- And a call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington borders for November 20th 2025 Please have
- a roll call Here Fernandez Kutz and cow here in Throckmorton here and we do have minutes from October
- 23rd 2025 which were supplied do we have a motion for approval or amendments or
- Motion for approval of the minutes of October 23rd 2025 because they go second Call the roll Fernandez
- That's okay, good Cinco. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes, morale. Yes 4-0. Thank you Okay, do we have any reports
- resolutions or communications before we go through the petitions I
- No, okay First let me give you those that are being continued then I'll give you a list of the petitions.
- We're gonna hear tonight Realize, of course as we are approached at nine o'clock hour We may have to
- provide some leeway due to the technical issues here. We are getting started for the record 40 minutes
- late so the first Order here is the petitions to be continued to our meeting on December 18th 2025 will
- be the petitions of a a-17-22 Joe camp construction and
- LLC and Blackwell Construction, Inc CU dash 33 dash 24 hat Reynolds LLC V dash 42 dash 25 Grey Star
- Development Central LLC Tonight we will be hearing the following petitions CU dash 33 dash 25 Is it
- I think it's Wiley engineers is that correct why I
- V-44-25 for an auto-connect. CU slash V-45-25, Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. V-48-25, Blood-Sew
- Rygert Cooper James, and V-49-25. Is it Ji Yong Lee, is that right? Okay, all right, and the final will
- be V-50-25.
- LJS LLC, those are the petitions to be heard tonight. Do I have a motion? Yes, I have a motion for to
- move CUV dash 45 dash 25 Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ To the beginning of the petitions Do I have
- a second First and second to
- Move the Epistolic Church of Jesus Christ to petition to the first position tonight. Can I have a vote
- taken, please? Katsenko yes, Throckmorton. Yes, Burrell. Yes, Fernandez. Thank you unanimous. Therefore
- we can move it. So to start then we will start with CU dash slash V dash 45 dash 25 Epistolic Church
- of Jesus Christ the petitioners here and
- Just wanna make sure they're in, okay, thank you. We'll go first to the staff for a report.
- Good evening, Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. For us is the Apostolic Church of Jesus
- Christ located 1100 East Miller Drive. And they're requesting conditional use approval for a place of
- worship as well as a variance from minimum sidewalk and tree plot width standards to allow the expansion
- of the church in a residential medium lot, R2 zoning district. As you can see, this church is located
- at the southeast corner of the intersection of
- East Miller Drive in South Olive Street and also portion of extends to the east to South Highland Avenue.
- There's one lot to the east, looking at 1240 East Miller Drive that is on mixed use neighborhood scale,
- which is a childcare learning center and daycare. The property itself has been developed currently with
- a 4500 square foot church, which has been there for many decades. There are parking areas, one accessible
- by drive cut on East Miller Drive as well as one on Highland Avenue. And the conditional use for a place
- of worship was granted by the hearing officer in July to facilitate the plan expansion. However, that
- approval had a condition that required a compliant sidewalk and tree plot along Highland Avenue. And
- due to engineering design difficulties encountered with that existing drainage system and topography
- along Highland Avenue, petitioners now requesting a variance from those sidewalk and tree plot standards,
- which necessitates a new conditional use as well.
- So as you can see here, the upper left corner of the site plan here is the existing church with the
- planned expansion going to the south off the southeast side of the existing church. And along East Highland
- Avenue, there is currently an existing approximately five foot wide sidewalk. And the plan is to rather
- than what the transportation
- Unified Development Ordinance require which is a Excuse me with a seven foot wide sidewalk an eight
- foot tree plot. They are instead proposing to replace that existing five foot wide sidewalk with a six
- foot wide monolithic sidewalk With the street trees planned on the back west side of that sidewalk
- As discussed, the 14,000 square foot expansion to the south is for multi-purpose gymnasium, offices,
- meeting room, storage space for the church. But since that proposed addition expands the church by more
- than 10%, that required limited compliance criteria. Here you see the existing church building.
- And then going south along Olive Street, you see the southeast side of the church. The two existing
- homes there will be demolished as part of this project to facilitate that expansion. The existing sidewalk
- on Olive Street stops there at that current utility pool. However, that sidewalk will be continued along
- the entire frontage there for the church. Looking here along Highland Avenue for the variance request,
- you can see the current topography and slope and drainage concerns there along Highland Avenue.
- So moving into our criteria and findings of fact first for the conditional use permit for the place
- of worship all petitions subject to compliance with the UDO applicable regulations utility
- service improvement standards and prior approvals. We find the petition complies with the UDO including
- underlying R2 zoning district and as such the building meets the R2 dimensional standards including
- maximum 40 foot height and all setback requirements.
- The maximum 40% improvement service coverage was not met. However, minor modification was approved by
- the director of planning and transportation to allow for that improvement service coverage to be met.
- Landscaping plan provides for a landscape buffer and fencing between the place of worship use and adjacent
- dwelling uses. The existing proposed church building and proposed church buildings are to utilize existing
- utilities and services and shall comply with utility service and improvement standards.
- Proposed changes to the parking area will satisfy requirements set in the UDO and no other applicable
- regulations other than we've already discussed regarding the prior conditional use approval. For consistency
- with comprehensive plan and other applicable plans, we find the proposal is consistent with the goals
- of the comprehensive plan for facilitating religious assembly with a neighborhood residential. Church
- building, as discussed, has been there for many decades. The comprehensive plan states that neighborhood
- residential
- The land use that includes places of religious assembly can be appropriate in this area regarding the
- new building massing comprehensive plan states that there are no no more than three but off most often
- two stories or less and have natural or landscape front side and rear yards. The proposed architectural
- building styles will meet that wide range of architectural styles as a characteristic for that neighborhood
- and zoning.
- Public Street sidewalks other facilities provide good access to other uses within the district and provides
- additional land development policy guidance for the land use development approvals to optimize street
- bicycle pedestrian connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods create neighborhood focal points. And these
- could include such elements as neighborhood serving land use. They should convey welcoming and open
- to the general public environment and additional criteria include that we ensure the appropriate linkages
- to neighborhood destinations are provided.
- and respect to historic environmental assets through site design, transportation networks, and architectural
- design standards. For providing adequate services and facilities, as we discussed, public service capacity
- exists. The church expansion plans to utilize existing water connections from the homes to be demolished
- as part of this project. Existing water main and pressure are sufficient. Expansion will install new
- and refurbished existing sidewalks, which improve pedestrian's connectivity and safety.
- The planned alternate design for the Highland Avenue frontage provides adequate pedestrian street tree
- capacity while mitigating the engineering and design complexity that would exist with a traditionally
- met design. Any changes to utility service will be reviewed and approved by city Bloomington utilities.
- And to date there have been no such problems identified for minimizing and mitigating adverse impacts.
- We find there are no known regulated environmental features on the site. And although the church is
- listed as a contributing structure
- The proposed addition will not trigger demolition delay. We find there's no nuisance regarding noise,
- smoke, odors, vibrations, lighting, or hours of operation. At the neighborhood meeting originally for
- this project, there were notable concerns from residents and attendees regarding lighting, parking,
- and disturbed natural features. However, those were discussed and appeared to be addressed satisfactorily.
- For rational phasing plan, there is no phasing plan for this proposal. And moving on to our criteria
- and findings for
- The development standards variance. Again, this is for the Highland Avenue frontage for the minimum
- width for the sidewalk and tree plot. First condition that the approval will not be injurious to public
- health, safety, morals, general welfare of the community. We find that the requested variance is not
- expected to be injurious to general welfare of neighborhood and community. There will be little impact
- to the overall safety to the public as a result of requested variance, pedestrian capacity,
- will be maintained and improved with a wider sidewalk than the current facility. And the need for the
- variance is due to the result of a complex drainage layout along the Highland Avenue frontage, of which
- installing a fully compliant sidewalk and tree plot would cause a substantial and unreasonable burden
- on the project for the petitioner. And this land use is protected under the Religious Land
- Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Second, for the use and value adjacent to the property
- included in the development standards variance,
- We find that the granting is not expected to impact the use and value of the area adjacent in a substantially
- adverse manner. The petitioner designed the sidewalk and tree plot to be compatible with the character
- and needs of the neighborhood to the maximum extent practicable without being an undue or impractical
- financial burden on the owner. Third, that the strict application of the terms of the unified development
- ordinance would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. We find that it would result
- in practical difficulties in use of property
- as it would require substantial engineering and costs to install fully compliant sidewalk and tree plot.
