- Board of Zoning Appeals for October 23rd 2025 roll call please. Well here Fernandez here Kutsenko here.
- Next on our agenda we have the approval of the minutes of will be August 21st 2025 and September September
- 18th 2025.
- Do I have a motion for that. Motion to approve in a second. Second. Roll call please. Burrell. Yes.
- Fernandez. Yes. Kutsenko. Yes. Next in our agenda is reports resolutions and communications. Do we have
- anything from staff. Nothing from staff. Thank you. Anything from the board.
- So we're going to go on to the hearings. We have several petitions. Some were withdrawn. Some were continued.
- Petition CU-37-25 built LLC. Madeline Sanders was withdrawn. Petition continues to November.
- November 20th meeting is a dash 17 dash 22. Joe Kemp Construction LLC and Blackwell Construction Inc.
- See you dash 33 dash 24. Hat rentals LLC see you dash 33 dash 25. We he engineers Saint Remy H.O.A.
- also continued V dash
- V-42-25 Grey Star Development Central LLC also continued. V-44-25 Foreign Auto Connect also continued.
- And lastly on the continued are V-45-25 Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ also continued. The petitions
- we're going to hear tonight will start with CU-
- V dash 32 dash 25 spring point architects. May I have the petitioner come forward. Yes staff report
- please. Sorry.
- Okay. I'm David Brantes, Zoning Planner and GIS Analyst. So today we're looking at conditional use and
- variance CU-V-32-25. And this is at 312 South Arbutus Drive. And the petitioner is Springpoint Architects
- and the owner is Jeff Shibley. So the
- Uh, the two things that we're looking at are the, uh, conditional use to allow a dwelling, uh, fourplex
- in the R four residential urban zoning district. Uh, and then the petitioner is also requesting a variance
- from the tree preservation standards in our four as well. This gives you the location, uh, between third
- and at water there on Arbutus pretty close to IU.
- The lot is 7,500 square feet. Uh, the comprehensive plan designation is Indiana university as it's adjacent
- to the university. Um, and the existing house there is a single family home. Um, and this has been,
- uh, approved by the HPC for demolition delay as it's a historically contributing structure. So this
- is the proposed site plan.
- So This site is Going to have a four plex on it that will have a maximum of 12 bedrooms as is consistent
- with the requirements for a four plex here and the parking will be moving from front to the back as
- is required and
- We have determined that it has a closed canopy on it. So that was reviewed by the senior environmental
- zoning planner, Rachel Johnson. And she found that there was some closed canopy there. They're required
- to retain some amount of that closed canopy. And this was found to be challenging due to multiple features
- on the site, which we'll get into later.
- But they do propose as you can see on the site plan a remediation of those large canopy trees on the
- interior to make up for that So moving on to the conditional use first So far this we found that it
- complies with all the standards here in the UDO and any other applicable regulations
- The owner does not have any NOVs on hand and they did make an effort to reach out to the neighborhood
- association and made themselves available for a comment period even though a meeting was not able to
- be held because there was there was not enough of an interest from the neighborhood to have a meeting
- here. They did make themselves available for comments and did not receive any. Moving on to the next criteria.
- It is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and it does move the parking into the alley
- as is required. This is an example of infill higher density close to the campus which the adjacent
- comprehensive plan designation for those for the area just to the south does call for some higher density
- here so it's a
- It's a good location to have more units. And as far as utilities, it has existing utility connections
- at the single family home that is there. And we haven't found any issues with the proposed connections
- here. So as far as adverse impacts goes, the property does contain sections of
- at tree coverage that we talked about earlier that are subject to the tree and forest preservation
- requirements. So a variance is being requested from this. There is no excessive destruction of natural
- or scenic features though. And as I mentioned, the house is designated as contributing, but it's not
- in a historic district. Demolition delay DD 2523 has been approved already by the Historic Preservation
- Commission.
- So no adverse impacts are expected to be found in the construction of this fourplex and no additional
- nuisances are expected here. A benefit is that the parking will be moved to the alley. So that comes
- further into compliance which is what the code is asking for here. And no concerns were expressed by
- any adjacent property owners.
- and there is no phasing associated. Moving on to the variance. It's not expected to be injurious to
- the general welfare of the neighborhood and there's no overall impact to the safety of the property.
- It's also not expected to impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property. The petitioner does
- proposed to plant those six large canopy trees around the new structure, which minimizes the impact.
- And lastly, the strict application of the terms of the UDO we found to result in practical difficulties
- in that the redevelopment of the property was restricted by the location of the current trees. It was
- a relatively small house, so those trees were
- in a pretty tricky location to work with, especially given that the parking did need to come off the
- rear alley. So they're constrained on multiple fronts here. And there were also trees like directly
- in front of the house as well. So this development is subject to the use specific standards that have
- guidance in regards to architecture and constructing a more unified block face
- So it makes sense rather than to hit set the house way back behind those trees that were in front of
- the house to move the development forward a little bit and find a new place for those new canopy trees
- as shown in the remediation plan.
