City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals for the September 18th 2025 roll call please. Ballard here.
Burrell here today here. Next on our agenda will be the approval of the minutes from August 21 2025
move to approve minutes August 21st 2025. I second.
I can't vote. Well you can vote if you want to. You don't have to have attended to vote. But if you
would prefer to abstain we can continue them to the next hearing. What would you like to do. I'll abstain
from voting today. So let's continue. Continue. So make a record that.
The approval of the minutes is continued to the next meeting. This evening we have some petitions that
are continued to the October 23rd 2025 meeting and that's a dash 17 dash 22 John Kemp Construction LLC
and Blackwell Construction Inc. We also have see you dash 32 dash 25.
Spring Point Architects, Barry Clapper. We also have CU-33-24, Hatt Rentals, LLC. Also continued are
CU-33-25, Yehee Engineers, St. Ramey HOA.
V-39-25 Brownsmith Studios LLC Lucas Brown. We also have V-40-25 H.R. Green, Inc. Don Cowden Foundation,
Inc. And for the petitions this evening, we have V-35-25 Griffey Properties Ethan Michelson.
We also have V-36-25, Mohsen Kianadasha, Kianazade, Kianazada. We also have CU-37-25, built LLC, Madeline
Sanders. We also have CU-38-25, sex there, sex there,
Ooh, sex standard properties LLC. With that in mind, may I have the presentation for the first petition,
please? Good evening.
For our first petition this evening, we'll be looking at a determined sidewalk variance for a single
family dwelling located in the residential medium lot R2 zoning district. As you can see, this property
is located on the northeast side of the city. Along Headley Road there, that property as well as all
the surrounding properties are zoned R2. There is some mixed use institutional
property to the east, all owned by the trustees of Indiana University. It is a 0.79 acre property. And
at issue here is a, when construction of this home was to occur, it required the construction
and installation of a 12 foot wide multi-use path along the property frontage as laid out here with
the original site plan.
The request for the determined sidewalk variance comes about because there is no other multi-use path
currently along Headley Road and development is not seen to be very likely in the near future. And it
would be better constructed and installed when future projects occur.
This sidewalk also has topography limitations. All along Headley Road, you will see that there is vegetation,
as well as particularly with this property, there are some tall canopy trees that would have to be removed
for this path. So looking at the combination of the topography all along Headley Road, the fact that
Indiana University does control a portion of the property as well, and so any future path
would have to bring IU as well as the other property owners into building this 12 foot wide multi-use
path as well. And so looking at our findings that we have to consider for this determined sidewalk variance,
the first one is that the approval would not be injurious to the public health, safety, or morals of
general welfare. We find it would not be injurious to the public health, safety, or morals.
as there are currently no pedestrian facilities to connect to on the adjacent properties. And so connecting
or installing this path would not benefit pedestrians at this time. For the second criteria, the adjacent
properties would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. We find that the use and value of
the areas adjacent to the property would not be affected adversely as again, there are no current pedestrian
facilities installed
And while it would be beneficial to have a multi-use path along the entire length of this property's
frontage, the construction would be best forestalled until other development or projects necessitate
the path's construction. And again, with the practical difficulties peculiar to the property, we find
that a multi-use path to be installed at this time would require the path and the location that may
not be appropriate if the pedestrian network is installed along this corridor at a future time. This
property and surrounding properties
are on the periphery of city boundaries, very rural in nature, and a great degree of challenging topography
along Headley Road. Again, the further peculiarity that the majority of the property is also owned by
Indiana University, where redevelopment would require future additional pedestrian improvements, may
not be triggered, which would further complicate the likelihood that pedestrian improvements would happen
outside a much larger plan for the area.
and we feel this path would best be coordinated and installed when it can be connected to other properties
with multi-use paths at a future date to better facilitate path cohesion and maintenance. And as such,
the department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve this
petition with the following condition, that a zoning commitment for the determinant sidewalk variance
must be recorded within 60 days. And I'm here for any questions. Thank you.
Is there anybody here representing the petitioner. Yeah you may go forward and sign in and then once
you sign in I will swear you in.