- The peculiar conditions associated are the existing drainage system and current topography along the
- Highland Avenue frontage. And this variance further meets language and requirements within the religious
- land use and institutionalized persons act that prohibits zoning laws that would unreasonably limit
- religious assemblies, institutions or structure and would accomplish this via least restrictive meanings
- of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
- So having gone through our findings of fact for both the conditional use and variance, the department
- recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve this conditional
- use and variance with the following conditions. As noted in the staff report one, two, and three were
- there. The fourth is an addition from staff. The first condition is that the conditional use and variance
- approvals are limited to the design shown in the packet. A staff level minor site plan and site development
- permit are required prior to any site disturbance.
- This approval is for the general site and landscape plans and petition as submitted and approved. Any
- additional future construction or work must meet all your requirements and this approval will supersede
- conditional use 25 to 25 grant by the hearing officer. I am here for any questions you may have.
- Thank you. If the petitioner could please come forward to the podium please sign in then state your
- name and I'll swear you in.
- Your name Daniel Butler Bynum fanning and associates. Do you affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Okay, you have 20 minutes
- to use for presenting your case anything that you don't use now you can reserve and Use that before
- we have any final action, please for the respect of the rest of the cases for the night I won't add
- much here. We've worked hard with the the planning department to
- Try to find different resolutions for the sidewalk along the east side and this is what we came up with
- as something that would work and found a Practical difficulty with the drainage path that's going through
- there with that if there's any other questions Happy to answer back to the board any questions for the
- staff and or the petitioner Seeing other we're back to the public is there anyone in chambers who would like to
- Address this petition. If so, please come forward sign in Seeing none. Do we have anyone online? If
- you're in zoom and you would like to make a comment and can raise your virtual hand or send a message
- to the host I See no comments on zoom Nobody on zoom any final comments from the petitioner. You are
- afforded a final comment if you'd like Okay back to the board for action. I have a motion. I
- I have a motion to approve CU dash V dash 45 dash 25 with the following conditions one two and three
- as stated in the packet There was a fourth condition added only in the presentation is it okay to include
- that condition as well yes, but can you repeat that the condition the
- The fourth condition is to supersede supersede a previous approval for this site. It was I think see
- you 2525. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So the four points first and a second. Is that correct on that call
- the question All right Throckmorton, yes, Burrell. Yes, Fernandez could sink. Oh, yes. Thank you. Thank
- you all right with that we will go to
- The CU dash 33 dash 25 give me a second to get there Petitioners here in chambers. Yes That's yeah,
- I just want to make sure st. Remy homeowners. Okay. Thank you. All right. Can I please have a staff
- report? Oh
- We can't hear you yet, Eric. There you go. I'm sorry, I didn't hear Joe announce that he was ready for
- a report from staff. That's okay, you're ready. So this is a request from the St. Remy Homeowners Association
- for a property at 3716 East St. Remy Drive. The petitioners are here to request conditional use approval
- to allow a driveway in the floodplain.
- also requested as a variance from environmental standards to allow maintenance to a detention pond and
- wetland within the St. Remy development. So this development is on the southeast side of town. The overall
- area was developed and planted with several planted lots that were developed with paired homes.
- The development also included three common area lots that are on the property. One of those serves as
- a stormwater management function, which you can see on the left side of the screen, the west side of
- the site. And then there are two other common area lots that were planted within the development as
- well. So the pond on the west side of the site also has a sanitary sewer line that runs across the south
- side of the embankment.
- There is a portion of that sewer line that has become exposed due to severe erosion and deterioration
- over the years. The petitioner has been charged with re-establishing the fill that is required over
- that sewer line, as well as to do a series of bank stabilization and erosion along the dam, the south
- side of the pond itself.
- So you can see here a picture of that sewer line that is exposed along the south side of the dam. So
- CBU obviously has a lot of concerns about this as well. So the potentials will be working to replace
- the amount of fill that is required across this line as well as install a driveway through the south
- end of the site in order to access that pond to provide annual opportunities for CBU to do inspections
- and maintenance to the dam itself.
- So there are several environmental features that are present on the site. I mentioned that the pond
- itself has been designated as a wetland. It was set aside and designated in 1992 approval as a wetland.
- It did not have any restrictions that were necessarily placed on it, but the entire property itself
- was shown on that plat as a wetland.
- There is also several intermittent streams that are present on the property itself that have a 75 foot
- buffer that is required that does not allow a significant amount of disturbance within there. So as
- you can see, specifically with this exhibit here, the pond on the west side is separated from any access
- to the main roads to have any sort of vehicular access by the riparian buffer from some of these streams
- that are along there. There is also a
- section of the Jackson Creek that has a floodplain. This area is a slight interesting discrepancy in
- that it is officially mapped as floodplain. However, DNR later realized that the drainage area above
- here is less than one square mile, so it is not a regulated floodplain from DNR or FEMA's perspective.
- However, they did make the interpretation that since it is still mapped, we have to process it accordingly
- and then we can pursue later revisions to the FEMA maps to remove that since we are aware of the error.
- However, DNR does not require any permits for this since they realize that it is less than one square
- mile. However, as I mentioned, it is mapped and so we have to treat it as such.
- As I go back to the previous exhibit here showing what was proposed, the petitioner is proposing an
- access road from St. Ramey Drive that would span across the south side of the development. A portion
- of that would cross into land on the county that is owned by an adjacent property owner. That's not
- part of this, but portion of the floodplain does extend on this property, and so we have to process
- it that accordingly.
- There are also several wetlands. In addition to the main pond itself, there are several other wetlands
- that are scattered around the property that were identified in a wetland delineation study that will
- be slightly impacted by the presence of the road. The unified development ordinance does not allow any
- disturbance to wetlands. However, given their location, they prevent any access to the location of the
- pond or the access drive in order to get back there.
- And so given their location of all of these features, both the wetland, the riparian buffer and the
- floodplain, the petitioner has to seek a variance from the environmental standards of the UDO in order
- to allow for this access road that is proposed to get to the south side of the dam.
- So we've been working with the petitioner for quite some time to come up with a remediation plan. The
- overall project will involve the construction of the access road as well as moving the spillway to the
- west to get it away from the sewer line and where that erosion is. So that is one scope of the project.
- This will also involve a remediation plan in order to allow new plantings to be planted around the dam
- itself as well as around the access
- road and the wetlands that are through there. So we've been working with the petitioner to come up with
- a very substantial mitigation plan that will involve new trees being planted around the property both
- on the south side of the dam to offset what is being removed for this and then wetland plantings along
- the access road and along the wetland areas that are identified along there and then plantings around
- the pond feature itself. So this approval would also establish a buffer. It would define a buffer
- for the wetland area around the pond itself and allow maintenance and other disturbance activities outside
- of that disturbance area for the wetland, but would protect the areas around the pond that have been
- delineated as a wetland. So as I mentioned, the location of a lot of these environmental features really
- encumber the site and prevent any access to the south side of the dam without working through those
- environmental features. We've been working with the petitioner for several months
- to come up with a mitigation plan to offset these disturbances. So this mitigation plan certainly goes
- a long way to addressing the fire.
- of the public health safety morals and general welfare. As I mentioned, the location of all of these
- features presents any access there and certainly fixing the exposed sanitary line has great benefits
- to the community as a whole. We do not find any negative impacts on adjacent uses or value as a result
- of this. Certainly this would allow for the sanitary line to be fixed, which is a great benefit to the
- community.
- And then again, as I mentioned previously, the location of all of these environmental features prevent
- any access to the south side of the dam. There was not an access road or drive that was installed with
- the initial approval or development. And so there was no access provided. So this would allow a limited
- access road to the community and adjacent uses as well. And the establishment of protection of the wetland
- and other environmental features is certainly a benefit to the uses and value adjacent to this as well.
- And then again, as I mentioned previously,
- access that area of the dam to allow for future maintenance and inspection. So that's certainly a benefit.
- And as I mentioned, the location of all of these environmental features would not allow for any access
- to the south side of the dam, which is an essential component to fixing the sewer line exposure and
- the dam itself. So we did find that this meet
- all of the findings that are required within the unified development ordinance for the development standards
- variances, as well as the conditional use approval to allow for the drive and the floodplain. And we
- are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings and approve the variance with the eight
- conditions that are listed in staff's report. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
- Eric I have a quick question in the description. There's a reference to the Access road as being permanent
- stone. Is that like a previous surface? So it's not like no that's in the district and maybe speak to
- a little bit But in essence is a gravel road. It will be at grade So that there's no fill that is placed
- within the floodplain. So that's a crucial component to the construction of that road All right petitioners
- here if you would come forward and
- Please sign in when you're signed in please state your first and last name and I'll swear you in. My
- name is David Welch from the president of the Saint Remy homeowners association.
