00:13:04.370 --> 00:13:12.855 - think it would be concrete, but nonetheless, I mean, blacktop, asphalt, concrete, whatever the material 00:13:12.855 --> 00:13:18.974 - to be there, not improving safety and being an eyesore does not, it would, 00:13:19.266 --> 00:13:29.555 - it would diminish the character of the neighborhood, the rural character. Moreover, constructing that 00:13:29.555 --> 00:13:39.944 - wood, it would run the proposed location or the required location of the multi-use path. There are two 00:13:39.944 --> 00:13:41.054 - very large 00:13:41.250 --> 00:13:49.684 - white pine trees that are on the exact spot where that multi-use path would have to be. And one of the 00:13:49.684 --> 00:13:57.873 - conditions for the building permit that the city issued right was that I record a tree preservation 00:13:57.873 --> 00:14:04.670 - easement you know in the west part of the of the parcel because to preserve closed 00:14:05.090 --> 00:14:13.789 - tree canopy so it's clear that preserving trees and preserving you know large trees that provide a closed 00:14:13.789 --> 00:14:22.241 - canopy is a priority of the city and and to so building this tiny section of sidewalk that would serve 00:14:22.241 --> 00:14:23.390 - no no purpose 00:14:23.682 --> 00:14:34.326 - would require cutting down a couple of large white pine trees would contradict the city's priority of 00:14:34.326 --> 00:14:44.760 - preserving closed tree canopy, which I did by recording a large, it's about one third of an acre on 00:14:44.760 --> 00:14:51.230 - the west side of the parcel. The final argument is just about 00:14:51.394 --> 00:14:59.424 - sort of equity and fairness that when the, I mean, this is an old, very old established neighborhood. 00:14:59.424 --> 00:15:07.691 - And there's really, I mean, there hasn't been new construction in that entire area for a very long time. 00:15:07.691 --> 00:15:15.958 - I mean, my house is the first new construction in decades. And in fact, the last prior to my, I believe, 00:15:15.958 --> 00:15:19.422 - this could be verified, but I believe that, 00:15:19.650 --> 00:15:26.675 - One of the unsolicited letters that I received is from someone who lives on Browncliffe Lane, 00:15:26.675 --> 00:15:33.625 - George Keller. He said in 2007 he built a house. He said it was the last lot on Browncliffe. 00:15:33.625 --> 00:15:39.678 - And back then, in 2007, he was required to construct a sidewalk and he submitted 00:15:39.842 --> 00:15:48.312 - the same kind of variance request that I've submitted and it was supported by the South Griffey Neighborhood 00:15:48.312 --> 00:15:56.237 - Association and it was ultimately supported by the Board of Zoning Appeals and made the same kinds of 00:15:56.237 --> 00:16:04.085 - arguments that I did. But if the city does proceed eventually with constructing a multi-use path, as 00:16:04.085 --> 00:16:08.670 - Joe just mentioned now, when it's a unified coherent plan, 00:16:08.834 --> 00:16:17.570 - the precise location of the path that crosses the parcel at 2403 North Headley, it might differ slightly. 00:16:17.570 --> 00:16:26.305 - They may have to tear it up and redo it, which point the personal cost to me, which would be substantial, 00:16:26.305 --> 00:16:27.294 - it would be 00:16:27.458 --> 00:16:34.934 - wasted because no one would be using that tiny section of sidewalk and it could potentially have to 00:16:34.934 --> 00:16:42.410 - be redone and we would have lost a tree, two trees in fact. In the grand scheme of things, the cost 00:16:42.410 --> 00:16:50.334 - to the city, the incremental cost to the city for that 60 foot stretch of multi-use path above and beyond 00:16:50.498 --> 00:16:57.614 - The path for the entire area would be nominal. It wouldn't add much to the budget, to the city, but 00:16:57.614 --> 00:17:04.801 - to me personally, it would be a lot. And so, you know, no other homeowner would have to pay. I would 00:17:04.801 --> 00:17:11.988 - be the only one having to pay for something that no one would use and would benefit nobody and would 00:17:11.988 --> 00:17:17.182 - be an eyesore and would require two trees to come down. So that's the... 00:17:18.146 --> 00:17:26.044 - The thrust of the, I have copies of the unsolicited letters that I received. I didn't have time, because 00:17:26.044 --> 00:17:34.168 - one arrived yesterday, one arrived a few days ago, and so I didn't have time to include it in the materials 00:17:34.168 --> 00:17:41.916 - I submitted. But I have copies if anybody would like to see. I'd be happy to answer any questions that 00:17:41.916 --> 00:17:45.150 - anyone has. Thank you very much. Oh, sure. 00:18:03.362 --> 00:18:15.793 - Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff or the petitioner by the board. Just a quick administrative 00:18:15.793 --> 00:18:27.609 - question for staff. What happens after 60 days if it's not recorded. Do they have to come back. 00:18:27.609 --> 00:18:32.286 - They would. Okay. That's all. Thanks. 00:18:40.482 --> 00:18:55.018 - I have no further questions on my end Thank you So no questions for staff, so let's go to public comment 00:18:55.018 --> 00:19:09.278 - Is there anybody in the house that would like to speak or online And this is directed at petition v-35 00:19:09.730 --> 00:19:21.362 - That's 25. All right. So no public comment. So we're back to the board for for action. I'll give you 00:19:21.362 --> 00:19:24.702 - a couple of minutes to read. 00:19:59.202 --> 00:20:08.884 - I think to Mr. Michelson's point, Bloomington has a big problem building sidewalks to nowhere. It's 00:20:08.884 --> 00:20:19.049 - all over town. So to your point, having a sidewalk to nowhere is an eyesore. So sidewalks should connect 00:20:19.049 --> 00:20:29.118 - to something at some point. So with that, I move to adopt the proposed findings and approve case D3525. 