Yeah. What is your name. Ethan Michelson Ethan Michelson. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony
you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes I do. You have
20 minutes and you don't have to use all 20 minutes. You can reserve the right to use it later at the
end. OK. OK.
I really don't have a whole lot to add to Joe Patterson's excellent presentation. So thank you. Thank
you for that. I will maybe just sort of underscore a couple of a couple of points. So I I live next
door to the property in question. I live at 24 15 North Headley Road and the parcel in question used to be
It used to belong to 2415 North Headley. So 2415 North Headley used to have two parcels of land.
In fact, this is just sort of background information. And last year I inquired with the Department of
Planning and Transportation about constructing an ADU and turned out that that was not a great option
because the 800
40 square foot limit for 80 use is the sum total of all accessory dwelling units including detached
garages and that would have left me with about 300 square feet and and and I just posed the question
is it possible to move the property line because the property line
Separating the two parcels ran through the middle of my house ran through the middle of 2415 and I was
working with Katie Gandhi at the time And and she said sure you can apply for a lot line adjustment
And that's what we did. That's how we created the the smaller point seven nine acre parcel that is now
two four zero three north Headley Road and that's that parcel is 60 feet wide that is what the
The the city has asked me to you know to to install a multi-use path in front but but but nowhere else
not in front of 2415 North Headley or anywhere else in the area and I think that's sort of the thrust
of the of the argument for the the determinant sidewalk variance that at the moment currently there
is not one
of sidewalk anywhere within at least a quarter of a mile radius. So that would be the entirety of Headley
Road, Matlock, Maplecrest, Treadwell, Browncliff. And so it would serve no purpose to have a 60-foot sidewalk
long multi-use path that if in the future, when and if the city decides to construct a multi-use path
along Matlock and Headley Road, because that is sort of an aspirational
kind of in the city's long-range transportation plan. I think it's an excellent idea. I mean, if you've
ever walked on Matlock or Headley Road, there are no streetlights. It doesn't feel terribly safe. And
so I and my neighbors in the South Griffey neighborhood
you know, certainly don't object to the construction of a unified multi-use path along the entire streets,
Matlock and Headley. But to have, you know, just a 60-foot section would serve, that would not improve
safety or the wellbeing of anybody. And in fact, when I sent the notification out to my neighbors within
a 300-foot radius of the house,
Notifying them of today's hearing. I received some unsolicited responses, several from neighbors who
were quite surprisingly passionate in supporting me and objecting to the construction of just a tiny
60-foot section of multi-use path. Several of them characterized
such a sidewalk as an eyesore, you know, just a piece of, some thought it would be concrete. I don't
think it would be concrete, but nonetheless, I mean, blacktop, asphalt, concrete, whatever the material
to be there, not improving safety and being an eyesore does not, it would,
it would diminish the character of the neighborhood, the rural character. Moreover, constructing that
wood, it would run the proposed location or the required location of the multi-use path. There are two
very large
white pine trees that are on the exact spot where that multi-use path would have to be. And one of the
conditions for the building permit that the city issued right was that I record a tree preservation
easement you know in the west part of the of the parcel because to preserve closed
tree canopy so it's clear that preserving trees and preserving you know large trees that provide a closed
canopy is a priority of the city and and to so building this tiny section of sidewalk that would serve
no no purpose
would require cutting down a couple of large white pine trees would contradict the city's priority of
preserving closed tree canopy, which I did by recording a large, it's about one third of an acre on
the west side of the parcel. The final argument is just about
sort of equity and fairness that when the, I mean, this is an old, very old established neighborhood.
And there's really, I mean, there hasn't been new construction in that entire area for a very long time.
I mean, my house is the first new construction in decades. And in fact, the last prior to my, I believe,
this could be verified, but I believe that,
One of the unsolicited letters that I received is from someone who lives on Browncliffe Lane,
George Keller. He said in 2007 he built a house. He said it was the last lot on Browncliffe.