- Do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing
- but the truth I do Okay, again, you have 20 minutes. Whatever time you don't use will be in reserve.
- You can address Using that time you can address the board before the vote. Thank you. Thank you We stand
- by the staff's report our engineers are here to provide technical assistance and answer any questions
- we've worked long and hard with the city and their engineers and the staff and believe we've addressed
- each and every issue raised and this is a matter of
- health and safety So we seek your unanimous approval Thank you now before we go to the public that we
- have another question Question for judge well, I'm just curious. I mean this is a big investment that
- has a lot of public benefit You mentioned but do you if it's possible? How much are you guys having
- to invest to make this fix?
- You're asking how much yeah I've worked with the past two administration seeking city assistance without
- success We anticipate this will cost Probably four hundred thousand dollars. Okay. Well, I think it's
- a great investment. I appreciate you that your homeowners doing this and
- Do we have any other questions from the board for the staff or the petitioner before we go to the public?
- Is there anyone in chambers members of the public who'd like to address this if so? Please come to the
- podium sign in Seeing none do we have anyone online Jackie? If you would like to speak in your online
- you can send a message to the host or raise your virtual hand I Don't see anyone online
- With that, we're back to the petitioner if you choose to use any of your time remaining. We waive. OK.
- I think you used a grand total of 15 seconds of your time, so thank you. OK, with that, we're back to
- the board for action. Any questions or comments to the board or to the petitioner before a motion? Seeing
- none, do I have a motion? Sure, I'll move. Sorry.
- I'll move approval of CBU. I'm sorry. See you be thirty three twenty five and adopt the proposed findings
- and the conditions as outlined in the staff report. That would be the eight conditions. Correct. Correct.
- Thank you. Do I have a second. Second. Any final comments before a vote. Seeing none I call the question.
- Yes, Fernandez. Yes, it's Inco. Yes Throckmore. Yes. Thank you See you be dash 33 dash 25 is approved
- unanimously. Thank you for your time and your patience With that we will move on to let me get to the
- next page here one two
- This will be V dash 44 dash 25 This is Daniel M for an auto connect is the petitioner in chambers just
- so I know yes Thank you. Okay, and may I please have a staff report? All right, good evening to the
- board my name is Jamie Kreindler I'm a newer planner here at the city I met some of you back in September,
- but thank you for having me back to present this case and
- A little louder. I'm sorry. Okay Jamie Kreinler senior zoning planner so the this case the petitioner
- is requesting multiple variances from the front parking setback and landscaping standards to allow the
- use Vehicle sales or rental in the mixed-use corridor zoning district the two point two one acre property
- is located off West Bloomfield Road and
- And the properties across the street and to the north are not within the city's jurisdiction to the
- east. The properties are zone mixed corridor and residential medium lot to the south is R2 zoning and
- the properties to the west are zone mixed use medium scale. The property is currently vacant and was
- formerly occupied by Souter's landscaping. The site is surrounded by a mix of residential and business
- uses and the comprehensive plan designation is urban corridor.
- Since the property has been vacant for over a year the establishment of a new use is considered a change
- in use and the site is required to come into compliance with the limited compliance standards of the
- UDO. The minimum front parking setback in the MC zoning district is 20 feet behind the primary structures
- front building wall. There are existing buildings on the east and west sides of the site and the petitioner
- is requesting variances to allow two parking spaces to encroach in the front yard parking setback along
- West Bloomfield Road.
- and nine parking spaces to encroach in the front yard setback required along South Peachtree Lane. The
- landscaping variances relate to the parking lot perimeter trees and shrubs in the parking lot landscape
- islands. There are 101 display vehicle spaces and eight customer parking spaces for a total of 109 parking
- spaces on the site. And this requires a minimum of
- 28 trees and 327 shrubs on the perimeter of the parking area with 21 large canopy trees. No new landscaping
- for the parking lot is proposed and some of the existing vegetation are prohibited species. Eleven landscape
- islands are also required and none are shown on the plan.
- Foreign Auto Connect is a current business in the city of Bloomington presently located at 1202 South
- Walnut Street and the company is proposing to move to the subject address to have more space for the
- inventory of their used car sales. So now I'll go through the criteria and findings for each of the
- four variances. The first variance is from the front parking setback required along West Bloomfield
- Road and this is from UDO section 20 dot 0 2 dot 0 2 0 D 2 F.
- The approval of the requested parking setback variance on West Bloomfield Road is expected to negatively
- impact the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. The two parking spaces
- that are encroaching in the minimum front parking setback on the west side could be relocated to an
- alternate location on the site which would offer greater protection to pedestrians and bicyclists in
- the community.
- The granting of a front parking setback variance along West Bloomfield Road is expected to impact the
- use and value of the area adjacent to the property in adverse manner. The visual impacts affect residents
- and members of the community as a whole along this corridor by allowing a site design that is not desired
- with the goals of the U.D.O.
- The petitioner states that they need a total of eight customer parking spaces to help their business
- and this could be achieved by an alternate site design while meeting the UDO without a variance from
- the front parking setback along West Bloomfield Road. There are many locations within the site where
- customer parking can be provided and there is no minimum parking requirement for this use. The second
- variance is for the front parking setback along South Peachtree Lane.
- Portions of South Peachtree Lane that are adjacent to the subject property are unbuilt due to the lack
- of development and connectivity in this area. The approval of the requested parking setback variance
- on South Peachtree Lane is not expected to harm the public. A determinant sidewalk variance was granted
- in case V dash 17 dash 10 from the sidewalk requirement along South Peachtree Lane and the zoning commitment
- was recorded with the Monroe County recorder in June 2010.
- The granting of the front parking setback variance along South Peachtree Lane is not expected to impact
- the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in an adverse manner. There are not many adjoining
- properties on the east side of the site and the existing parking areas are not visible from the adjacent
- residential properties. The petitioner intends to preserve the existing privacy fence as a buffer between
- the subject property and the adjoining residential homes on South Peachtree Lane.
- There are nine parking spaces encroaching in the minimum front parking setback on the east side of the
- site and it would be challenging to relocate these nine parking spaces while still meeting the petitioners
- need for parking spaces for their vehicle inventory. These nine parking spaces along South Peachtree
- Lane are not highly visible since they are located behind a privacy fence that is unique to this site
- granting the development standards variance for the front parking setback on South Peachtree Lane will
- relieve the practical difficulties in this case.
- The third variance is from U.D.O. sections 20 4 0 8 0 H 1 B and C which regulate the parking lot perimeter
- trees and shrubs that are required.
- The approval of the variances from parking lot perimeter perimeter trees and shrubs is expected to be
- detrimental to the community parking lot perimeter trees and shrubs offer many aesthetic environmental
- and safety benefits. And the intent of the U.D.O. is consistent with the city's climate action plan.
- The benefit of the required landscaping increases biomass within the city as a whole and benefits the
- entire community.
- The granting of the variances from parking lot perimeter trees and shrubs is expected to impact the
- use and value of the area adjacent to the property in an adverse manner because the landscaping can
- help to improve the overall appearance of the site and increase property values.
- There are no peculiar conditions that are present on the site that prevent landscaping from being installed
- as required. The installation of the required landscaping will not result in practical difficulties
- in the use of the property, as most of the area for vehicle display is located within an enclosed area.
- The purpose of the landscaping requirements is not only for visual buffering, but it is important to
- have living biomass and plantings on a site proportional to the amount of asphalt that takes away green space.
- And the fourth and final variance is from UDO section 20.04.080 h2, which regulates the number of landscape
- islands that are required. The variance from parking lot landscape islands is expected to be harmful
- to the community. The purpose of this UDO section is to reduce the overall impervious surface on the
- site and add vegetation to meet the goals of the city's climate action plan.
- The variance from parking lot landscape islands is expected to impact the use and value of the area
- adjacent to the property in a negative manner. In addition to the environmental benefits landscape islands
- can enhance the overall visual appeal of the site which has a positive impact on property values. There
- appears to be sufficient room on the site plan to install parking lot landscape islands as required
- in the proposed site plan shows several areas
- of the parking and display areas that could easily be converted to islands and allow for vehicle display
- areas. And the UDO requires that there would need to be 11 landscape islands based on the amount of
- parking provided.