00:20:29.250 --> 00:20:43.442 - ZR 20 25 0 8 0 0 8 9 with the conditions in the packet. I have a second second roll call please. Burrell. 00:20:43.442 --> 00:20:56.830 - Yes. Today. Yes. Ballard. Yes. Congratulations. It's approved. Now we'll move to our next petition. 00:20:59.586 --> 00:21:13.568 - Case v-36 that dash 25. May I have the staff report, please? Before you is a variance for from driveway 00:21:13.568 --> 00:21:26.878 - with standards for a single-family dwelling within a medium lot residential r2 zoning district and 00:21:27.682 --> 00:21:38.537 - This property is at 2214 East Maxwell Lane. This is a dead end street on the Mideast side of the city 00:21:38.537 --> 00:21:49.498 - here. You can see that that property as well as the surrounding properties are all zoned R2. The mixed 00:21:49.498 --> 00:21:57.054 - use institutional property to the north is for the elementary schools. 00:22:04.482 --> 00:22:12.040 - This dwelling is currently under construction and the owners are requesting to have a 24 foot wide driveway 00:22:12.040 --> 00:22:19.389 - rather than the 18 foot standard maximum allow driveway within the UDO. The owners claim that this would 00:22:19.389 --> 00:22:26.527 - help them with maneuverability of their vehicles as well as maintain the vehicles within the driveway 00:22:26.527 --> 00:22:31.006 - rather than on street parking as Maxwell Lane is a narrow lane. 00:22:39.138 --> 00:22:45.779 - As you can see here the blue blue lines indicate what the maximum allowed driveway with would approximately 00:22:45.779 --> 00:22:51.928 - be and the owners are requesting an additional three feet on each side of that to be the same width 00:22:51.928 --> 00:22:58.138 - as the entire garage. So again with our findings the first one that the approval not be injurious to 00:22:58.138 --> 00:23:04.349 - the public health safety morals general welfare of the community. We find that it would be injurious 00:23:04.349 --> 00:23:09.022 - to the public health safety morals of the general welfare of the community. 00:23:09.410 --> 00:23:16.238 - as wider drive cuts create greater dangers for pedestrians crossing driveways and allowing that 24 foot 00:23:16.238 --> 00:23:23.198 - wide drive cut increases dangers to pedestrians into vehicles. It should be noted that there was a change 00:23:23.198 --> 00:23:29.763 - within the code several years ago that reduced driveway widths to that 18 foot essentially for that 00:23:29.763 --> 00:23:37.182 - use citywide. And that was a cognitive decision at the time to reduce that with for these exact safety concerns. 00:23:39.906 --> 00:23:45.525 - For our second finding that the use and value area adjacent to the property included would not be affected 00:23:45.525 --> 00:23:50.828 - in a substantially adverse manner. We do not find that there would be adverse impacts to the use and 00:23:50.828 --> 00:23:56.185 - value of surrounding properties. Several properties along Maxwell have lawful nonconforming driveways 00:23:56.185 --> 00:24:01.436 - that exceed the current 18 foot driveway and were installed prior to the current UDO standards. For 00:24:01.436 --> 00:24:06.687 - our third criteria that the strict application would result in practical difficulties in the use of 00:24:06.687 --> 00:24:07.422 - the property. 00:24:07.970 --> 00:24:14.661 - that those practical difficulties are peculiar to the property. We find that the strict application 00:24:14.661 --> 00:24:21.485 - would not result in practical difficulties or in the use of the property. Considering that a standard 00:24:21.485 --> 00:24:28.376 - parking stall width is eight and a half feet. So to park two vehicles, if you were to have two parking 00:24:28.376 --> 00:24:35.134 - stalls, that would be 17 feet. So an 18 foot wide driveway would more than accommodate two vehicles. 00:24:38.818 --> 00:24:45.166 - And again, while it certainly only acknowledged that there might be a desire to have wider driveways, 00:24:45.166 --> 00:24:51.390 - there's no demonstrated peculiar condition for this property in particular. And again, with respect 00:24:51.390 --> 00:24:57.739 - to the safety aspect, there was that cognitive decision to reduce the driveway width across the city. 00:24:57.739 --> 00:25:04.336 - And therefore, it's the department's recommendation that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt these proposed 00:25:04.336 --> 00:25:08.382 - findings and deny this petition. And I'm here for any questions. 00:25:09.698 --> 00:25:19.651 - Thank you. Is there a representative of the petitioner in chambers. Yes you may approach sign in sign 00:25:19.651 --> 00:25:29.604 - your name whoever is going to speak and I'm going to swear you in. So if it's the two of you that are 00:25:29.604 --> 00:25:33.214 - going to speak both need to sign in. 00:26:14.146 --> 00:26:22.849 - So combined you're going to have 20 minutes. So use that wisely and make can you both say your name. 00:26:22.849 --> 00:26:32.070 - I'll just swear both in at the same time. All right. Good evening members of the board. My name is Mohsen. 00:26:32.070 --> 00:26:40.859 - Sorry I can't hear you. Sorry. Good evening members members of the board. My name is Mohsen. And your 00:26:40.859 --> 00:26:43.358 - name Isla. Last name please. 00:26:44.162 --> 00:26:51.141 - Sir Ravi Nia. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that your testimony that you are about to give will 00:26:51.141 --> 00:26:58.259 - be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Yes. Thank you. So one may start and the 00:26:58.259 --> 00:27:05.238 - other one will go after. Sure. You have 20 minutes and there's a timer there so you can keep track. 