And back then, in 2007, he was required to construct a sidewalk and he submitted
the same kind of variance request that I've submitted and it was supported by the South Griffey Neighborhood
Association and it was ultimately supported by the Board of Zoning Appeals and made the same kinds of
arguments that I did. But if the city does proceed eventually with constructing a multi-use path, as
Joe just mentioned now, when it's a unified coherent plan,
the precise location of the path that crosses the parcel at 2403 North Headley, it might differ slightly.
They may have to tear it up and redo it, which point the personal cost to me, which would be substantial,
it would be
wasted because no one would be using that tiny section of sidewalk and it could potentially have to
be redone and we would have lost a tree, two trees in fact. In the grand scheme of things, the cost
to the city, the incremental cost to the city for that 60 foot stretch of multi-use path above and beyond
The path for the entire area would be nominal. It wouldn't add much to the budget, to the city, but
to me personally, it would be a lot. And so, you know, no other homeowner would have to pay. I would
be the only one having to pay for something that no one would use and would benefit nobody and would
be an eyesore and would require two trees to come down. So that's the...
The thrust of the, I have copies of the unsolicited letters that I received. I didn't have time, because
one arrived yesterday, one arrived a few days ago, and so I didn't have time to include it in the materials
I submitted. But I have copies if anybody would like to see. I'd be happy to answer any questions that
anyone has. Thank you very much. Oh, sure.
Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff or the petitioner by the board. Just a quick administrative
question for staff. What happens after 60 days if it's not recorded. Do they have to come back.
They would. Okay. That's all. Thanks.
I have no further questions on my end Thank you So no questions for staff, so let's go to public comment
Is there anybody in the house that would like to speak or online And this is directed at petition v-35
That's 25. All right. So no public comment. So we're back to the board for for action. I'll give you
a couple of minutes to read.
I think to Mr. Michelson's point, Bloomington has a big problem building sidewalks to nowhere. It's
all over town. So to your point, having a sidewalk to nowhere is an eyesore. So sidewalks should connect
to something at some point. So with that, I move to adopt the proposed findings and approve case D3525.
ZR 20 25 0 8 0 0 8 9 with the conditions in the packet. I have a second second roll call please. Burrell.
Yes. Today. Yes. Ballard. Yes. Congratulations. It's approved. Now we'll move to our next petition.
Case v-36 that dash 25. May I have the staff report, please? Before you is a variance for from driveway
with standards for a single-family dwelling within a medium lot residential r2 zoning district and
This property is at 2214 East Maxwell Lane. This is a dead end street on the Mideast side of the city
here. You can see that that property as well as the surrounding properties are all zoned R2. The mixed
use institutional property to the north is for the elementary schools.
This dwelling is currently under construction and the owners are requesting to have a 24 foot wide driveway
rather than the 18 foot standard maximum allow driveway within the UDO. The owners claim that this would
help them with maneuverability of their vehicles as well as maintain the vehicles within the driveway
rather than on street parking as Maxwell Lane is a narrow lane.
As you can see here the blue blue lines indicate what the maximum allowed driveway with would approximately
be and the owners are requesting an additional three feet on each side of that to be the same width
as the entire garage. So again with our findings the first one that the approval not be injurious to
the public health safety morals general welfare of the community. We find that it would be injurious
to the public health safety morals of the general welfare of the community.
as wider drive cuts create greater dangers for pedestrians crossing driveways and allowing that 24 foot
wide drive cut increases dangers to pedestrians into vehicles. It should be noted that there was a change
within the code several years ago that reduced driveway widths to that 18 foot essentially for that
use citywide. And that was a cognitive decision at the time to reduce that with for these exact safety concerns.
For our second finding that the use and value area adjacent to the property included would not be affected
in a substantially adverse manner. We do not find that there would be adverse impacts to the use and
value of surrounding properties. Several properties along Maxwell have lawful nonconforming driveways
that exceed the current 18 foot driveway and were installed prior to the current UDO standards. For
our third criteria that the strict application would result in practical difficulties in the use of
the property.
that those practical difficulties are peculiar to the property. We find that the strict application
would not result in practical difficulties or in the use of the property. Considering that a standard
parking stall width is eight and a half feet. So to park two vehicles, if you were to have two parking
stalls, that would be 17 feet. So an 18 foot wide driveway would more than accommodate two vehicles.