- The department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and approve the
- variance from the front parking setback along South Peachtree Lane but deny the variances from the front
- parking setback along West Bloomfield Road parking lot perimeter trees parking lot perimeter shrubs
- and parking lot landscape islands. Therefore recommended conditions as outlined in the staff report.
- And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions staff before
- we go to the petitioner.
- Petitioner could come forward and sign in please. Give me your first and last name Daniel Butler by
- the opinion associates Do you affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole
- truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you. You have 20 minutes again now what you don't use can
- be reserved and Addressed to this board before a final vote is taken. All right. Thank you I'm gonna
- take a little more time on this one. So I
- Again, Danny Butler Biden fanning associates online. He tried to last as long as he could ownership
- is with us, but he'll be online Tonight, so his name is Daniel M. So we're both Daniels. So you have
- to let us know which one you have a question for When we first came to for an auto connect is a
- Growing company here in Bloomington. They've been in Bloomington for eight years. They're local They've
- done well and they have a current location there on walnut. So they needed more room for inventory Another
- place to call home so when they came to us they were looking for different sites that would fit their
- needs and we actually had done some work on this particular site for other companies and
- So we had done some survey work and some different things and it just didn't fit anyone else's Needs
- it didn't and if you've driven by it, it's a bit of an eyesore at the moment It does have some decent
- existing buildings has a large eight foot fence that goes around the existing gravel area that is more
- in question tonight and
- No one it's been sitting vacant for quite some time. I believe for eight years since the landscape company
- and own that The site fits for an auto connect in terms of the office space needed So there's offices
- already set up there. They have indoor space to You know store cars and then the outdoor space was perfectly
- Situated so that we could get about About a hundred display vehicles in that fenced in area He when
- he first came to us that was the number about a he needed room for about a hundred vehicles to Fit his
- needs and they're outgrowing their current their current location one unique thing about this existing
- site is all the buildings and
- Fencing everything is in its current location So we would design it potentially a little bit differently,
- but so we're trying to reutilize an existing site here in Bloomington and Give it a facelift new landscaping
- And we're asking you tonight to work with us on some of these variances We'd like to adhere to the UDO
- on all design aspects
- For this with the exception of the ones that you're hearing tonight, and I'll try to explain a little
- bit more why the the islands in the parking lot that those to our understanding the reason for having
- islands in a parking lot is one for maneuver maneuver ability of The public to not damage other cars to
- Be able to have clear driveway lanes and have an ability to You know get around the parking lot in a
- safe and seen manner and you know bump the curb if you need to and so in this particular case it is
- different that they are not allowing any public and public car, you know driving in that location by
- the way, when we're talking about these islands, we're not asking for the
- the area to the west that will be for employees and In clients to park so they park there and then they
- go into the fenced off area and then they can look at the display vehicles that way so no one will be
- driving back there and so that would be one reason another reason, you know for having Islands in a
- parking lot is that you would plant them you would have plantings in them and
- One of the main reasons for that is that it would shield, you know headlights shield them from public
- View and we understand that but this for this particular case. This is for display vehicles only and
- that these these display vehicles are all already hidden from public site with the fence that's going
- around the site so no one will see these vehicles from Bloomfield Road or for
- Peach tree to the east. So that's another reason for to have them Another reason just another practical
- difficulty reason is it just takes away inventory space that he needs We are not asking to fill this
- It's an existing gravel, but we are we are going to be paving it We're not asking to go above and beyond
- what normal you do? parking places for You know a typical parking lot
- Inventory, so we're not going to be cramming these in here in every corner of this site But it would
- be and that's I believe you saw that in our site layout That's a hundred fit and we don't have to then
- you know be putting them very tight together and be You can see that a hundred fit without and you still
- get the the aisle widths that are required by the UDO even though they're first display vehicles only
- so we're not trying to do that
- But we are if you put in the islands you'd take away 10 to 12 Inventory spaces and he needs that he
- needs room for inventory. And so we're asking for that as a more minor reason This has been submitted
- to CBU and CBU does not need drainage in these islands. They're not requiring that We're not disturbing
- enough to trigger any of those types of requirements I
- Also another reason to have islands in a parking lot is for Heat island effect, right? So we've gone
- through this on a couple of petitions that you've seen with me where you have display vehicles and the
- question is if you're gonna put large canopy trees in islands, then you're gonna have potential long-term
- when these do actually grow up and get big enough to mitigate a heat island effect over asphalt then
- You would have also the potential for damage on display vehicles and it's a hardship It's different
- than a normal parking lot and in this particular case So if we were to if you were to deny us and ask
- us to put in islands Then at that time we would be asking you then for small Small trees again, like
- we have an other of these type scenarios and so we're asking you not to do that either and in this case, it's
- It's different because in those other car dealerships that you've heard in the past Those are for public
- to drive through them. And so it makes sense to have them for the maneuverability again Because people
- be driving through in this case. We won't have that and so to mitigate the heat island effect You'll
- only be getting the small trees Potentially, you know if we had to put it in if that makes sense All
- right parking lot perimeter plantings
- We do have a fence that goes around it now. And so those parking lot perimeter plantings are primarily
- for again shielding From the public view this site is not in great condition, but the same time it is
- quite It does have a lot of plantings on it currently and so we're asking to do all of the other required
- landscaping and
- By the way with the current all the current vegetations on the site We are still planting 77 trees on
- the site with our proposed plan So we're not asking to plant nothing. We're just asking in the east
- parking where the display vehicles will go that those requirements would be waived because of the uniqueness
- of existing site reutilizing it and having
- to Be fenced off and that would be for that particular use and not for a public parking lot which some
- of these requirements are really for The the last one that I will that I'll speak to oh by the way that
- the site after our proposal will only be 51 percent impervious so we're not approaching the
- Maximum impervious by any means we're not asking for that or to go above and beyond so we are Planting
- a lot other landscape Requirements are here and then also with the existing conditions on site the the
- last piece about the front yard sepik along Bloomfield Road that that is a that is a difficult practical
- difficulty in that there is a grade that's out there now and
- We need to line up our ADA parking with the existing slope that's there now ADA parking has a very specific
- requirement that you can't exceed exceed certain slopes and The the sites already graded and so it would
- be very difficult to try to put that elsewhere and so you can see on our map that
- One of those two parking spaces that does go into that setback is the ADA and that is Really about the
- only place that we can put it. I'm not saying it's impossible put it elsewhere But if if you are in
- that condition and need the front door You don't want to be parking across the site and then coming
- to the office if that makes sense Just because of the existing condition that the site is in All right,
- I'll stop talking. I will
- Let you guys answer I'll answer any questions I didn't get to everything that was in my letter that
- I had submitted to you, but I those are some of the Reasoning behind us asking for these four variances
- Thank you, you'll retain about nine minutes that you can use before any actions taken Do we have any
- questions from the board to the petitioner or to staff? I
- I do Leslie Kasinkov speaking So for the front parking spaces, how many parking spaces are in the front
- of the building that are not enclosed in offense? The all of the customer and employee parking which
- will be eight Will be on the west side and and those we plan on adhering to any requirements Landscaping
- islands or anything like that Okay, and then my second question is
- For the gradient did you choose where the building would be Located because of the gradient or did you
- choose that building location for other reasons? That is an existing building. We are not. Oh, I'm sorry
- We're not playing on any new structures on the site. Okay, only re utilizing what's there got it? So
- all of this is about the landscaping and the parking Landscaping in the front yard setback. That's correct.
- Thank you. That's helpful
- Any other questions from the board? My question the petitioner would be This the space directly across
- from where you're gonna put the two handicapped spots right up against the fence Is the grade on that
- still? too much for handicap parking Can you when you come in off of Bloomfield and you go south and
- Then on the east side up against the fence where there Which it would be Opposite from where you currently
- have it with would that space work for handicap parking and it would it be graded properly? We could
- potentially do that again. It would just be further away from the front door and understood Yeah, and
- would that meet the needs of the of the city? Would it be far enough away? Um
- Believe Jackie Scanlon assistant director. I believe the requirement is that their place as close as
- they can be You know safely, so I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention to what location well You wanted
- to be close but at the same time you were talking about a grading issue and then you're right talking
- about a setback so if the if you want to be as close as possible then the plan that's presented makes
- sense, but if you want to stay with the UDO then the question is is the wood parking
- Directly across from that would that meet the city's you do? Oh sure. I think the preference would probably
- be to move them south To stay close to the building Understood that that's a grading issue though.