00:27:05.238 --> 00:27:12.217 - English is not my first language. So to make sure our case is presented clearly my daughter will be 00:27:12.217 --> 00:27:13.822 - speaking on my behalf. 00:27:14.306 --> 00:27:21.187 - I appreciate your patience and thank you for your time. I'm here to speak on behalf of my parents. We 00:27:21.187 --> 00:27:28.406 - appreciate your time this evening and I'd like to walk you through why why we are requesting the variance. 00:27:28.406 --> 00:27:35.692 - We want to begin by acknowledging the planning department's concerns. The report argues that wider driveway 00:27:35.692 --> 00:27:42.439 - cuts can create more conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. That reasoning makes sense in areas 00:27:42.439 --> 00:27:43.518 - with sidewalks. 00:27:43.714 --> 00:27:49.586 - But on the street there are no sidewalks at all. Pedestrians are forced to walk in the roadway itself 00:27:49.586 --> 00:27:55.515 - side by side with moving vehicles. This property also faces a series of unique and peculiar conditions 00:27:55.515 --> 00:28:01.617 - that amplify the safety challenge. The street is narrow and is lined with on street parking which reduces 00:28:01.617 --> 00:28:07.374 - maneuvering space and blocks sight lines to pedestrian walking paths connect directly to the street 00:28:07.374 --> 00:28:12.382 - which increases foot traffic in front of the property. There's also a bus stop nearby. 00:28:12.514 --> 00:28:18.609 - which adds even more pedestrian activity. These combined conditions make this property fundamentally 00:28:18.609 --> 00:28:24.703 - different from most others. With the current allowed width, cars must swing wide or make multi point 00:28:24.703 --> 00:28:30.918 - turns, keeping them in the road longer and increasing the chance of conflict. An 18 foot wide driveway 00:28:30.918 --> 00:28:37.073 - is simply too narrow to function for daily use. Two cars barely fit side by side and with trash bins, 00:28:37.073 --> 00:28:40.030 - bikes or strollers, there's no room to maneuver. 00:28:40.674 --> 00:28:47.217 - that would regularly force us to park on the street. A 24 foot cut would allow a single direct movement 00:28:47.217 --> 00:28:53.572 - with better visibility actually reducing risk for both drivers and pedestrians. For these reasons we 00:28:53.572 --> 00:28:59.927 - respectfully submit that a wider driveway here would not be interest to public health and safety but 00:28:59.927 --> 00:29:06.470 - would rather improve it. The peculiar conditions of this property no sidewalks street parking permitted 00:29:06.470 --> 00:29:08.798 - a narrow street heavy pedestrian use 00:29:09.218 --> 00:29:16.851 - walking paths and a nearby bus stop make the variance necessary and consistent with the intent of the 00:29:16.851 --> 00:29:24.709 - ordinance. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you. And you still have 17 minutes 00:29:24.709 --> 00:29:32.492 - to speak if you need to. OK. So we're going to go for questions for the staff to the petitioner. I mean 00:29:32.492 --> 00:29:35.710 - from the board to the petitioner or staff. 00:29:40.642 --> 00:29:51.193 - The first question is do we know when the UDO changed in order to add this the 18 foot limit. Are you 00:29:51.193 --> 00:30:01.744 - referring specifically with when that driveway with was reduced to 18 feet. That was reduced citywide 00:30:01.744 --> 00:30:05.054 - with the 2020 amendment update. 00:30:05.346 --> 00:30:12.079 - Way to go Commissioner Ballard for knowing that off the top of his head when I asked him a moment ago. 00:30:12.079 --> 00:30:18.747 - So second question is So it's been in the UDO five years how many times have we had a petitioner come 00:30:18.747 --> 00:30:21.950 - and request a variance for something like this I 00:30:23.778 --> 00:30:31.479 - Assistant director Jackie Scanlon I just want to make a couple of clarifications. It's been 18 feet 00:30:31.479 --> 00:30:39.334 - wide for this zoning district for much longer than that. We because of the focus on pedestrian safety 00:30:39.334 --> 00:30:47.265 - and like kind of improving that interface. We went citywide with this use in 2000 and I'm so sorry and 00:30:47.265 --> 00:30:53.118 - I can't off the top of my head say how many we've had. I wouldn't say many. 00:30:53.570 --> 00:31:02.937 - I can't actually think of another one but that doesn't mean that hasn't happened. But for a single family 00:31:02.937 --> 00:31:11.862 - or plex use on a local road that would be very uncommon. Just a quick one to the petitioner in terms 00:31:11.862 --> 00:31:21.406 - of can you just walk us through what the extra four feet gives you. You said like trash cans be able to set 00:31:23.426 --> 00:31:31.734 - Can you come to the, yeah, thanks. Our driveway is short a little bit, and if I put my two cars next 00:31:31.734 --> 00:31:40.371 - together, it's very tight. And if I want to take the trash cans out, or if you want to move the bicycle, 00:31:40.371 --> 00:31:48.844 - stroller, or something like that, it's very tight, and there's no room for two of that. And they force 00:31:48.844 --> 00:31:50.078 - us to put our, 00:31:50.242 --> 00:31:57.435 - Car on the street and the street very narrow you see the pictures if I put this cars on the street piston 00:31:57.435 --> 00:32:04.357 - it they have to Know what in middle of the street and during night if you come over there, there's no 00:32:04.357 --> 00:32:11.211 - Light or something like this. I think this is more dangerous for pedestrian to put our car in middle 00:32:11.211 --> 00:32:17.726 - of not in on the street Do you know what the nearest sidewalk is in your neighborhood? Say yeah 00:32:18.338 --> 00:32:27.494 - Do you know where the closest sidewalk is the closest. Yes the closest sidewalk is on the other parts 00:32:27.494 --> 00:32:37.189 - of Maxwell so like across the street not on the dead end part of it. Okay. Thank you. Yes I have a question 00:32:37.189 --> 00:32:46.255 - for staff. So I understand that the 18 feet is that on the driveway cut on the road or can he have a 00:32:46.255 --> 00:32:47.422 - wider apron. 