- So the department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve
- CU-V-32-25 with the following four conditions. The conditional use approval is limited to the design
- shown and discussed in the packet. This conditional approval requires that the petitioner pass a rental
- inspection from hand and procure a rental permit for all units that'll be rented.
- And third that two large trees or equivalents are required along South Arbutus Drive and for that six
- large canopy trees are required on the interior of the property as shown in the proposed remediation
- plan. And with that concludes my staff report. Thank you. Thank you. So now we have a presentation by
- the petitioner. You have 20 minutes total. Have you signed in and say your name and
- We elsewhere you went. My name is Barry Clapper Springpoint architects. All right. Do you swear or affirm
- that your testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- I do. Thank you. Go ahead. You have 20 minutes. Fabulous. I just want to start off by thanking David
- for his help in ushering this project through the process. The owner Jeff Shively is also here this
- evening with us. So if there's any questions for him.
- He is available just a few additional comments In thinking about the architectural approach to this
- project We recognize this this neighborhood feel and being directly south of the university We wanted
- a project that fit in
- Well to with the streetscape and the surrounding existing homes and that's why This appears as one large
- house, even though it contains four actual townhouse units So the units two are oriented to the street
- and the other two are oriented toward the alley So the shared walls are perpendicular to each other
- rather than parallel, which would be more of a row house configuration. So
- It was our goal to try and keep the height down as much as possible. And really, as David talked about,
- align the front of this house with the other existing homes. The original house is pushed significantly
- back off the street. So we just wanted to highlight that, those decisions, and also add a point about
- the neighborhood. This neighborhood is not active.
- So we decided to have a virtual meeting to which no one came. But we did have some interest from one
- of the adjacent property owners who had wanted to know about some view angles and stuff like that. And
- so we were able to provide information to them. But that was that was all that we heard back from the
- neighborhood. Do you have anything that you want to add at this point? So we're here for any questions.
- Thank you.
- Thank you. And you have the remainder to answer to anything we have or add anything you would like at
- hand. All right. Well so do we have any questions for staff or petitioners by the board. No. OK.
- We're good. So we'll open up to public comment in here or online.
- If we have anyone online who would like to make a comment you can raise your hand. It looks like we
- have one Dez King so far. So you can go ahead and unmute if you'd like. Hi everybody. Hear me OK. Hi.
- I'm going to swear you in. Can you say your name please. Yes this is King. Do you swear or affirm to
- the testimony about to give with the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
- I do. Thank you. I just wanted to take a few minutes tonight to speak about the petition in question.
- I am a former resident of this address, 312 South Arbita Strive. My husband and I were tenants in that
- property for almost six years. Just recently became homeowners and moved away. And I just had a few concerns
- about the petition and wanted to see if I could get those addressed because even though I no longer
- live in the neighborhood, I just have concerns about the density of the housing. So first of all, the
- property is situated on a very narrow street. It's two lane at best when there are no cars. And I understand
- the property
- will be four units with three bedrooms each. So we're looking at 12 tenants and the property. And I
- believe the packet said that the parking would be in the rear and it would allow for two parking spaces.
- But if we're being realistic, that will be 12 additional cars on the street. And having lived there
- for almost six years, my husband and I were not students, but it's a heavily student neighborhood.
- And that was fine, but they have lots of gatherings and we witnessed lots of parking on the streets
- and on the wrong side of the street. And when it would snow, the snow pile could not get through because
- people were parked on the wrong side of the street. So I just find it problematic that we're introducing
- 12 additional people to
- what they would highlight it as a currently small house on the plot. So I am in favor of dense housing.
- I think we need more housing, more affordable housing. But I think a fourplex is a bit of a stretch
- here for this parcel. So I'm in favor of it, just on a smaller scale. I would also like to add, and
- it's not in the packet.
- This is a caveat living there for 5 years, the property does quite a bit. I think Bloomington houses
- are famous for basement flooding. But the proposed rear of the property where an unapproved alley leads
- into the yard, that floods quite a bit. And then the parcel across the street that is vacant
- Nothing on it that's owned by IU when they demolished the house about 6 years ago. There was substantial
- more flooding to the property. So not really a concern of mine anymore that I don't live there, but
- just as a caveat. And so if you're going to have folks parking in the rear, maybe something to examine.
- But yeah, want to end on a positive note. I do believe in dense housing that I
- I think we need to it needs to be considered to be a smaller project. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else
- any other public comment.
- Yeah I'm not seeing anybody else if there is anybody else online that would like to speak please use
- the raise hand function and we can recognize you or send a message via chat to the host. Now we're not
- seeing anybody else online. All right. So since there's no more public comment we're back to the board
- for any questions or any comments before a final action.
- And so before the final election we can give the representative the leftover time they have if you would
- like to say anything. I was going to ask representatives here from planning just to talk just to give
- a brief synopsis of the goals of our four and its location vis-a-vis you and that sort of thing.