- Is it not? That's correct again It's not impossible, but it does put another hardship on to possibly
- do some regrading in the parking lot report and pavements and it just gets the a customer in that condition
- further from the door and
- And so that's really the one of the main reasons that we kept it where it's at just for somebody and
- again another sorry Joe to keep talking here, but another reason that We understand that there's a front
- yard setback that we need to obey is that Possible when people are driving by to have those too close
- to the road but we will it will be shielded with a new island and landscaping in that to also help
- Keep, you know headlights or visibility from a car that's sitting there. And so that's why we are asking
- for that Yeah, I see that there but now you did mention that you're still gonna be far below the percentage
- for the impervious Surface I mean that's a lot of that's a lot of blacktop you're gonna put down though.
- Has there been any consideration given to other types of coverage there that
- Wouldn't just put a bunch of blacktop. I'm not worried about the islands at this point We're we're also
- happy and fine with keeping it gravel if the city not so much that I just don't know what the the cost
- differences of black topping as opposed to using You know some of the the stone That has been used in
- the past, you know blocks that allow for water Like pervious pavers or something like that pervious
- pavers would be
- Quite a bit more expensive than putting down blacktop, but we haven't looked at that particular option
- we've looked at keeping it gravel and putting on blacktop and We would actually be fine with either
- one of those option We haven't looked into but traditionally pervious pavers a little more expensive.
- Okay, and we've had this this issue before and in terms of the islands within a What essentially is
- a retail space?
- Retail space showing product. So we're familiar with that argument. So I appreciate you tying that to
- This issue having come up before those are my only question you have any other questions from the board
- All right, then in that case, we'll have you wait for a moment. Is there anyone from the public here
- in the chambers who'd like to? Speak to this petition if so come forward Seeing none. Is there anyone online?
- If you're online, you can raise your virtual hand or send a message to the host if you would like to
- speak during public comment. I don't see anything on zoom. Okay. There's no one from the public either
- in chambers or online who would like to speak to this petition with that before we come back to the
- board. The petitioner does have nine minutes if you'd like to use that. Otherwise we'll proceed to a
- question and answers.
- I'm not sure if there's anything else I would add at this time I'm trying to look over my notes and
- there's other pieces in the letter that kind of give other reasoning for again having These islands,
- you know waved at this time and the the uniqueness of the fence around the site again, they want to
- re kind of give the the site a facelift and a lot of these things and
- Some of this money that could go to in our opinion Pieces that may not necessarily not be necessary
- can then be added to the site in other ways Yeah, just a quick question on that is You're gonna leave
- that fence art or is your intention to to replace it and upgrade it? He would like to repair damaged
- areas right now with the intention of
- Giving it a total replacement of the same height Someday he's talked about a metal fence that has a
- kind of a nice black look to it. That would look much more appealing Right now it is a wood fence in
- bad Conditions, but you'd like to repair and paint it as of right now And then to the staff if down
- the road he wants to change what's that eight feet?
- So down the road, if they do replace it, would that require a variance, or would they be able to replace
- it at eight feet? It would require a variance. If they keep a substantial amount of it, like the posts
- in some cases, depending on how much they keep, they can keep the height. Yeah, I just wanted to bring
- up that now, because I don't want it to run into an issue where you have to come back. And I'm just
- wondering why you didn't ask for that variance now. I think it was.
- Because he wanted to repair the wood fence and make that look nice at this time He is really trying
- to get into the site by the way the this Just publicly publicly want to mention that this city has been
- great working with us on the site to the state and I think he wants to try to do as much as he can to
- make this a
- Look great really look nice and he would like to replace the fence but at this time he said just repair
- and and paint is his Okay, and then if they don't get a variance on the future to replace what is it
- six feet? Yes, six feet in front of the building. I just want to be clear on that. So it's on the record
- I mean, yeah, you know if this comes back in a couple years south of the front building wall, it could
- be eight I'm sorry, but I did get a message immediately after public comment closed and
- Up to you. There is one person online who had a couple of questions for you all that you might like
- to pose Do we have to take a voter? Can I just make that decision? I believe it's just up to you Okay,
- let's go ahead petitioners stand down for a second. We'll go ahead and have the public comment We have
- public comment the person that's on the line who would like to speak. Could you say your first and last
- name, please? Oh Great. Go ahead Say your first and last name, please
- You might have to turn up your volume because we can't hear you. Okay, I think it looks like she's having
- technical difficulties. I will just. Okay, can you hear me now? I can. Just say your first and last
- name, please. Catherine Burns. Catherine, do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth,
- the old truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. You have five minutes to speak to this petition.
- peach tree and I'm curious about what the hours of operation are and what kind of noise effect there
- might be for the neighborhood. And I also wanted to clarify that that fence would remain. I believe
- that's what he said, but I wanted to be sure that that fence that's there would remain. And just wondered
- about the noise effect and the hours of operation.
- Thank you. Thank you for your input. Is there anyone else online while we're here Jackie? I Don't see
- anyone else. Okay, we'll go back to the board for questions I just have a Question I have comments,
- but I'll save them but like in the proposed finding for the front parking setback the claim that it's
- you know gonna be injurious to the public health safety blah blah blah and
- and part of the rationale is that moving the spaces would offer greater protection to pedestrians and
- bicyclists. There's no sidewalks on the south side of Bloomfield, is there? I mean, there's a side path
- on the north side of Bloomfield. Is there a sidewalk? Sorry. I just couldn't tell from my view.
- It could just be grass Yeah, we can't tell from the from the satellite images. Is that a sidewalk or
- is that just overgrowth? With a path, you know, my Apple Maps might be old But the satellite image I'm
- looking at doesn't appear to have any sidewalks on the south side there
- There is a sidewalk directly in front of the site Well, what I'm asking is are you sure that that's
- a sidewalk or is it just overgrowth that makes it look like a sidewalk? Yeah From the engineering department
- went out there and looked at it. Okay, so that what we're seeing there between the entrance on The east
- of that property all the way down. That's a sidewalk on the south side. Yes. Okay, so
- But that sidewalk does not continue. No, it does it continues. It's like it's hard to see under the
- trees. Okay Any other questions for the petitioner or staff? And then I just have one clarifying question.
- I think the petitioner said that the plan is to relocate the business from South walnut, is that correct?
- There's a plan
- Yes, they would only have one location in Bloomington. They wouldn't keep their old location. They would
- be at this new location I think I saw a for sale sign on that lot. Is that right? The south walnut,
- I believe they already have a new tenant over there lined up I Have one more question. Why did you you
- said that you had? you were aware of this existing site and that this business fit better than other
- businesses and
- You elaborate on that and why you chose this site versus any other site? Yeah, absolutely. I didn't
- play real estate agent necessarily, but That we had done survey work on this site for other clients
- and So much so that they've put in a lot of money trying to make this work for their business for other
- clients. I can't I don't believe I can let you know the exact clients, but it was two of them and
- Both of them it didn't end up working just because of the nature the amount of money it might take to
- get this one up to speed and then when they came along it worked for them because Again, just trying
- to reiterate the uniqueness of the site and it just fit perfectly for their needs he did come along
- and used, you know a hundred cars and In a orderly fashion of behind this fence made sense for them and
- Let me revisit one thing so I get the the parking lot islands I get that and I get to set back so Explain
- to me again what the hardship is to put the perimeter trees around the fence Is it encroachment on the
- inventory or what's what's the reason? Yes, so that would be one reason so it requires that normally in a
- In a parking lot in the udio that you'd also have to have a certain percentage of those be large canopy
- trees With the intention those would stick out over the parking lot. So that would be again the same
- argument For inventory of damage in it for large canopy trees at the same time having a parking lot
- perimeter Shields the parking lot from public view and in this particular case you won't
- No one will see any of these cars from any public view because they'll be regularly behind the fence
- in every angle and so If you were to ask us to put in parking lot perimeter We could do one of two things
- you could put plantings around the hole in the entire perimeter of the fence Which would be quite a
- bit and would add to I suppose You know a look or facade
- Per se but it would add quite a cost to do that. So that would be one option and but we'd ask you not
- to do the canopy trees in that particular case because of the reason of the inventory or we could put
- them on the inside of the fence, but then you have to remove a bunch of pavement to make that work on
- the inside of the Fencing to have the swath for parking lot perimeter so you could do one of those two
- things but it didn't to us it didn't make sense to do either one of them and
- Also along Bloomfield Road there is the previous tenant from years ago also did quite a garden But it's
- now overgrown and doesn't look good So there is a lot of landscaping already there that kind of hides
- the really defense from public view already So we're asking to keep a lot of that and get that in good
- repair rather than doing a fresh Parking lot perimeter for those reasons and the perimeter shrubbery
- then what was the rationale for that then I understand the trees and
- Yeah, so that would be that there's a fence already shielding the Vehicles so rather than from an aesthetic
- look. It's it was an issue of practical use of shielding And you don't feel it's necessary. Okay. Thank
- you any other questions
- Then we're back. We are to the point worth with action at this point Let just remind me because we did
- have a break with that public Did we give the petition or a chance to to okay? I thought we did all
- right with that then we are to the board for action or further questions if you have them
- Joe, if I could interrupt real quick, Eric, development services manager, you know, there's been a couple
- of comments about the presence of the fence and possibly using that as a factor as well. The petitioner
- has mentioned a possible desire to remove that or replace it. If the board is using that as some sort
- of a factor, I would, we would highly recommend a condition of approval that the privacy fence be maintained.