00:32:48.034 --> 00:32:56.430 - Closer to the house. Can he can he have a much wider apron that you know against the garage and then 00:32:56.430 --> 00:33:04.742 - have an 18 foot driveway cut. Basically what the code says is that the maximum driveway width is 18 00:33:04.742 --> 00:33:13.886 - feet between the street and the front building setback. So there's no possibility of doing an apron of sorts. 00:33:19.234 --> 00:33:26.162 - Go ahead the apron. Yes yeah yeah they can't expand wider than 18 feet between the road and the front 00:33:26.162 --> 00:33:33.363 - setback without a variance and their house is built right up to that line I believe is what Mr. Patterson 00:33:33.363 --> 00:33:40.155 - was saying so there is no room for them to expand that even like if they came in at 18 and then got 00:33:40.155 --> 00:33:47.219 - wider they would need a variance for that. So I guess my question would be from the cut from the street 00:33:47.219 --> 00:33:48.510 - cut to the garage. 00:33:49.794 --> 00:33:57.962 - Is there a requirement of that distance. Yeah. Oh no. So it just depends where their house is in this 00:33:57.962 --> 00:34:06.131 - situation because of how far or close their house is to the road. It's 18 feet all the way up. I mean 00:34:06.131 --> 00:34:14.299 - it's 18 feet wide from the road to the garage. OK. Because is it too close. Is it on the setback. Yes 00:34:14.299 --> 00:34:17.342 - I believe sitting on a setback. Yeah. 00:34:18.850 --> 00:34:25.741 - Because is it a build to it is not built. They are built at the setback. Yeah they built out right at 00:34:25.741 --> 00:34:32.564 - the setback. They built right on the setback. Yeah. The way to think of an alternative sure I'm here 00:34:32.564 --> 00:34:39.454 - the way that I understand what he's proposing but I understand I cannot change code either. So I just 00:34:39.454 --> 00:34:44.318 - want to know if there is an alternative to that. It looks like the way. 00:34:44.770 --> 00:34:50.817 - That the variance is is requested variance from driveway with standards. I mean that gives you some 00:34:50.817 --> 00:34:56.863 - a little bit of leeway where it's not just talking about the apron or you know that you could allow 00:34:56.863 --> 00:35:03.031 - it past a certain number of feet but we would need to know more about the site. I think if you wanted 00:35:03.031 --> 00:35:09.078 - to allow them to flare out further north or further closer to the house because then we if we flare 00:35:09.078 --> 00:35:12.766 - out closer to the house then we we fulfill the spirit of the 00:35:14.530 --> 00:35:23.108 - of the UDO requirement which is the pedestrian correct when it's connected to the road. Do you understand 00:35:23.108 --> 00:35:31.848 - what I'm trying to propose. No can you tell me what I'm sorry. So the driveway right now is just a straight 00:35:31.848 --> 00:35:40.021 - driveway going straight to the garage right to the width of the garage. And what you were requesting 00:35:40.021 --> 00:35:43.582 - was three feet on each side correct. I can. 00:35:43.682 --> 00:35:52.047 - Because the way the ordinance is is written it's about pedestrian crossing where they're going to cross 00:35:52.047 --> 00:36:00.331 - on the road in front of your house. Right. So what I'm trying to find is a solution that you will have 00:36:00.331 --> 00:36:08.615 - a wider driveway closer to your garage. Right. But then your driveway will taper. Yeah. Does that make 00:36:08.615 --> 00:36:12.958 - sense. Yes. That works. Yes. Would that work for you. 00:36:15.618 --> 00:36:26.711 - Yeah OK so Mr. Patterson is going to call up the site plan that was submitted with their building permit 00:36:26.711 --> 00:36:37.592 - because the house is under construction. And then so you can see what the depth is and if there is any 00:36:37.592 --> 00:36:44.670 - way to let it flare out closer to the house. OK. If you hold down. 00:36:44.770 --> 00:37:10.590 - Hold on just a second please. Colleagues drawing. Yeah well we'll see if this can be done. Just a second please. 00:37:31.874 --> 00:37:41.066 - So there you can see the site plan that hash mark the front setback and then the edge of the street 00:37:41.066 --> 00:37:50.717 - there. So they only have that very brief portion of the driveway between the setback in the garage where 00:37:50.717 --> 00:37:54.302 - it could go beyond that 18 foot width. 