- Yeah certainly so as the board may or may not be aware there are certain uses within some of the residential
- districts of duplexes triplexes and fourplexes that are listed as conditional uses.
- The R4 district is one of the few districts where triplexes and fourplexes were listed as conditional
- uses. Certainly as we look at increased housing and opportunities for that, locations that are close
- to campus, especially within walking distance of campus, certainly make ideal locations for density
- in the appropriate location of that. In regards to parking, there's certainly a mixed range of opinions
- on parking. When you are this close to campus, the hope is
- that folks are walking to where they are going. The UDO does have a minimum number of parking spaces,
- which is 0.5 spaces per unit. So a four plex two is the minimum which they have provided. There is on
- street parking that is allowed along the west side. It is a residentially zoned parking area. So the
- residents of the tenants here could get a parking permit if they had cars and park those along the west
- side of the street.
- So we we certainly want to try to promote infield development adjacent to existing facilities which this.
- Location certainly is, and as I mentioned, it's in very close proximity to campus, so it provides an
- excellent opportunity for housing in relation to where the folks are going oftentimes. So we did find
- that this meets the requirements of the UDO, the use specific requirements, the conditional use requirements.
- So as we mentioned in the staff report, we are recommending approval since it meets the criteria that
- are in the UDO.
- Anything else. You're good. OK. Any comments or questions from the board. No one else says I'm happy
- to make a motion that we adopt the proposed findings and approve C V 32 25 with the four recommended
- conditions. I second.
- Thank you, so we have a motion and a second so I will call role Borel. Yes Fernandez. Yes Kutsenko.
- Yes Motion petition is approved. It is passed. Congratulations. Thank you Now we're going to move on
- to the next case
- Case V-39-25. May I have a staff report, please?
- Yes thank you. So this is a request from the petitioner Erton qualified opportunity fund. So this is
- for petition on North Morton Street 6 0 1 North Morton. The petitioner is here tonight to request a
- variance from you specific standards requiring ground floor dwelling units that are within 20 feet of
- the front property line to be constructed with the first floor elevated a minimum of
- three feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade to allow for the use dwelling common multifamily to allow
- for construction of one ground floor dwelling unit in the mix use downtown within the downtown core
- overlay district.
- So I realized that was a lot and so I'll just kind of talk a little bit about Some of the regulations
- that have changed within the UDO, you know So the board may have heard previous petitions where the
- language within the UDO was simply for ground floor dwelling units in the downtown They had to be located
- 20 feet behind the front of the building
- So as we've worked over the years to try to amend the UDO to allow more flexibility and give her allowance
- give greater allowances for dwelling units within the ground ground floor of the downtown you know as
- we've often cited sometimes with the challenges of
- dwelling units on the ground floor within the downtown and their proximity to sidewalks or closeness
- to those sidewalks. You know, the challenge is having those living spaces right up along a sidewalk.
- You know, the kitchens, the living areas, whatever, which don't prevent or present a lot of privacy
- for the individuals within there, nor do they present really a appropriate streetscape design where
- you just have that lack of separation.
- So we had an amendment last year that gave two additional allowances or gave more flexibility for ground
- floor dwelling units within the downtown One of those was to introduce criteria that could allow for
- those where the ground floor was elevated three feet above The sidewalk elevation so that you you don't
- have that presence of the dwelling units right on the sidewalk You've got a little bit of vertical separation
- You know the other criteria that was put in there was to allow for the
- units if they're more than 20 if the building is more than 20 feet back to allow for again that separation
- horizontally in that particular situation. So what is before the board tonight is for a location that
- is known as the showers administration building. So this is at the.
- northwest corner of 10th and Madison. And so this is a locally designated historic building. As I mentioned,
- this is the former, what was part of the showers furniture building. It was known as the administration
- building. And so it is a locally designated building. It's been designed and built and used predominantly
- as commercial space. However, on the far west side of the building, there's an approximately 17 foot
- by 58 foot section of the building.
- Which you can see in these photos. It's a one story portion of the building has very limited access
- or use from the inside main portion of the building itself. So it's kind of separated internally with
- very limited access. So it is really kind of
- challenged in terms of its use in combination with the commercial use of the building itself. So the
- petitioner has come up with a plan for this. It has been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission
- to take this somewhat segregated building that is on the backside and turn that into one dwelling unit.
- As you can see, it does have one window on the south side facing 10th Street. So with the addition,
- they would be adding a second story with two windows on the second floor.
- There will not be any changes on the second or on the first floor along the south side of the building
- on 10th Street. That was certainly very important with the Historic Preservation Commission review of
- this to preserve that historic integrity but allow for the addition that is architecturally different.