- Is not the the fence being there Eric part of their I thought it was included in there that they had
- no intention of taking it down I thought that was the They yeah, they had no intention but like I said
- I did also hear a comment from the petitioner that they would be replacing that with some sort of a
- black metal fence and
- Which you know might be different that would not have a privacy component to it So if the privacy fence
- is being used as a factor here, then that should be included as a condition of approval to maintain
- that Yeah, I understand that I think It may have been addressed when I asked whether they would have
- to come back for another variance if they did that would that not allow us at that time to address it
- if they wanted to put up a six-foot or shorter fence they won't come back so I think his
- I think mr. Gruehl looks concerning and correct me where I'm wrong is that if you are envisioning that
- that is providing Privacy that you're then varying other things because it's there and you'll want to
- include it as a condition That's why I'm asking. Okay. Thank you Eric Any other questions or or a motion
- I can't I can't entertain another comment. Sorry without a question. I
- But I do want to make a comment. I mean this is one of those in my opinion at least one of those Examples
- where you have a A site that has been vacant for quite a while And by I don't even know what the previous
- use was on the site and I can't imagine
- that was radically different than the proposed use given the layout of the lot. I mean, it must have
- been storing some kind of vehicles or equipment or something in that gravel area with the large warehouse
- there. But by changing the use, requiring full compliance with the UDO, it's just a massive
- in my opinion, disincentive for people investing in these kinds of redevelopment projects. I don't have
- a motion because, I mean, I can see some of the rationale from the staff's perspective, but I just always
- find, and I know it's required by law, but the terminology we use in these recommendations I just find
- bothersome. When we talk about being injurious to the public health safety morals,
- and general welfare of the community. I just, it just seems, I know that's kind of BZA speak, but it
- just never sits well with me. And that's just a comment. I mean, I don't, for me, I think the, you know,
- if you're doing perimeter plantings, you know, you're adding to some of the landscaping and dealing
- with some of the, you know, biomass
- improvement and heat absorption, et cetera. Because we've talked about these large tree issues with
- a number of different auto dealer projects that have been before us just in the short time I've been
- on the BZA. So I just don't have a real issue with that. So I guess I'm just not as comfortable just
- rejecting all three of these variances.
- Because I think we're probably going too far to the point that it makes projects like this practically
- impossible. You mean approving the. Proving as staff rejecting the staff report is approving one variance
- and denying three two and three to address also. I'm sorry. Oh I was going to say I agree and I'm
- been zooming and scrolling to try to find a peculiarity to reference about this. And to me, the peculiarity
- could potentially, could the peculiarity be the safety of the retail merchandise? That the fence is
- required, therefore it's not necessary, I mean, it's a retail spot,
- Well, I think the the retail issue was the thing that addresses the islands exactly that to me would
- cover right islands that I mean, I think that we The issue that Eric brought up a concern in the fence
- and what's interesting about this to John is that along Bloomfield Road? There is that Landscape is
- going to be done and with that landscaping the place you keep you won't even be able to see the fence and
- So we are dealing with an issue where it's not that there's a blank canvas between the road and this
- fence and the currently exists Landscaping they are going to put landscaping if I'm looking at the plan,
- right? There's landscaping on the plan. So I'm not Terribly concerned. I was more concerned about the
- issue of coming back asking to maintain an eight-foot fence Whether it's see-through, you know partially
- see-through or what so I
- You know, I don't have a real big issue again with the setback if it addresses the handicap parking.
- I don't have an issue with the perimeter trees because the fence is already going to be shielded by
- landscaping. The issues about perimeter planting on the south side of that is there's nothing but trees
- behind it currently. So I mean, I do think that the spirit of the UDO is alive in what the petitioner
- is asking for. So I mean, I can see
- I can see the BZA being able to still meet the goals of what our board is here for by granting some
- of these variances. I would just need a motion though when we get to that point. I'll motion. I'll motion
- for V, I'm gonna get the number wrong, V-44-25 to approve
- the very approve number one and Two three and four and then state that if the fence is changed that
- Over six feet that the petitioner would have to return We would have to amend the new findings so to
- okay So many the findings
- But I do want to make sure so the motion is to Approve the variance providing the front parking setback.
- Yep and providing the Variance on the perimeter trees and by providing the variance on the perimeter
- shrubs in providing the variance on the parking lot landscape islands, that's that's your motion and
- That is my motion. Okay. Could we have clarity also though on the condition? Because Ms. Katsinko said
- if the fence is changed over six feet, the petitioner would have to return, but that's code. Yeah, that's
- obvious. So I don't know, are you trying to have them keep the fence? Well, it was mentioned, but that's
- part of the UDO anyway. If they wanted to go over, they would have to come back anyway. I think the
- issue that was brought up by Eric was if it goes from a solid
- Face to a metal fence. It's just something where that you can see through it. They wanted to assure
- it that was the reason for my point being that there is landscaping between the street and the so now
- if you want to put that in there saying that if it is a I don't know what to call. It's not really see
- through but it's a semi You know visible You know if you want that in there, then yes, absolutely can
- be part of your motion No, no, no, I just want to go with that the last
- Part of the motion Okay, so all except for that one piece, okay So I assume this will be based on amended
- findings of fact Which you all were their findings of fact from the petitioner and this I think we've
- also discussed those two jack I think we brought them up and I think if I could summarize one is that
- the variance but I'm gonna I'll try this you guys can jump in. Thank you. So the variance from the setback
- is because of the grade
- Also assure that the people using the handicapped space Are as close to the interest of the business
- as possible? That's one second is for that perimeter trees and perimeter shrubbery is The setback currently
- on that fence is far enough that there is enough landscaping between the street and that fence to meet
- the Expectations in the and the needs of the UDO without having to do further plantings and
- As far as the landscaping islands are concerned We have found that because this is a retail environment
- as opposed to a shopping experience or things like that that we have We don't find the need for there
- to be Islands within this space because it uses a retail environment Yeah, so those have been what's
- been discussed tonight. Am I summarizing it correct? Yes, okay Thank you
- Jackie doesn't like what I said, so I'm kidding. She's talking So with that I do we still have a motion
- but we do not have a second so the motion was okay we have a second All right So Jackie was that a fair
- summary? I mean What's concerning to the city on that my preference is that I
- Those proposed findings that we submitted for each particular one one two and three that you say like
- here's our proposed finding for one Here's our proposed finding but you would have to see which ones
- we recommended denial on to do that You could of course Appoint me to the page on the packet. Okay could
- could we Or you can motion that we would approve the variances that were requested in
- case number blah blah blah and base it and replace the findings in the staff report with the findings
- as proposed by the petitioner in their submission. Yes if you agree with those findings you can save
- us a lot of time trying to word Smith. So with that I have a motion. I have a second. All right.
- Finds the city finds that the solution presented by mr. Fernandez will work, correct? Yes Okay, do we
- have a proper motion in front of the board? Who seconded sorry who seconded John? Thank you. I did you
- Okay, so I'm gonna clarify the motion
- Approve the front setback variance perimeter trees perimeter shrubs and islands variances So all four
- of the requested variances based on the petitioners submitted findings of fact. Yes, no conditions That's
- what's in front of us. Yep So we do have a valid motion valid second and we do have findings of fact
- with that. I'll call the question Burrell yes Fernandez yes
- Katsinko, yes, Throckmorton Yes, thank you. I Just say thanks to the ownership for making that improvement
- and investing I'll go I'll go forward. I'll go further and I'll put on the record that we need to address
- car lots You know because this is it's a constant Yeah, this has come up quite a bit
- Thank you for your patience on that I appreciate it and I if I had realized I would have put you together
- I didn't I didn't look that far. Sorry my fault. Okay, so we're on to the fourth petition Is anyone
- need a break? It's been an hour. We good. Can I have a five-minute break, please? We see how we do that.