And again, while it certainly only acknowledged that there might be a desire to have wider driveways,
there's no demonstrated peculiar condition for this property in particular. And again, with respect
to the safety aspect, there was that cognitive decision to reduce the driveway width across the city.
And therefore, it's the department's recommendation that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt these proposed
findings and deny this petition. And I'm here for any questions.
Thank you. Is there a representative of the petitioner in chambers. Yes you may approach sign in sign
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
going to speak both need to sign in.
So combined you're going to have 20 minutes. So use that wisely and make can you both say your name.
I'll just swear both in at the same time. All right. Good evening members of the board. My name is Mohsen.
Sorry I can't hear you. Sorry. Good evening members members of the board. My name is Mohsen. And your
name Isla. Last name please.
Sir Ravi Nia. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that your testimony that you are about to give will
be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Yes. Thank you. So one may start and the
other one will go after. Sure. You have 20 minutes and there's a timer there so you can keep track.
English is not my first language. So to make sure our case is presented clearly my daughter will be
speaking on my behalf.
I appreciate your patience and thank you for your time. I'm here to speak on behalf of my parents. We
appreciate your time this evening and I'd like to walk you through why why we are requesting the variance.
We want to begin by acknowledging the planning department's concerns. The report argues that wider driveway
cuts can create more conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. That reasoning makes sense in areas
with sidewalks.
But on the street there are no sidewalks at all. Pedestrians are forced to walk in the roadway itself
side by side with moving vehicles. This property also faces a series of unique and peculiar conditions
that amplify the safety challenge. The street is narrow and is lined with on street parking which reduces
maneuvering space and blocks sight lines to pedestrian walking paths connect directly to the street
which increases foot traffic in front of the property. There's also a bus stop nearby.
which adds even more pedestrian activity. These combined conditions make this property fundamentally
different from most others. With the current allowed width, cars must swing wide or make multi point
turns, keeping them in the road longer and increasing the chance of conflict. An 18 foot wide driveway
is simply too narrow to function for daily use. Two cars barely fit side by side and with trash bins,
bikes or strollers, there's no room to maneuver.
that would regularly force us to park on the street. A 24 foot cut would allow a single direct movement
with better visibility actually reducing risk for both drivers and pedestrians. For these reasons we
respectfully submit that a wider driveway here would not be interest to public health and safety but
would rather improve it. The peculiar conditions of this property no sidewalks street parking permitted
a narrow street heavy pedestrian use
walking paths and a nearby bus stop make the variance necessary and consistent with the intent of the
ordinance. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you. And you still have 17 minutes
to speak if you need to. OK. So we're going to go for questions for the staff to the petitioner. I mean
from the board to the petitioner or staff.
The first question is do we know when the UDO changed in order to add this the 18 foot limit. Are you
referring specifically with when that driveway with was reduced to 18 feet. That was reduced citywide
with the 2020 amendment update.
Way to go Commissioner Ballard for knowing that off the top of his head when I asked him a moment ago.
So second question is So it's been in the UDO five years how many times have we had a petitioner come
and request a variance for something like this I
Assistant director Jackie Scanlon I just want to make a couple of clarifications. It's been 18 feet
wide for this zoning district for much longer than that. We because of the focus on pedestrian safety
and like kind of improving that interface. We went citywide with this use in 2000 and I'm so sorry and
I can't off the top of my head say how many we've had. I wouldn't say many.
I can't actually think of another one but that doesn't mean that hasn't happened. But for a single family
or plex use on a local road that would be very uncommon. Just a quick one to the petitioner in terms
of can you just walk us through what the extra four feet gives you. You said like trash cans be able to set
Can you come to the, yeah, thanks. Our driveway is short a little bit, and if I put my two cars next
together, it's very tight. And if I want to take the trash cans out, or if you want to move the bicycle,
stroller, or something like that, it's very tight, and there's no room for two of that. And they force
us to put our,
Car on the street and the street very narrow you see the pictures if I put this cars on the street piston
it they have to Know what in middle of the street and during night if you come over there, there's no
Light or something like this. I think this is more dangerous for pedestrian to put our car in middle
of not in on the street Do you know what the nearest sidewalk is in your neighborhood? Say yeah
Do you know where the closest sidewalk is the closest. Yes the closest sidewalk is on the other parts
of Maxwell so like across the street not on the dead end part of it. Okay. Thank you. Yes I have a question
for staff. So I understand that the 18 feet is that on the driveway cut on the road or can he have a
wider apron.