- So that is a component that is important oftentimes with additions to locally designated historic buildings
- to have that difference so that you're not trying to mimic the existing historic building and its architecture
- different. So the addition would be on the west side of the building. It would allow for one dwelling
- unit with two bedrooms. So as I mentioned the particular building the section of the building has very
- limited access from the inside of the building. The addition would feature a door on the north side
- of the building that would face a parking lot. So this site contains both the administration building
- as well as a parking lot on the north side of it. So this door would face that parking area.
- So the petitioner is requesting as I as I mentioned in the initial opening is requesting a variance
- from the specific use specific restrictions that state that ground floor dwelling units that are within
- 20 feet of the front of the building have to be elevated three feet above
- So with the local designation of this property It's obviously very challenging to do that within the
- historical context of the building itself without doing significant Alteration of the building which
- kind of contradicts with the historic preservation Commission's goals to preserve the historic integrity
- of the building And so there were there was a lot of challenges in peculiar condition with this property
- in this building itself Both in the historic designation of it as well as this particular section of
- the building
- that, as I mentioned several times, has very limited accessibility from the inside of the building itself.
- So with that, you know the granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health safety
- morals or general welfare There are no variances that are being granted from the building design or
- from any safety components This particular building in this area will have very little street presence
- on 10th Street so as I mentioned at the the beginning of this, you know the intent for the separation is to
- create a streetscape and design that is both respectful of the privacy of the individuals within the
- building as well as the presence on the street. So with the limitations of the historic building in
- regards to what can be done to the outside, the presence or the kind of separation of the unit from
- just the window component itself achieves kind of what the goals of the UDO were looking for in terms
- of the privacy and the streetscape design. And then as I mentioned, the strict application
- of the terms of the UDO would present practical difficulties because they would contradict with historic
- designation of the property that severely limits what can really be done within the interior of that.
- So we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve this variance V-39-25
- with the one condition that is listed in staff's report. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
- once the petitioners had an opportunity to to speak. Thank you Eric. May I have the petitioner come
- forward. So I believe that they are present online. I'm not sure which entity online if the petitioner
- for this is available online please use the raise hand function so that I can recognize you and unmute you.
- I'm not not seeing anybody raising their hand once again to somebody online that is representing the
- petitioner for this petition 601 North Morton Street if you could please use the raise hand function
- so we can recognize you.
- Apologize apparently I'm not I'm not seeing anybody online. So what I would recommend is the board make
- a motion to move this to the end of the agenda and I'll try to see if I can reach out to the petitioner
- and see see what's see what's going on. All right. Let's let's do that. I'll move that we move this
- petition to the back of the line for tonight. I have a second.
- Second OK. Thank you. So we'll move as I just reached out to petition I did receive an email three minutes
- ago that they were having trouble getting online from their location. So we'll move this to the end
- of the agenda and then go on to the next petition. And so the next petition.
- Do we have to vote for this or not. Oh yes I'm sorry I'm so sorry. Too many things at once here. So
- there was a motion to adjust the agenda and I'm sorry who made that motion. OK. And second was Leslie.
- OK. Thank you very much. Burrell. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Could Sanco. Yes. OK. Thank you very much. I
- apologize for that.
- So the next petition is a request from Don Cowden foundations for a property on West 3rd Street for
- 2500 and 2506 West 3rd Street the petitioners here tonight to request a variance from minimum landscape
- area and maximum impervious surface coverage standards To allow for a new restaurant use in the mixed-use
- corridor zoning district
- So this property is on West 3rd Street at the northwest corner of West 3rd and Kimball its own mixed
- use corridor and has been developed with a restaurant as well as a multi tenant center as well as several
- surface parking lots. So the petitioner is here to request for redevelopment of this site to allow for
- a new use for a Chick-fil-A restaurant. So the board did hear an approval or a petition forum for this site.
- Several months ago seeking several variances The board approved a variance from parking maximum number
- with that petition but denied several other variances So the petitioner has come back tonight with a
- modified site plan That has moved the building to the southeast corner of the property
- So by adjusting the location of the building on the property that took away several of the variances
- that had been previously sought And so the petitioner is only here tonight seeking a variance from maximum
- pervious surface coverage and minimum landscape area requirements So as I mentioned the the building
- or the property Has is seeking redevelopment here and would still have access from Kimball Drive along
- the east side of the site
- As the board heard at the last hearing and I would imagine we'll probably hear a little bit more tonight
- as well the petition petitioner Gave a parking demand study with the last petition as well as gave a
- lot of testimony regarding the need for a drive-through use and stacking spaces which
- Some members may certainly be aware of some of the challenges at the existing location of traffic certainly
- backing up onto public streets. So safety was certainly a concern and making sure that the use was able
- to provide parking on the site for the tenant or for the resident or the users as well as the employees.
- So that desire for stacking space has created a lot of the the challenges that the petitioner has been
- able to resolve The petition does include one property that is in the Monroe County planning jurisdiction
- That particular property that's at the northeast side of the site is not part of this petition or factored
- into any of our review criteria that is a separate site that is being
- evaluated by the Monroe County Planning Department. So we are only looking at the portion that is within
- the city to ensure compliance with the portions of this property that are in the city itself. So the
- property within the city meets all of the setback requirements for the building for parking area for
- landscaping.