- Can I just make a comment? for the next petition be 4825 I don't have any kind of financial interest
- at stake here, but since this involves that I
- Property in the trades district. I'm gonna recuse myself Okay So you'll come back you'll come yeah,
- you'll come back on a 49 25, okay All right. Let's take five minutes. We will reconvene at 35 minutes
- after Okay, we're gonna reconvene
- Board of zoning appeals is back in session and Let the record show that mr. Fernandez has recused himself
- from this Particular petition that is case v-45-25 May I have a staff report?
- Thank you for your patience. So in this case the petitioner is requesting variances from architectural
- standards and minimum landscape requirements for a hotel or motel use in the mixed use downtown showers
- technology zoning district. The property is part of the downtown overlay district as well as the Bloomington
- trades district. The surrounding properties to the north east and west are also zoned MD slash ST and
- the adjacent properties to the south or zone mixed use downtown core.
- The total site is slightly under one and a half acres and the trades district hotel is planned to be
- located on lots bound by Westmaker way to the north north Madison Street to the east West 10th Street
- to the south and North Rogers Street to the west. Notable nearby sites include the Ford the mill and
- City Hall. The proposed trades district hotel is a four story tall full service boutique hotel with
- 160 to 170 guest rooms.
- in 5,500 square feet of meeting space. The hotel lobby and primary hotel entry will be located on the
- eastern portion of the first level along West 10th Street. A restaurant to serve guests and the public
- will be located on the western half of West 10th Street in the southern corner of the facade along North
- Roger Street. Hotel offices will face North Roger Street and there will be third party retail spaces
- at the corner of North Roger Street and Westmaker Way.
- The second third and fourth levels of the hotel will consist of guest rooms and guest amenity spaces
- a rooftop bar and outdoor patio that is open to the public is proposed on the southeast corner of the
- fourth level of the hotel.
- The first level of the hotel will consist of masonry and glass with limestone accents. The upper levels
- of the trades hotel will consist of glass, rain screen paneling, and metal accents. The petitioner is
- requesting a variance related to the upper floor step backs for parts of the west and south facades.
- The petitioner is also requesting a variance from the minimum landscape regulation, which is 15% in
- the MD dash ST zoning district. The open space diagram shows that compliance with the 15% minimum landscape
- area would require about 8,900 square feet of landscape area. The petitioner is providing about 6,200
- square feet of landscape area, 4,900 square feet of outdoor space and 9,500 square feet of green roof area.
- Now I'll go through the criteria and findings for each of the four variances. So the are sorry the two
- variances. The first variance is from UDO section 20 dot 0 2 dot 0 5 0 a 5 and this regulates the upper
- floor step backs.
- The approval of the variance from the upper floor step backs on portions of the west and south facades
- is not expected to be detrimental to the public. The extent of the requested zoning relief is not very
- substantial on the west facade along North Roger Street. Upper floor step backs are included on the
- south and north ends in the middle of the west elevation. There is a 90 foot section of the facade that
- does not step back and this allows for an open space area including plantings and an outdoor dining
- space that can benefit the public.
- On the south facade along West 10th Street, there is a 65 foot wide section of the elevation that step
- backs two feet, six inches at the fourth level. This does not meet the 15 foot step back requirement
- as outlined in the UDO. And the granting of this variance is not expected to impact building safety.
- The granting of the upper floor step back variance along portions of West 10th Street and North Roger
- Street is not expected to impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in an adverse manner.
- The trades district hotels expected to add value to this currently undeveloped part of the Bloomington
- trades district and the hotel was designed to fit with the character of these existing forged building
- and the north northeastern portion of this block. The site is unique because it has four frontages West
- 10th Street is a curved road and the proposed building roughly follows this curve which is a peculiar
- condition to the property step back and other architectural features have been incorporated throughout
- the remainder of the building to meet all the UDO requirements.
- The second variance is from the minimum landscape area which is outlined in Table 4 dash 4 and this
- regulates the downtown character overlay dimensional standards. The approval of this variance is not
- expected to be harmful to the community as shown in the open space diagram roughly 6200 square feet
- of landscape area is provided.
- which is approximately 10% of the total project area, or sorry, 10% of the total project area. Green
- roofs are also included to provide additional plantings, which supports sustainability goals and enhances
- the overall character of the trades district. The granting of the variance from the minimum landscape
- area is not expected to impact the use and value of the area adjacent to the property in adverse manner.
- The trades district hotel will provide landscape areas, outdoor spaces, and green roofs, which is intended
- to have a positive impact on surrounding properties.
- The strict application of the terms of the U.D.O. will result in practical difficulties in the use of
- the property because it would limit a buildable design or a building design that is able to accomplish
- the intentions of the U.D.O. The provided landscape areas and outdoor spaces combined exceed the 15
- percent requirement which meets the spirit and intent of the U.D.O. The department recommends that the
- board adopt the proposed findings and approve case V dash 48 dash 25 with the three conditions outlined
- in the staff report.
- Thank you. That was an excellent report very nice. Thank you. It's petitioner with us If you would sign
- in at the podium and then state your first and last name Hello, my name is Dustin egg ink And do you
- affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the
- truth I do when you are ready you'll have 20 minutes the time you do not use will be held in reserve to
- Use before any actions taken by the board. I'm not going to take up a lot of time. Thank you for that
- excellent summary. It was can't really say it better myself. So I'm not going to I'm not going to try
- the the two variances that we are seeking related to the landscape area and the setback are kind of
- related and of themselves as explained on the Rogers elevation the
- The create or the our ability to create more landscape area Prevented us to create a step back for that
- particular section right there We believe that the providing green roof areas does go towards
- the sustainability characteristics and also
- The overall plaza areas that are associated with the hotel are improvements or provided public access
- or amenity for that property. Same thing for the for the south facade where directly adjacent to that
- will be an area for outdoor dining which is also another public amenity provided by the by the overall property.
- OK. Thank you. Any questions from the board before we move on. OK. Do we have anyone here in public
- who'd like to address this petition. Anyone in chambers. Also please check if anyone online to address
- if anyone online would like to speak for public comment you can raise your virtual hand or send a message
- to the host.
- Don't see anyone online Okay with that we are Back to the petitioner if you have anything further to
- say even though nothing's been brought up. Okay, so we are back to the board then for action the questions
- comments or emotion I Have a question on the retail space how many retail spaces and what types of retail
- spaces? The there will be retail space associated with the hotel itself. Okay
- or the then and that is on the south side that will include a Full-service restaurant and then the on
- the north side along Makers Way There are 6,500 square feet of a retail space that's designated that
- will be third third party and not necessarily Associated with the hotel, but that has not been determined.
- Yeah Also, I'll make the comment that
- We did just have petitioner and was it four months ago for the development across the street that if
- it does go through I mean this will actually blend into that new development nicely. I'll make that
- point. So I am just curious is there a brand that's associated with this new hotel or is it just.
- No, nothing to share with us at the moment I was just curious curiosity doesn't have anything to do
- with it Yeah, the the intent though is to it would be to provide a an upscale or up our scale hotel
- property I guess what I'm asking it would be something associated with like a national chain or something
- correct as opposed to locally owned and operated correct Just I was just curious. Thank you. I understand
- you need to keep some of that Close to your chest. Okay
- Summit to the board for action if there's no further questions. Yes, I will like to motion make a motion
- that That we after the proposed find adopt the proposed findings and approve v-48-25 With the three
- following conditions as presented per staff I have a second second any further discussion
- Seeing none I call the question Katsinko, yes, Brock Morton. Yes, Burrell. Yes. Thank you And be dash
- 40-25 is proved as presented Thank you for your time and your attention on that and good luck. It looks
- like an interesting fun project So good luck with that. We'll expect to see it done next month. I I
- would say is a downtown resident sweet
- As a downtown resident, it's amazing to have more places to eat that are different Rooftop bars different
- So, thank you So somebody go fetch John And let the record show that mr. Fernandez has rejoined us for
- the hearing of b-49-25
- So, we may not have to ask for extension tonight, okay? We're 10 till 8. Let's see how we do. This is
- case dash B dash 49 just 25. I think the record is something like seven cases or something. We'll see
- how we do. Okay. With that, can I have a, it's the Zhiyang Li, I think. Zhiyang Li, okay. So, with that,
- we'll have a staff report.