Closer to the house. Can he can he have a much wider apron that you know against the garage and then
have an 18 foot driveway cut. Basically what the code says is that the maximum driveway width is 18
feet between the street and the front building setback. So there's no possibility of doing an apron of sorts.
Go ahead the apron. Yes yeah yeah they can't expand wider than 18 feet between the road and the front
setback without a variance and their house is built right up to that line I believe is what Mr. Patterson
was saying so there is no room for them to expand that even like if they came in at 18 and then got
wider they would need a variance for that. So I guess my question would be from the cut from the street
cut to the garage.
Is there a requirement of that distance. Yeah. Oh no. So it just depends where their house is in this
situation because of how far or close their house is to the road. It's 18 feet all the way up. I mean
it's 18 feet wide from the road to the garage. OK. Because is it too close. Is it on the setback. Yes
I believe sitting on a setback. Yeah.
Because is it a build to it is not built. They are built at the setback. Yeah they built out right at
the setback. They built right on the setback. Yeah. The way to think of an alternative sure I'm here
the way that I understand what he's proposing but I understand I cannot change code either. So I just
want to know if there is an alternative to that. It looks like the way.
That the variance is is requested variance from driveway with standards. I mean that gives you some
a little bit of leeway where it's not just talking about the apron or you know that you could allow
it past a certain number of feet but we would need to know more about the site. I think if you wanted
to allow them to flare out further north or further closer to the house because then we if we flare
out closer to the house then we we fulfill the spirit of the
of the UDO requirement which is the pedestrian correct when it's connected to the road. Do you understand
what I'm trying to propose. No can you tell me what I'm sorry. So the driveway right now is just a straight
driveway going straight to the garage right to the width of the garage. And what you were requesting
was three feet on each side correct. I can.
Because the way the ordinance is is written it's about pedestrian crossing where they're going to cross
on the road in front of your house. Right. So what I'm trying to find is a solution that you will have
a wider driveway closer to your garage. Right. But then your driveway will taper. Yeah. Does that make
sense. Yes. That works. Yes. Would that work for you.
Yeah OK so Mr. Patterson is going to call up the site plan that was submitted with their building permit
because the house is under construction. And then so you can see what the depth is and if there is any
way to let it flare out closer to the house. OK. If you hold down.
Hold on just a second please. Colleagues drawing. Yeah well we'll see if this can be done. Just a second please.
So there you can see the site plan that hash mark the front setback and then the edge of the street
there. So they only have that very brief portion of the driveway between the setback in the garage where
it could go beyond that 18 foot width.
So this is yeah this line right here is the setback line. So you have this portion right here that could
go beyond 18 feet but that is it. Yeah but that's that's not helpful. Right. Between here and then the
edge of the street here. What is that distance from the garage door to the setback line. You know four foot.
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
side great here Just if you're thinking about yeah depth of where you might want to Allow it to be wider
So what are our possibilities here?
I'm sorry. Thank you for pointing that out. The 51 is from the middle of the street No, that's also
from the middle. I don't think there's a dimension on there from the edge of road to the garage But
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
line going vertical instead of horizontal you know that's roughly 18 feet and probably roughly gets
to that proposed 30 foot right of way line as well so it would be then you know again just kind of using
that 18 feet distance as a guide just to see how far then for example if you let them flare out
you know 20 feet from the garage then there would probably still be you know at least 18 18 or 20 feet
from the edge of the street. And so then a typical you know parking space is eight and a half or nine
by 18 or 18 feet deep.
So potentially how close to the road can we get here Jackie. Well that would be up to you all. Yes.