00:38:00.706 --> 00:38:10.170 - So this is yeah this line right here is the setback line. So you have this portion right here that could 00:38:10.170 --> 00:38:19.454 - go beyond 18 feet but that is it. Yeah but that's that's not helpful. Right. Between here and then the 00:38:19.454 --> 00:38:29.278 - edge of the street here. What is that distance from the garage door to the setback line. You know four foot. 00:38:29.634 --> 00:38:42.102 - So it looks like it's just over 51 to the road Also, I don't know if you can see that there on the left 00:38:42.102 --> 00:38:54.690 - side great here Just if you're thinking about yeah depth of where you might want to Allow it to be wider 00:38:54.690 --> 00:38:59.006 - So what are our possibilities here? 00:39:11.810 --> 00:39:21.430 - I'm sorry. Thank you for pointing that out. The 51 is from the middle of the street No, that's also 00:39:21.430 --> 00:39:31.049 - from the middle. I don't think there's a dimension on there from the edge of road to the garage But 00:39:31.049 --> 00:39:41.150 - I mean you can see they're right that it's like it's showed 18 feet wide So if you can like imagine that 00:39:41.314 --> 00:39:50.200 - line going vertical instead of horizontal you know that's roughly 18 feet and probably roughly gets 00:39:50.200 --> 00:39:59.531 - to that proposed 30 foot right of way line as well so it would be then you know again just kind of using 00:39:59.531 --> 00:40:08.062 - that 18 feet distance as a guide just to see how far then for example if you let them flare out 00:40:09.922 --> 00:40:18.247 - you know 20 feet from the garage then there would probably still be you know at least 18 18 or 20 feet 00:40:18.247 --> 00:40:26.491 - from the edge of the street. And so then a typical you know parking space is eight and a half or nine 00:40:26.491 --> 00:40:28.350 - by 18 or 18 feet deep. 00:40:37.058 --> 00:40:43.795 - So potentially how close to the road can we get here Jackie. Well that would be up to you all. Yes. 00:40:43.795 --> 00:40:50.734 - Right. Yeah. OK. All right. So what they're asking for and correct me if I'm wrong is just to have the 00:40:50.734 --> 00:40:57.673 - whole thing be the width. If you're thinking of like a middle point you know staying at 18 at the road 00:40:57.673 --> 00:41:04.815 - and then coming and then letting it be wider closer to the house we would want to know. Yeah. Like you're 00:41:04.815 --> 00:41:07.038 - saying how far in would that be. 00:41:07.650 --> 00:41:18.235 - And it looks like that driveway is probably it's so hard to figure out maybe 40 feet long. Do you think 00:41:18.235 --> 00:41:28.412 - it's 40 feet long to the edge of the road. Maybe. Yeah it looks like it's 45 feet. Well that's from 00:41:28.412 --> 00:41:37.470 - the center line from the center line of the road. Well we can measure from the garage to 00:41:37.570 --> 00:41:45.053 - From the edge of the house sure towards the correct you could say yeah, but for example you could say 00:41:45.053 --> 00:41:52.389 - You know 20 feet or 25 feet or whatever you are comfortable with from the garage at that point they 00:41:52.389 --> 00:41:59.798 - can flare it to a max of Whatever, you know 22 or whatever it was requested. All right So that might 00:41:59.798 --> 00:42:04.126 - be difficult. I mean in real life, you know the the actual 00:42:04.258 --> 00:42:13.625 - Flaring we'll have to start and go out before it hits the you know two feet more on each side So you 00:42:13.625 --> 00:42:22.993 - want to make sure it's deep enough for a card actually a curve right because otherwise You know, you 00:42:22.993 --> 00:42:33.566 - can't maneuver cars. Yeah All right But does that Real quick make sure sure that makes sense then design wise Yes 00:42:33.666 --> 00:42:42.038 - We're proposing like I said we try to meet the the UDO and the requirements are but then also give you 00:42:42.038 --> 00:42:50.328 - an extra four feet And Jackie we have to state how far sorry how far from the garage I think it would 00:42:50.328 --> 00:42:58.943 - make sense to say You know the the driveway width can exceed 18 feet beginning and then you know X number 00:42:58.943 --> 00:43:00.894 - of feet from the garage 00:43:01.218 --> 00:43:08.086 - So if you say 25 feet from the garage that's when they start the flare and then you know to a maximum 00:43:08.086 --> 00:43:15.425 - width of 22 or 24. I'm sorry I don't remember what they're asking. Whatever the maximum width they requested 00:43:15.425 --> 00:43:22.293 - was it was three feet on each side. OK. Yes. So then 24. So the width can be 24. But then how far are 00:43:22.293 --> 00:43:27.006 - you going to make it a nice curve entrance. That's the other problem. 00:43:39.170 --> 00:43:53.627 - Why so can I go I'll go ahead and make a motion and then we can discuss the reasons the findings of 00:43:53.627 --> 00:44:06.494 - fact that works so that we adopt the proposed findings and approve V dash 36 36 dash 25. 00:44:07.938 --> 00:44:19.976 - And the findings of facts are for number three which is the only one that staff did not agree on three. 00:44:19.976 --> 00:44:31.551 - You need to find findings for both one and three one and three. Right. One would be we are offering 00:44:31.551 --> 00:44:35.486 - 18 foot compliance at the street. 00:44:36.866 --> 00:44:44.336 - So that would allow for number one to be checked stays stays 18 feet. Right. And then number three the 00:44:44.336 --> 00:44:51.661 - practical difficulty being what they've presented based on sounds like the layout of the lot and how 00:44:51.661 --> 00:44:59.058 - they would need to force or the three extra feet on each side in order to maneuver safely. Really for 00:44:59.058 --> 00:45:05.150 - them it's a safety thing I think to be able to take their bikes and trash cans like 00:45:06.210 --> 00:45:16.173 - Because it looks like there's a kind of a drop off from there. So that would be the reasoning for number 00:45:16.173 --> 00:45:25.757 - three. And then did you want to have conditions specifying how far is 25. I'm not the best visual is 00:45:25.757 --> 00:45:28.414 - 25 feet. Do you guys think. 