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 Some were withdrawn.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 Madeline Sanders was withdrawn.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.