Right. Yeah. OK. All right. So what they're asking for and correct me if I'm wrong is just to have the
whole thing be the width. If you're thinking of like a middle point you know staying at 18 at the road
and then coming and then letting it be wider closer to the house we would want to know. Yeah. Like you're
saying how far in would that be.
And it looks like that driveway is probably it's so hard to figure out maybe 40 feet long. Do you think
it's 40 feet long to the edge of the road. Maybe. Yeah it looks like it's 45 feet. Well that's from
the center line from the center line of the road. Well we can measure from the garage to
From the edge of the house sure towards the correct you could say yeah, but for example you could say
You know 20 feet or 25 feet or whatever you are comfortable with from the garage at that point they
can flare it to a max of Whatever, you know 22 or whatever it was requested. All right So that might
be difficult. I mean in real life, you know the the actual
Flaring we'll have to start and go out before it hits the you know two feet more on each side So you
want to make sure it's deep enough for a card actually a curve right because otherwise You know, you
can't maneuver cars. Yeah All right But does that Real quick make sure sure that makes sense then design wise Yes
We're proposing like I said we try to meet the the UDO and the requirements are but then also give you
an extra four feet And Jackie we have to state how far sorry how far from the garage I think it would
make sense to say You know the the driveway width can exceed 18 feet beginning and then you know X number
of feet from the garage
So if you say 25 feet from the garage that's when they start the flare and then you know to a maximum
width of 22 or 24. I'm sorry I don't remember what they're asking. Whatever the maximum width they requested
was it was three feet on each side. OK. Yes. So then 24. So the width can be 24. But then how far are
you going to make it a nice curve entrance. That's the other problem.
Why so can I go I'll go ahead and make a motion and then we can discuss the reasons the findings of
fact that works so that we adopt the proposed findings and approve V dash 36 36 dash 25.
And the findings of facts are for number three which is the only one that staff did not agree on three.
You need to find findings for both one and three one and three. Right. One would be we are offering
18 foot compliance at the street.
So that would allow for number one to be checked stays stays 18 feet. Right. And then number three the
practical difficulty being what they've presented based on sounds like the layout of the lot and how
they would need to force or the three extra feet on each side in order to maneuver safely. Really for
them it's a safety thing I think to be able to take their bikes and trash cans like
Because it looks like there's a kind of a drop off from there. So that would be the reasoning for number
three. And then did you want to have conditions specifying how far is 25. I'm not the best visual is
25 feet. Do you guys think.
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
very hard to give a hard number when we don't know exactly what that is and also what the curve will
require. You know sure. I think. Yeah you could say instead some distance from the edge of the road
that you want to be 18 feet for some distance. Whatever that is. I guess my question would be like for the city.
what would be ideal in terms of the you know where the driveway meets the road how many feet in you
know that it should be 18 feet sure I my feeling would be probably like eight and a half or nine like
so that when you're a pedestrian walking there you can tell that it's one car that's coming out because
there's it's clear that there's only space for one vehicle
So I mean you could say you could say that or you just say you know can can exceed 18 feet 10 feet south
of the edge of the street and then they can make it as wide as they need to with the flare beyond that
point or whatever number you know. I think the number is important as well anyway. Does that make sense.
Yeah. So allowed. So admitting that to say 10 feet south.
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
18 feet sorry the condition would be that the driveway must remain 18 feet wide at least 10 feet south
of the edge of the street.
and then can flare out to a maximum of 24 feet until the garage. Right. Because that gives them another.
Do you know approximately what is the the length of the driveway. It's probably close to 40 38 37. I
don't remember exactly the number but 37 feet long. Yes. OK. So 35 35 38. I don't remember exactly.
It was more than 40. Yeah. So 10 feet. That would be.
You know a little less than one fourth of the driveway does that make sense. Yes. Yes. Okay. Does that
solve your situation. Yes. Thank you. Okay. All right. I second. It's a long one. Oh I'm sorry. Did
you do public comment on this one. We didn't.
I don't know. Yes. All right. Yes we were on questions only. So let's go back and give some moment for
public comment. Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to speak or online. If you're in the
zoom you can raise your virtual hand or send a message to the host if you would like to comment on this
petition. I don't see any anyone commenting for zoom.