- And so the petition site still has access from Kimball Drive through this property that's in the county
- will flow into the site to the west and then circle around with the pickup window on the west side of
- the building. So all of the drive through lanes meet the setback requirements. They are even with the
- face of the building as allowed.
- They are able to meet all of the landscaping requirements as well as all of the bicycle parking requirements.
- So they are they are here tonight to request a variance as I mentioned from the minimum landscape area
- requirements. So the MC zoning district requires a minimum of 40 percent landscaped area. So the petitioners
- requesting a variance to allow 33 percent landscaped area the maximum impervious surface coverage allowance
- within the MC zoning district is 60%. And so the petitioner is requesting a variance to allow 67% landscaped
- area. No, I'm sorry, I said that backwards. 67% impervious surface coverage. So the petitioner is just
- slightly over in both of those two areas.
- Areas and these do lie outside of the minor minor modification allowance within the UDO You know in
- case the board is wondering why this small amount wasn't able to be addressed through a different process
- It does exceed what is allowed for a minor modification. So this does have to come to the board for
- approval to allow for those those those reductions so as I kind of mentioned in the report
- The site meets all of the other development standards all of the landscaping all of the setback requirements
- The granting of the approval to allow for this slight increase allows for the site to adequately accommodate
- Stacking movement on the site turning movements through the site parking for the site as a whole So
- with them being able to meet grading or stormwater detention requirements as well They have submitted
- plans to city of Bloomington utilities. They have not identified any major
- problems with meeting any of their requirements so far so we did not find that there would be any injuries
- to the public health safety morals or general welfare in addition in regards to impacts on the use and
- value adjacent to the area you know as we discussed with this particular use and the information that's
- been submitted
- They do have a very high demand and need for parking and stacking space. And so this allows for all
- of those movements to be accomplished within the interior of the site, thus reducing any impacts on
- the use and value adjacent to the adjacent properties. And then the strict application of the terms
- of the UDO does present practical difficulties. And we see this oftentimes with corner lots and the
- dual setback requirements and frontage requirements and limitations. And certainly we heard a lot of
- that testimony with the previous petition, but petitioners were able to find a way to modify the site
- and they're designed to meet
- almost all of the UDO requirements. So as I mentioned, you know, the corner location as well as demonstrated
- parking needs and stacking needs for this site do present a challenge and a hardship in meeting the
- UDO requirements. So the granting of the variance to allow for this slight increase in impervious surface
- coverage and slight decrease in minimum landscape area would be relieved by the granting of these variances.
- So with that, the department is recommending that the Board of
- zoning appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve the two variances with the two conditions that
- are listed in the staff's report. And I'm happy to answer any questions once the petitioners had an
- opportunity to speak. Thank you. Please sign in and state your name please. My name is Joe Varina with H.R.
- Green.
- Do you swear and affirm to or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. You have 20 minutes. Thank you. First I think staff
- and Eric you know for helping us and kind of walk through and get to the plan that we're at. I know
- there was a lot of challenges with the last plan a lot of various requests.
- And really our goal is to try and eliminate the majority of those. And I think we were able to accomplish
- that with exception of the max impervious as well as the minimum landscape requirement. And really that's
- just a function of trying to meet all the different demands that Chick-fil-A has with regards to the
- number of stacks that we need in the drive-through lane as well as the parks that we need to run all
- the different service channels that that building has to service as well.
- Mainly from the drive thru standpoint keeping all the traffic on site. So nothing really bleeds off
- site as you can see the drive thru lane is fairly long. That's that's designed by purpose is to keep
- all the traffic on site. Really. That's all I really had the only additional modification I wanted to
- make I think one of the conditions reference the variance that was approved last time with regards to
- the Max Park. The only thing that was noted in there is that I think it made it mentioned
- Any stalls beyond 15 had to be constructed out of permeable pavement this new plan that max Allowed
- parking spaces up to 20. So if we can just amended that any stalls beyond 20 parking spaces would be
- permeable pavement and our site plan currently shows that we currently have 32 proposed 12 of those
- are in permeable pavement and
- Actually, before I went into my, I got a little early into my presentation. I am joined here tonight
- by Brent Edmondson from Chick-fil-A. He's the principal development lead for this project. And we also
- have representation from the property owner as well. Thank you. Anybody else is going to speak tonight
- then? If there's questions for these gentlemen, absolutely. But otherwise, you're OK now at this point.
- Yeah. Well, you still have two minutes, I mean, 18 minutes left to speak if necessary. OK?
- Sounds good. All right. All right. I have a question for staff. Go ahead for 20 says the approved per
- terms and conditions of zoning appeals case be 12 25 VAR 20 25 0 3 0 0 6 6. So are are those terms and
- conditions also listed in what we spoke of today or are there any additional terms and conditions that
- weren't spoke of.