00:45:29.506 --> 00:45:36.917 - I mean I don't know. I would assume if it's 25 feet from the garage door it flares the 22. I think it's 00:45:36.917 --> 00:45:44.115 - very hard to give a hard number when we don't know exactly what that is and also what the curve will 00:45:44.115 --> 00:45:51.241 - require. You know sure. I think. Yeah you could say instead some distance from the edge of the road 00:45:51.241 --> 00:45:59.294 - that you want to be 18 feet for some distance. Whatever that is. I guess my question would be like for the city. 00:45:59.426 --> 00:46:07.368 - what would be ideal in terms of the you know where the driveway meets the road how many feet in you 00:46:07.368 --> 00:46:15.469 - know that it should be 18 feet sure I my feeling would be probably like eight and a half or nine like 00:46:15.469 --> 00:46:23.728 - so that when you're a pedestrian walking there you can tell that it's one car that's coming out because 00:46:23.728 --> 00:46:28.414 - there's it's clear that there's only space for one vehicle 00:46:29.282 --> 00:46:37.142 - So I mean you could say you could say that or you just say you know can can exceed 18 feet 10 feet south 00:46:37.142 --> 00:46:44.852 - of the edge of the street and then they can make it as wide as they need to with the flare beyond that 00:46:44.852 --> 00:46:52.712 - point or whatever number you know. I think the number is important as well anyway. Does that make sense. 00:46:52.712 --> 00:46:57.054 - Yeah. So allowed. So admitting that to say 10 feet south. 00:46:58.370 --> 00:47:11.168 - of the edge of the Maxwell it'll be 18 feet and then can flare out to 24 feet. So so within so 10 sorry 00:47:11.168 --> 00:47:23.843 - 18 feet sorry the condition would be that the driveway must remain 18 feet wide at least 10 feet south 00:47:23.843 --> 00:47:27.166 - of the edge of the street. 00:47:27.938 --> 00:47:36.542 - and then can flare out to a maximum of 24 feet until the garage. Right. Because that gives them another. 00:47:36.542 --> 00:47:44.819 - Do you know approximately what is the the length of the driveway. It's probably close to 40 38 37. I 00:47:44.819 --> 00:47:53.013 - don't remember exactly the number but 37 feet long. Yes. OK. So 35 35 38. I don't remember exactly. 00:47:53.013 --> 00:47:57.438 - It was more than 40. Yeah. So 10 feet. That would be. 00:47:58.306 --> 00:48:10.271 - You know a little less than one fourth of the driveway does that make sense. Yes. Yes. Okay. Does that 00:48:10.271 --> 00:48:21.887 - solve your situation. Yes. Thank you. Okay. All right. I second. It's a long one. Oh I'm sorry. Did 00:48:21.887 --> 00:48:27.230 - you do public comment on this one. We didn't. 00:48:27.394 --> 00:48:35.901 - I don't know. Yes. All right. Yes we were on questions only. So let's go back and give some moment for 00:48:35.901 --> 00:48:44.325 - public comment. Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to speak or online. If you're in the 00:48:44.325 --> 00:48:52.914 - zoom you can raise your virtual hand or send a message to the host if you would like to comment on this 00:48:52.914 --> 00:48:57.374 - petition. I don't see any anyone commenting for zoom. 00:49:01.218 --> 00:49:11.158 - Right. So we're back to the VCA for a final action and you have the you have everything that you said. 00:49:11.158 --> 00:49:21.001 - I think so because Tim made an actual motion. We're getting a little crazy with the Roberts rules and 00:49:21.001 --> 00:49:31.038 - then then Ryan seconded. So I think we're OK. OK. So let's go. Let's do a roll call please. Today. Yes. 00:49:31.298 --> 00:49:52.450 - Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Thank you. May I have the step step report on the next case please. Case 00:49:52.450 --> 00:49:56.638 - CU dash 37 dash 25. 00:49:59.074 --> 00:50:07.666 - Jackie Scanlon assistant director on this one. Actually, I think I need to engage Our counsel legal 00:50:07.666 --> 00:50:16.602 - counsel miss Casamania and she's online The request is for conditional use approval for some particular 00:50:16.602 --> 00:50:23.390 - development within the floodplain that's a conditional use that we have in the 00:50:24.034 --> 00:50:30.635 - In the UDO but it has particular conditional use findings for this particular conditional use and I 00:50:30.635 --> 00:50:37.302 - don't see those in the staff report and I didn't catch that this morning. We could do those findings 00:50:37.302 --> 00:50:44.035 - here but one of them requires a document. So I am going to see. So Miss Kasmanian agrees is concerned 00:50:44.035 --> 00:50:50.702 - that maybe we shouldn't aren't able to present this tonight. I'm going to ask Miss Sanders to unmute 00:50:50.702 --> 00:50:53.342 - who I believe is the petitioner and see 00:50:53.858 --> 00:51:01.111 - if that document does exist. Hi Madeline. All right. Hello. Hi. OK. In our UDO under conditional uses 00:51:01.111 --> 00:51:08.933 - for floodway and flood fringe development one of our particular conditional use standards says no conditional 00:51:08.933 --> 00:51:17.182 - use shall be approved until a permit citing the 100 year flood elevation and the recommended flood protection grade 00:51:17.282 --> 00:51:23.845 - or a letter stating that no permit is required has been obtained by Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 00:51:23.845 --> 00:51:29.987 - Do you. I didn't see either. I see that Mr. Grulick indicated a permit is not required but he didn't. 00:51:29.987 --> 00:51:36.189 - But I don't see something from DNR that says that. Do you all have that. I don't think a document like 00:51:36.189 --> 00:51:42.511 - that exists right now but I do know that any permits required for my DNR will happen after construction. 