Right. So we're back to the VCA for a final action and you have the you have everything that you said.
I think so because Tim made an actual motion. We're getting a little crazy with the Roberts rules and
then then Ryan seconded. So I think we're OK. OK. So let's go. Let's do a roll call please. Today. Yes.
Ballard. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Thank you. May I have the step step report on the next case please. Case
CU dash 37 dash 25.
Jackie Scanlon assistant director on this one. Actually, I think I need to engage Our counsel legal
counsel miss Casamania and she's online The request is for conditional use approval for some particular
development within the floodplain that's a conditional use that we have in the
In the UDO but it has particular conditional use findings for this particular conditional use and I
don't see those in the staff report and I didn't catch that this morning. We could do those findings
here but one of them requires a document. So I am going to see. So Miss Kasmanian agrees is concerned
that maybe we shouldn't aren't able to present this tonight. I'm going to ask Miss Sanders to unmute
who I believe is the petitioner and see
if that document does exist. Hi Madeline. All right. Hello. Hi. OK. In our UDO under conditional uses
for floodway and flood fringe development one of our particular conditional use standards says no conditional
use shall be approved until a permit citing the 100 year flood elevation and the recommended flood protection grade
or a letter stating that no permit is required has been obtained by Indiana Department of Natural Resources.
Do you. I didn't see either. I see that Mr. Grulick indicated a permit is not required but he didn't.
But I don't see something from DNR that says that. Do you all have that. I don't think a document like
that exists right now but I do know that any permits required for my DNR will happen after construction.
So that's kind of the reason that we don't have anything from them yet.
OK. Miss Cassamanian are you there. Yes. Cassamanian. Persevering to the legal department I'm here.
So we may need to look into this because it could be in direct conflict with the U.D.O.'s pre submittal
activities where Jackie Stanley mentioned a conditional use permit under that procedure. We do need
a letter from the state Indiana DNR that
Indicates that no permit would be required So I propose and I recommend that we maybe continue this
until we have that or until we can Make sense of this sort of conflict if it is a actual conflict Okay, so
I think the recommendation is for you all to continue it because the code is so explicit that those
that has to be Sussed out before the hearing before you can approve a conditional use for this. I'm
sorry I didn't notice that earlier but I don't think I don't think mr. Grulick has that or he would
have included it and as Mrs. Sanders said it maybe doesn't exist. So it might be something we need to
figure out before next month.
Yeah I'm very sorry that I'm very glad that you found it so we wouldn't be down the road and having
any trouble. So may I have a motion to continue. Yeah move to continue to next month's meeting on sorry
see you dash 37 dash 25. I have a second.
Oh, sorry, this is oh, yeah, I'm so sorry. You're right. Yes I Have a roll call, please Ballard yes,
Burrell. Yes today. Yes And miss Sanders I will be in touch with you shortly in looping mr. Grulick
so he can get you going with the next steps. Thank you. I
Whenever you're ready we may have the next report please. Good evening. Thank you to the board. So for
this case the petitioner is Todd Sackstetter.
And my name is Jamie crime where I'm the new senior zoning planner with the city of Bloomington. So
thank you for having me. So for this case the petitioner is Todd Sackstetter. The request is conditional
use approval to allow a dwelling duplex use in the residential small lot R3 zoning district as well
as a variance from the front building setback standards. The property is located at 111 South Jefferson
Street between East Fifth Street and East Fourth Street.
The site and the surrounding properties to the north, east, and south are zoned residential small lot
R3, and the properties across the street to the west are zoned R4, which is the residential urban district.
The size of this lot is .15 acres. The property currently contains a detached single family residence
and is surrounded by a mix of single family residences.
The property is within the green acres neighborhood association and the comprehensive plan designation
is mixed urban residential. The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing residents and develop
the site with a new dwelling duplex based on feedback from the green acres neighborhood association.
The petitioner revised their plans to build the duplex farther back on the property which necessitated
a variance from the front bill to requirement of 15 feet from the property line.
The proposed duplex includes a new two-story structure with two three-bedroom, three bath dwelling units.