- So so the only conditions that were really relative to That previous approval were that any parking
- spaces over the maximum or be constructed of permeable pavers So that number is based on what the maximum
- number is for this building So as petitioners stated, you know, they've changed the dining area arrangement
- a little bit So that maximum number is increased a little bit so that the conditions still just said,
- you know anything over the maximum and
- It has to be the permanent pavers so that that's not a contradiction but the previous conditions and
- then the previous condition was that it also is related to this site this user specifically in the site
- plan that was submitted for that parking study for them. So it's not something transferable to another
- restaurant. It's specific to this. Okay. Thank you. Good question. Any more questions. All right.
- Let's go to public comment at this time if we have anybody in here or online that would like to comment.
- Now it's your time. If there is anybody online to speak to the petition for Chick-fil-a please use the
- raise hand function and we can recognize you.
- I'm not seeing anybody. Okay. Well then we're back to the BZA for any comments you might have or any
- final questions before a final action. I just have a comment. I want to thank the petitioner and the
- planning staff for working through this. I'm always grateful when people are willing to make
- Significant investments in our community and I know this was a little bit challenging But I'm really
- pleased that everybody was able to work through this So, thank you Thank you So at this time I'll entertain
- a motion I will move that we Adopt a proposed findings
- and approve the variance with the conditions set forward in the staff report. May I have a second second.
- We have a motion for approval in a second. So roll call bro. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Petition
- is approved. Congratulations. Thank you.
- All right. Moving on. May I have the staff report for V dash 43 dash 25.
- Thank you. So this is a request from a petitioner for a new veterinary emergency veterinary use for
- a property at 719 West Second Street. So the petitioner is here tonight to request a variance from maximum
- parking number and from landscaping standards.
- To allow for the establishment of a new use veterinarian clinic for a property in the mixed-use medium-scale
- district So this property is located on West 2nd Street on the second side of West 2nd and was previously
- used as a medical clinic and
- but that use was removed and the property sat empty for quite some time. So there is a new use that
- is coming in there for the business of Pitties and Pals to use as a veterinarian clinic. So the UDO
- has certain subheadings within the use categories that define when a change of use happens. So the previous
- use as medical clinic and the proposed use of veterinarian clinic is considered a change
- And use because it is going between those two headings And so the petitioner is required to bring the
- site into compliance with our limited compliance standards So that would require the removal of any
- parking spaces over the maximum number that is allowed As well as bring the site into compliance with
- any other limited compliance standards such as landscaping bicycle parking etc and so
- Because this is also within the Transform and Redevelopment Opportunity Overlay District. The TRO when
- it was originally proposed and incorporated into the U.D.O. as a busy man may or may not be aware the
- previous parking garage for the hospital was preserved on the site as well to supplement all of the
- parking or a lot of the parking needs within this particular area.
- And so the standards within the TRO Had a further reduction from parking maximums of 50% Because it
- wanted to encourage the use of the the parking garage that was being proposed So rather than having
- uses with individual surface parking lots, you know, the goal was to promote the use of the parking garage
- However, the parking garage is not currently active or able to be used and is still probably a considerable
- time away from where that would be usable and accessible by by anybody in the public or
- or businesses within this area. However, the petitioner is ready to move into the site now. And so the
- restrictions within the UDO in regards to the maximum parking number present a severe challenge on them
- in terms of being able to use the site. So the UDO would only allow for four parking spaces on the site,
- not including an ADA accessible space. So this particular use would have at least five staff members
- at one time, as well
- as five exam rooms. And so the site currently has 14 parking spaces. And so given the amount of exams
- rooms and staff that are here on the site you know the limitation of only four parking spaces really
- hinders the ability of the business to operate here. And so the petitioner is requesting a variance
- from the maximum parking number in order to allow for 12 parking spaces to remain on the site.
- There are 14 there now one of those would be used for a dumpster. One of those would be utilized for
- a bike rack. So the petitioner is proposing to allow for in essence the parking area to remain as is.
- So you can kind of see here in the site photo the view from Second Street. The parking is along the
- front of the building to two lane parking area on parking on both sides kind of limited accessibility
- with just the medical clinic or the veterinarian clinic building located in the rear.
- um...
- So this would include the incorporation of one accessible unit or accessible parking space on the site.