00:51:42.511 --> 00:51:46.846 - So that's kind of the reason that we don't have anything from them yet. 00:51:47.650 --> 00:51:56.173 - OK. Miss Cassamanian are you there. Yes. Cassamanian. Persevering to the legal department I'm here. 00:51:56.173 --> 00:52:05.037 - So we may need to look into this because it could be in direct conflict with the U.D.O.'s pre submittal 00:52:05.037 --> 00:52:13.560 - activities where Jackie Stanley mentioned a conditional use permit under that procedure. We do need 00:52:13.560 --> 00:52:17.054 - a letter from the state Indiana DNR that 00:52:17.474 --> 00:52:30.736 - Indicates that no permit would be required So I propose and I recommend that we maybe continue this 00:52:30.736 --> 00:52:44.926 - until we have that or until we can Make sense of this sort of conflict if it is a actual conflict Okay, so 00:52:45.026 --> 00:52:51.173 - I think the recommendation is for you all to continue it because the code is so explicit that those 00:52:51.173 --> 00:52:57.320 - that has to be Sussed out before the hearing before you can approve a conditional use for this. I'm 00:52:57.320 --> 00:53:03.468 - sorry I didn't notice that earlier but I don't think I don't think mr. Grulick has that or he would 00:53:03.468 --> 00:53:09.738 - have included it and as Mrs. Sanders said it maybe doesn't exist. So it might be something we need to 00:53:09.738 --> 00:53:11.582 - figure out before next month. 00:53:11.842 --> 00:53:23.730 - Yeah I'm very sorry that I'm very glad that you found it so we wouldn't be down the road and having 00:53:23.730 --> 00:53:36.093 - any trouble. So may I have a motion to continue. Yeah move to continue to next month's meeting on sorry 00:53:36.093 --> 00:53:41.086 - see you dash 37 dash 25. I have a second. 00:53:42.146 --> 00:53:52.028 - Oh, sorry, this is oh, yeah, I'm so sorry. You're right. Yes I Have a roll call, please Ballard yes, 00:53:52.028 --> 00:54:01.811 - Burrell. Yes today. Yes And miss Sanders I will be in touch with you shortly in looping mr. Grulick 00:54:01.811 --> 00:54:07.486 - so he can get you going with the next steps. Thank you. I 00:54:19.298 --> 00:54:37.479 - Whenever you're ready we may have the next report please. Good evening. Thank you to the board. So for 00:54:37.479 --> 00:54:45.598 - this case the petitioner is Todd Sackstetter. 00:54:48.962 --> 00:54:55.244 - And my name is Jamie crime where I'm the new senior zoning planner with the city of Bloomington. So 00:54:55.244 --> 00:55:01.841 - thank you for having me. So for this case the petitioner is Todd Sackstetter. The request is conditional 00:55:01.841 --> 00:55:08.123 - use approval to allow a dwelling duplex use in the residential small lot R3 zoning district as well 00:55:08.123 --> 00:55:14.657 - as a variance from the front building setback standards. The property is located at 111 South Jefferson 00:55:14.657 --> 00:55:18.238 - Street between East Fifth Street and East Fourth Street. 00:55:18.498 --> 00:55:25.637 - The site and the surrounding properties to the north, east, and south are zoned residential small lot 00:55:25.637 --> 00:55:33.196 - R3, and the properties across the street to the west are zoned R4, which is the residential urban district. 00:55:33.196 --> 00:55:40.335 - The size of this lot is .15 acres. The property currently contains a detached single family residence 00:55:40.335 --> 00:55:44.254 - and is surrounded by a mix of single family residences. 00:55:44.354 --> 00:55:50.595 - The property is within the green acres neighborhood association and the comprehensive plan designation 00:55:50.595 --> 00:55:56.714 - is mixed urban residential. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing residents and develop 00:55:56.714 --> 00:56:02.834 - the site with a new dwelling duplex based on feedback from the green acres neighborhood association. 00:56:02.834 --> 00:56:09.074 - The petitioner revised their plans to build the duplex farther back on the property which necessitated 00:56:09.074 --> 00:56:13.982 - a variance from the front bill to requirement of 15 feet from the property line. 00:56:16.642 --> 00:56:22.853 - The proposed duplex includes a new two-story structure with two three-bedroom, three bath dwelling units. 00:56:22.853 --> 00:56:28.712 - The residence has been designed with each unit having a separate exterior entrance facing Jefferson 00:56:28.712 --> 00:56:34.688 - Street to the west, which is what the UDO requires. The plan features a traditional home found in the 00:56:34.688 --> 00:56:40.958 - Greenacres neighborhood with matching roof and porch styles, and the exterior building materials primarily 00:56:40.958 --> 00:56:44.766 - include engineered wood siding and dimensional asphalt shingles. 00:56:46.018 --> 00:56:52.592 - You can see there what the proposed rendering would look like. The Green Acres Neighborhood Association 00:56:52.592 --> 00:56:59.103 - emphasized the importance of the new duplex, not visually overwhelming. The other house is on the same 00:56:59.103 --> 00:57:05.740 - side of the street in the block. And for the general compliance criteria, it was found that the petition 00:57:05.740 --> 00:57:12.630 - meets the use specific standards for a duplex in the R3 zoning district. There are no known other applicable 00:57:12.630 --> 00:57:14.590 - regulations for this petition. 00:57:14.690 --> 00:57:20.783 - Water and sewer services are available along Jefferson Street and will be coordinated with city utilities 00:57:20.783 --> 00:57:26.531 - and engineering. There are no known prior land use approvals for this site. The proposal is in line 00:57:26.531 --> 00:57:32.624 - with the goals of the comprehensive plan, which states that the mixed urban residential land use category 00:57:32.624 --> 00:57:38.430 - is largely in older neighborhoods and that redevelopment should be compatible with the surroundings. 