The residence has been designed with each unit having a separate exterior entrance facing Jefferson
Street to the west, which is what the UDO requires. The plan features a traditional home found in the
Greenacres neighborhood with matching roof and porch styles, and the exterior building materials primarily
include engineered wood siding and dimensional asphalt shingles.
You can see there what the proposed rendering would look like. The Green Acres Neighborhood Association
emphasized the importance of the new duplex, not visually overwhelming. The other house is on the same
side of the street in the block. And for the general compliance criteria, it was found that the petition
meets the use specific standards for a duplex in the R3 zoning district. There are no known other applicable
regulations for this petition.
Water and sewer services are available along Jefferson Street and will be coordinated with city utilities
and engineering. There are no known prior land use approvals for this site. The proposal is in line
with the goals of the comprehensive plan, which states that the mixed urban residential land use category
is largely in older neighborhoods and that redevelopment should be compatible with the surroundings.
Policy 5.3.1 also encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment with consideration for increased
residential densities and underutilized housing types such as duplexes. As stated by the petitioner,
new water and sewer services will be coordinated with city utilities and engineering and no problems
have been noted for connecting to those service lines. For new electrical service, this would be coordinated
with Duke Energy.
No significant adverse impacts are expected from the creation of the proposed duplex. The main concern
expressed by the Green Acres Neighborhood Association was about the placement of the duplex. The build
to line for this zoning district is 15 feet from the front property line. However, the Neighborhood
Association requested that the duplex is set back eight feet more than the house to the north at 109
South Jefferson Street.
petitioner revised their plans and is requesting a variance to build the duplex with the 33.47 foot
front setback. No phasing is proposed with this plan.
The approval of the requested setback variance is not expected to be injurious to the general welfare
of the neighborhood and community. The need for the front setback variance was the result of input from
the Green Acres Neighborhood Association so that the new duplex does not visually overwhelm the other
houses on that side of the block on Jefferson Street. The granting of the variance is not expected to
impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in a substantially adverse manner.
Given the condition of the existing house, the Neighborhood Association has no issues with the demolition
of the single-family home. The strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical
difficulties in the use of the property because it would require that the building is constructed in
a location inconsistent with the established block face of other residences along that section of Jefferson Street.
The peculiar condition in this case is that the adjacent properties are non-conforming and not built
at the 15 foot build-to line as required by the UDO. So to best fit with the existing character of the
Green Acres neighborhood, a variance is necessary for the new duplex to be set back 33.47 feet from
the front property line instead of the 15 foot build-to line. So lastly, with the recommendation, the
department
does recommend that the BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve this case with the conditions that
the conditional use and variance approval is limited to the design shown and discussed in the packet
and that two large street trees are required to be planted as shown on the plan. And that concludes
my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there a representative of
the petitioner.
Yes please come in and sign in and once you sign in please state your name so I can swear you win. Cod
sex better.
Do you swear or affirm that your testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth in nothing
but the truth. Yes I do. You have 20 minutes. She said hello. It was everything that I don't know if
I could add anything. We just we went into it. We took consideration met with Eric did everything he
asked. We went to the community and asked them what they wanted and they want us to move it back which was fair.
Don't have a problem. They want us to use like some type of nicer sightings that a vinyl stuff going
up. We said we'll use the LP which we use most of the time when we use any when we build anyway. So
all this fits in what we would like we would do anyway and we propose I mean what we're proposing. So
we're just asking for that variance and the approval to conditional use to build that duplex there and
the house is getting ready to demo it. We got the demo permits. It's a mess.
currently there. So if you want to reserve your the rest of your time you can and then we'll go from
there. I'm good. All right. Thank you so much. Any questions from the board. All good for staff
or petitioner. OK. Any public comment in chambers or online.
No public comment. All right. I move to adopt the fight the proposed findings and approve C.U.V. thirty
eight twenty five zero twenty five oh eight zero zero nine two zero zero nine three with the conditions
found in the packet. Second I have a roll call please. Burrell. Yes. Today. Yes. Ballard. Yes.
Well, this concludes our meeting. We are adjourned.