- The petitioner would still be required to install landscaping on the site to the extent practical. But
- one of the other requirements for the UDO is when you have more than 10 parking spaces you have to have
- at least one island within the interior of the site and the minimum size of that island has to be the
- size of an adjacent parking space. So if that
- Requirement was being met. It would take away another parking space You know as I kind of mentioned
- there with the number of staff members and exam rooms You know there the amount of parking and the need
- for parking on this site is very limited Not a lot of room there to really work with so requiring that
- island to be larger would further take away another space and really kind of hinder the usability of
- the site as a whole and
- So the petitioner as I mentioned is requesting a variance from parking maximums To allow for the 12
- spaces that are shown as well as a variance from the minimum landscaped area to not require that island
- To be the minimum size required So with this we of course evaluate it based on the three criteria You
- know, we do not find that the approval would be injurious to the public health safety morals or general
- welfare Allowing the 12 parking spaces would provide amount of parking appropriate for the
- the use based on the staff in the exam rooms and oftentimes with medical clinics. You know there are
- people that are still waiting to get in there. So even though you've got five rooms you might have people
- also still waiting to get into those and kind of the queuing. So the number of spaces is kind of really
- a bare necessity for the use. In addition the need for those parking spaces
- really hinders the ability to increase the size of the island as well. So we don't find that that would
- be injurious either of those variances in addition in relation to the use and value of the area adjacent
- to the property being affected in a substantially adverse manner. We don't find any adverse impacts
- for the granting of either of the variances. As I mentioned it does allow for parking on the site. That
- would be sufficient for what this use needs. And in regards to the strict application
- application of the terms of the udio and peculiar conditions that present a practical hardship as I
- mentioned the Desires of the udio and the transform and redevelopment opportunity overlay to utilize
- the parking garage and the inability of the garage to be utilized at this time presents a real hardship
- For the users here as they cannot use that facility for what it was intended So both of those present
- a challenge the low number of spots here and the size of the building
- and the need for parking here kind of all present a challenge and a difficulty and a hardship in the
- use of the property. And so with that, we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings
- and approve the two variances with the three conditions that are listed in staff report. And I'm happy
- to answer any questions once a petitioner has had a chance to speak. Thank you. We have a petitioner.
- Please sign in and then state your name and I'll swear. My name is Amy Summers-Kopp. Amy, do you swear
- or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
- I do. Thank you. You have up to 20 minutes. Are you going to speak as well? Are you going to say anything,
- Megan? I don't know. You're not going to speak? I don't think I need to. All right. If you decide to,
- then I can swear you in as well.
- Well, first of all, we want to say thank you to Eric and David for walking us through this. This is
- not something we were familiar with, so it was very helpful to have some guidance. And thank you for
- hearing us. I think they've done a really good job of summarizing what our needs are. And so if you
- guys have any questions for us, we're happy to answer. Well, thank you so much. And you can,
- at the end, if you need to speak, you have plenty of time. OK.
- Nineteen minutes. Okay. At this time we go back to the board. I mean if you have any questions to staff
- or petitioner for public or I do have a couple of questions but I just have you know understand a little
- bit of the history of the back and forth on this. That's kind of the framework for my
- My question. So in the conditions for approval as reference to all the site improvements must be installed
- prior to issuance of final occupancy permit and then condition three references that the petition will
- continue to work with the staff to install landscaping to the scent practical as required by the U.D.O.
- the land shaping installation Does that fall within the desk definition of site improvements? Yes, it
- does okay because I Are people confident I mean, you know when we use that's such broad language To
- the stem practical as required by the UDO I know on the petitioners plan
- There are several spaces or areas on the plan identified for landscaping. Are we are we confident that
- doing the landscaping within those areas are going to be considered to the extent practical. Where I'm
- going with this is I don't want that to turn into another prolonged
- you know back and forth over that requirement because I just might understand this has been going on
- for quite a while. Yeah certainly understand that. And so you know just from the department's perspective
- you know we're certainly aware of the needs of the petitioner and kind of
- what has been presented so far and we're continuing to work with them and being understanding of their
- needs and perhaps limitations as well. So I'd say that we're very open to being understanding to what
- the extent practical means and have not so far been overly harsh by any means in terms of what needs
- to be installed.
- Yeah, so we're certainly willing to work with them and not be overly onerous.
- Has the issue been primarily around the parking more so than landscaping? Yes, so certainly I mean that
- would that was the main challenge was the UDO and the language within there that required a certain
- amount of parking or a significant amount of parking to be removed, which then opened up the space for
- a lot more landscaping. You know, certainly the removal of the parking and I don't want to speak for
- the petition. They can speak to this themselves. You know, that was a heavy financial burden. The removal
- of the asphalt.
- and then carrying it with that all of the additional landscaping. So you know with the granting of the
- variance to allow more parking you know that kind of conversely takes away the area needed for landscaping
- which reduces that financial burden as well. So you know several things are kind of accomplished with
- the granting of the variance variances. Do you have a question. Just a second. Do you have a question
- for the petitioner. Otherwise the petitioner can speak at the end.
- I do have a question for the petitioner. Are you comfortable with that language. And this is new to
- me. So you know so that was a concern to me. And one there was two reasons a concern when it was like
- you said it was open ended and to my other concern was timing of the year because if we can't get an
- occupancy permit because landscaping is not in but she's trying to open in February or so that's going
- to be a little tricky because we're not going to be able to get
- landscaping done probably between now and the time she opens and I don't know how to address that. So
- yes I can address that a little bit from staff's perspective so we certainly deal with that a lot.