00:57:38.530 --> 00:57:44.746 - Policy 5.3.1 also encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment with consideration for increased 00:57:44.746 --> 00:57:50.725 - residential densities and underutilized housing types such as duplexes. As stated by the petitioner, 00:57:50.725 --> 00:57:56.704 - new water and sewer services will be coordinated with city utilities and engineering and no problems 00:57:56.704 --> 00:58:03.156 - have been noted for connecting to those service lines. For new electrical service, this would be coordinated 00:58:03.156 --> 00:58:04.222 - with Duke Energy. 00:58:06.722 --> 00:58:12.411 - No significant adverse impacts are expected from the creation of the proposed duplex. The main concern 00:58:12.411 --> 00:58:18.099 - expressed by the Green Acres Neighborhood Association was about the placement of the duplex. The build 00:58:18.099 --> 00:58:23.622 - to line for this zoning district is 15 feet from the front property line. However, the Neighborhood 00:58:23.622 --> 00:58:29.200 - Association requested that the duplex is set back eight feet more than the house to the north at 109 00:58:29.200 --> 00:58:30.526 - South Jefferson Street. 00:58:30.658 --> 00:58:38.261 - petitioner revised their plans and is requesting a variance to build the duplex with the 33.47 foot 00:58:38.261 --> 00:58:42.366 - front setback. No phasing is proposed with this plan. 00:58:43.074 --> 00:58:48.661 - The approval of the requested setback variance is not expected to be injurious to the general welfare 00:58:48.661 --> 00:58:54.358 - of the neighborhood and community. The need for the front setback variance was the result of input from 00:58:54.358 --> 00:58:59.945 - the Green Acres Neighborhood Association so that the new duplex does not visually overwhelm the other 00:58:59.945 --> 00:59:05.533 - houses on that side of the block on Jefferson Street. The granting of the variance is not expected to 00:59:05.533 --> 00:59:10.846 - impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in a substantially adverse manner. 00:59:10.946 --> 00:59:16.949 - Given the condition of the existing house, the Neighborhood Association has no issues with the demolition 00:59:16.949 --> 00:59:22.556 - of the single-family home. The strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical 00:59:22.556 --> 00:59:28.276 - difficulties in the use of the property because it would require that the building is constructed in 00:59:28.276 --> 00:59:34.846 - a location inconsistent with the established block face of other residences along that section of Jefferson Street. 00:59:34.946 --> 00:59:41.285 - The peculiar condition in this case is that the adjacent properties are non-conforming and not built 00:59:41.285 --> 00:59:47.750 - at the 15 foot build-to line as required by the UDO. So to best fit with the existing character of the 00:59:47.750 --> 00:59:54.026 - Green Acres neighborhood, a variance is necessary for the new duplex to be set back 33.47 feet from 00:59:54.026 --> 01:00:00.428 - the front property line instead of the 15 foot build-to line. So lastly, with the recommendation, the 01:00:00.428 --> 01:00:01.118 - department 01:00:01.218 --> 01:00:07.231 - does recommend that the BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve this case with the conditions that 01:00:07.231 --> 01:00:13.127 - the conditional use and variance approval is limited to the design shown and discussed in the packet 01:00:13.127 --> 01:00:18.965 - and that two large street trees are required to be planted as shown on the plan. And that concludes 01:00:18.965 --> 01:00:24.920 - my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there a representative of 01:00:24.920 --> 01:00:25.854 - the petitioner. 01:00:26.370 --> 01:00:48.435 - Yes please come in and sign in and once you sign in please state your name so I can swear you win. Cod 01:00:48.435 --> 01:00:51.006 - sex better. 01:00:51.874 --> 01:00:59.027 - Do you swear or affirm that your testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth in nothing 01:00:59.027 --> 01:01:06.110 - but the truth. Yes I do. You have 20 minutes. She said hello. It was everything that I don't know if 01:01:06.110 --> 01:01:13.193 - I could add anything. We just we went into it. We took consideration met with Eric did everything he 01:01:13.193 --> 01:01:21.118 - asked. We went to the community and asked them what they wanted and they want us to move it back which was fair. 01:01:21.826 --> 01:01:27.821 - Don't have a problem. They want us to use like some type of nicer sightings that a vinyl stuff going 01:01:27.821 --> 01:01:33.756 - up. We said we'll use the LP which we use most of the time when we use any when we build anyway. So 01:01:33.756 --> 01:01:39.810 - all this fits in what we would like we would do anyway and we propose I mean what we're proposing. So 01:01:39.810 --> 01:01:45.924 - we're just asking for that variance and the approval to conditional use to build that duplex there and 01:01:45.924 --> 01:01:50.494 - the house is getting ready to demo it. We got the demo permits. It's a mess. 01:01:52.194 --> 01:02:02.978 - currently there. So if you want to reserve your the rest of your time you can and then we'll go from 01:02:02.978 --> 01:02:13.229 - there. I'm good. All right. Thank you so much. Any questions from the board. All good for staff 01:02:13.229 --> 01:02:19.742 - or petitioner. OK. Any public comment in chambers or online. 01:02:22.818 --> 01:02:32.120 - No public comment. All right. I move to adopt the fight the proposed findings and approve C.U.V. thirty 01:02:32.120 --> 01:02:41.421 - eight twenty five zero twenty five oh eight zero zero nine two zero zero nine three with the conditions 01:02:41.421 --> 01:02:49.918 - found in the packet. Second I have a roll call please. Burrell. Yes. Today. Yes. Ballard. Yes. 01:02:52.802 --> 01:02:55.582 - Well, this concludes our meeting. We are adjourned.