- This time of year and so we allow for temporary occupancies to be given You know with the understanding
- that you know, this is getting toward the end of the planting season So oftentimes those temporary
- occupancies will given be given until April or May or so of next year when it becomes planting season
- again So they're able to utilize it. You know, the goal is that we have an approved plan And then some
- of the things that have to be delayed due to weather You know are delayed until April or May or so of next year
- Does that answer your question. It doesn't. And for what it's worth that process has worked well. Yeah.
- My personal experience there. Any more questions from the board for staff or the petition. No. So now
- we're going to move to public comment. We have anybody here that would like to speak in favor.
- or against the petition or online if we have anybody online. If there is anybody online that would like
- to speak to the petition for 719 West Second Street please use the raise hand function or send a message
- via chat and we can recognize you and unmute you.
- I'm not seeing anybody online. Do you for the petitioner you have 19 minutes. Do you have anything else
- you'd like to share. So we're back to the board for any comments that we want to make or a final action.
- I just have a quick comment. I know this one has been pretty difficult.
- You know the the challenges well You're in front of the BZA because from time to time we we discover
- that Language that's included in a UDO that was adopted, you know five years ago creates practical challenges
- for us and it requires That folks go through this kind of process It's unfortunate. It's taken a long
- time and I know it's been
- kind of difficult. But you know I know that David and Eric and others they keep a good record of where
- there are these kind of pain points so that hopefully we can address some of these deficiencies
- or challenges. This is a unique site. You know I mean the assumption as Eric referenced earlier about
- why you got this huge old garage. So you know well we all know that the reality of
- The development of the Hopewell site is very complicated and it's going to take a while to get to the
- point where the garage is functionally used for a regional center which we're nowhere close to that
- right now as far as I can tell but You know this use in and of itself was kind of tricky in terms of
- the strict language of our current code and I'm glad that
- The staff you were able to work through that because I think it's an important service for our community
- and it seems like a very appropriate place to do it. I mean we're still providing emergency services
- for mammals. So it's close but I'm really appreciative of the petitioner making the investment in this
- neighborhood.
- Because when the hospital moved and the city took over all this land I mean there's a lot of concern
- about what happens with the site of this magnitude and to have private investment and uses come back
- into the site is really important. And you're the first new private investment in that area. So I appreciate
- you being the pioneers. Sometimes you know the first ones.
- It's a little bit harder but I appreciate you sticking with it and making the investment and being prepared
- to provide this service to our community. And I thank Eric and the team for plowing through it and making
- it happen. I'd like I wasn't in the previous meetings I'll comment as well. The garage I don't know
- if you saw my eye roll. I'm like if you're in an emergency that situation last thing last thing you're
- thinking about is parking in a garage.
- to get your animal into a vet hospital. And maybe you'll be there for a while and you can go back to
- the garage. But I appreciate that you kept up the fight to keep the parking. I work for Wonder Lab.
- Parking is a daily problem. And the fact that you fought for the parking, I think, is truly important
- for more businesses in the community.
- Fight for their own parking. So kudos for that For getting this far and just we need more vets. So,
- thank you All right With that I will entertain a motion I'll propose that we adopt proposed findings
- and approve v43 25 ZR
- twenty twenty five zero nine zero zero nine eight With the three conditions included in the staff report
- Second I Have roll call, please. Thank you, uh, bro. Yes Fernandez. Yes, kusenko. Yes Petition is approved.
- All right. Congratulations. I
- So I have heard from the the previous petitioner for the Sean Burton position petition So Lucas Brown
- is online And should be able to speak. So we've already given the staff presentation so we should be
- ready to go into the petitioners presentation Yes
- Can you excuse me. Could you state your name so I can swear you in please. All right. Mr. Brown 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. You have up to 20 minutes.
- business.
- Thank you. Have any questions. I have a question that's been nagging at me since I saw the packet. There
- are the old like pipes on the west side. Are those remaining because they're required to be remained.
- Are they viewed as.
- Some kind of architectural feature. I'm just very curious about why those remain in the elevations.
- I mean, think against them. I'm just curious.
- All right. Thanks Lucas. Thank you. Any other questions from from the board. Well at this time then
- we're going to go to public comment either. There's no one here but anybody online that would like to comment.
- If there is anybody online to speak to the petition at 601 North Morton Street please use the raise
- hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody online for this one. OK. So we're back
- to the busy day for any comments or a final action and I'll entertain a motion.
- I will motion for V dash thirty nine twenty five with the conditions of the approved plans and elevations
- submitted be approved. Okay. May I have a second. Second motion is to approve roll call bro. Yes. Fernandez.
- Yes. Good Cinco. Yes. Petition is approved. Safe travels Lucas.
- Congratulations. Do we have any other things from staff? No? Well, we are adjourned.