- Certainly while I'm pulling up the staff report, I'm Gabriel whole browse owning planner. I'll be presenting
- the staff report here
- This is a variance for Property at 26 16 South pages way. It's on the southeast side of town On a cul-de-sac
- that's just off of High Street Basic information about the property. It's a single-family house. It's
- proposed to remain a single-family house That part's not changing This is a view
- aerial aerial imagery by Eagle View purchased by Monarch County from the north. So this is looking at
- the backyard the back of the house about a year ago. This isn't the best quality photograph but you
- can see the back of the house. You can see there's a deck there on sort of the right which would be
- the west side of the backyard there.
- Here is a top down view. North is up here. This is the existing site. The property is approximately
- a trapezoid type shape. The rear yard is there at the top. So the existing house is 31 just over 31
- feet from the rear property line. The proposal is to build an addition approximately where the deck
- is. That would be just over 16 feet from the rear property line.
- So because the rear, minimum rear setback is 25 feet, they need a variance, that's why they're here.
- I'm gonna do this very abbreviated. If you want to go through, you can look at the packet or we can
- discuss them. First criterion staff recommendation is not be injurious. Second criterion staff's
- recommendation is that it will not be injurious, excuse me, not substantially affect adjacent properties.
- Third criterion, so this is the one that's a little tricky. Staff's proposed finding is that there do
- not appear to be any practical conditions on the property that result in a practical difficulty. So
- recommending a finding of no practical difficulty. The property exceeds the minimum lot size for the
- zoning district and is similar in size and shape to all surrounding properties within the subdivision,
- including other lots along cul-de-sacs. The inability
- add the desired space in the ground floor does not result in practical difficulties in the use of the
- property. The property has already been developed with a three-story residence and provides living space
- in bedrooms that are consistent with other dwellings in the surrounding area and consistent with reasonable
- expectations of current and future owners or occupants. I'd just like to highlight that the question of
- Whether this is a practical difficulty is really the only difference between the petitioners petitioners
- submission and staffs recommendation Everything else we pretty much agree on What the situation is what
- their goals are? The feasibility of other ways to achieve those goals So really the only difference
- is staffs recommends based on an understanding of what practical difficulty means in
- The code and in past precedent court cases and so on our recommendation is that this is not a practical
- difficulty so Considering feasible alternatives and the goals of the petitioner and the goals of the
- city Based on the written findings the department recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt
- The proposed findings and deny the requested variance. Thank you. Thank you the petitioner is here and
- If you would come forward and sign in for me, please. And then. State your first and last name. My first
- name is Joe Young. Last name is Lee. So John Young is the way to say thank you. Do you affirm that the
- testimony you're about to give will be the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. You'll
- have 20 minutes total. Whatever you don't use right now.
- You'll have an opportunity to use before the board takes action. OK. Please prepare some PowerPoint
- slides. Yeah. Could you please. Thank you. OK. Great. Thank you so much. OK. Good evening members of
- the board. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
- My name is Joe young Lee. I'm the owner and the residents in the property 26 16 South pages way I really
- thank the staff member for preparing this summary and assessment so I'm here just to provide additional
- information to clarify and provide
- provides evidence to justify for the application for the variance. So as you can see on the slide, these
- are the front and the back, and the proposed variance was related to the backside construction of the
- property. So as you can see, there is a deck and also walkout basement, and it's a fairly open area
- from the back. Gabriel to the next slide.
- So this is the floor plan on the first floor. So we have the garage on the left side, and we enter,
- and then that's an open area with the space for living, dining, and a kitchen. And we have very small
- room on the right side. That's a small dining area. And we have the living area on the right side. And
- then you can see the existing tech that is in the north side of the picture. And there are stairs on
- both sides
- the deck. Okay. Next slide. So what we our deck is original. So the house was built 21 years ago. We
- moved in nine years ago. So the deck has not been replaced. And there are a lot of damaged areas and
- area there that would not save for the family members to use the deck. You can see some of the broken
- parts and it requires replacement repairs. Go down.
- And also our family, we have a big family and I have two kids and young kids who likes to play on the
- deck and it's now safe for her to play now and the deck is high. And also my father is 74 years old.
- Both my father and my mother are 74 years old. My father is permanently handicapped and he cannot climb
- stairs. He has to use a wheelchair to move. Okay, the next page.
- So because of this practical difficulty of using the current deck, original deck, and also the need
- for living space on the first floor, we proposed a plan to repair the deck and also enclose it to make
- it a four-season sound room. And we also want to just build along the deck, not creating actual
- Actual space just along the edge of the deck to extend that area and then create a living space for
- my parents So that could be a bedroom. So that's our proposed a plan for the first floor go down
- And we will also have the plan to keep the original architecture, original design materials compiled
- to all the requirements, building codes in this area. So we will maintain the exterior appearance of
- the house, and that will add value to the house and also to the neighborhood. More importantly, make
- it practically a living room space for our family members and also a safe area
- for our members. Next page. So you can see the proposed construction including the enclosed deck and
- also the living the bedroom on the side of the deck. However when we
- Initially, we look at the satellite map, we thought that we had enough setback, but when we did the
- survey of the house, we realized that this current deck is only about 14 feet, 16 feet away from the
- rear border. So that was something that we were not aware when we purchased the house, and since the
- house was legally built originally, so the rear side setback must
- compile was legal at that time. But that means even if we don't build any additional room to repair
- the current deck, to update the current deck, it's already violating the current setback requirement,
- which needs to be a minimum of 19 feet. So that means we
- Even if we just repair the deck for it to be a safe area for our daughter, for our kids, for parents,
- we need to apply for variance.
- The next slide as you can see our house is the one with a blue circle on it So it's back into a very
- open area. I completely agree with the staff that we've We building the house will not violate the criteria
- one or two It's not injurious to the public because we are back into an open space That belongs to the
- church. We don't have any residents behind our
- our house and also the existing. Okay. The next one. I just want to provide more additional facts to to
- for you to consider about the criteria three, which is about the practical difficulty part. So I want
- to provide three facts. The fact one is that the lot is not similar to any other cuticle loss in this
- neighborhood. As you can see, we can, yeah, next slide, okay. So, okay, next slide.
- Yeah, sorry, I already covered some. So as you can see, this is the street map, and our house is in
- the end of the Kodasak, and typically there are no houses in the very end of the Kodasak, especially
- when it is so close to the rear boundary. So our house is unique in that case, because the shape
- The size is not a problem, the problem is the shape. It's a very narrow lot, so that doesn't leave us
- even enough setback for repairing the current deck.
- Okay, so the second fact we want to see that this current deck is lawful, originally nonconforming structure
- with a 16 feet setback. So this was built 21 years ago and this was legal then, but this is not a difficulty
- that we created. This was not, this was,
- compatible with the requirement back then when it was built so It's impossible to rebuild or repair
- without a variance Okay, the next fact additionally we need we although we have a
- We have bedrooms, we have five bedroom overall, four are upstairs on the second floor, one is in the
- basement. There's really no living space, accessible space for somebody like my parents who need wheelchair
- access. So these are the practical difficulty we currently have. That probably was not clear in the
- original application. I want to present this evidence for you to consider.
- So to summarize about the practical difficulty, the strict application of the UDO prevents us from rebuilding
- or repairing a legally built but now unsafe deck and creating the only feasible first floor accessible
- space for people with disability.
- And also it prevent us from making reason a reasonable safe use of the home due to its original design
- and the large geometry. So these conditions are physical, peculiar to this property and not self composed
- by us. And it can be relieved by the variance. So I believe that this will meet the criteria three.
- Yeah, that's all my statement. How much time has she retained?
- Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions before we go to the public. Okay. Anyone from the public in
- chambers who'd like to address this petition. Seeing none anyone online. If you would like to make a
- comment online please raise your virtual hand or send a message to the host. Don't see anyone online.
- Okay. There hasn't been any questions or comments, but it goes back to the petitioner at this point
- that you can use the remainder of your time if you so choose. Do you have anything you'd like to add
- before we go to the board for action? No, I don't. Okay. So at this point, the only back and forth will
- be if a question is asked of you. So please stay there and we'll see if there's any questions from the
- board at this point. It's back to the board for action or any further questions or comments.
- This is a question for staff. So we're talking Gabriel we're talking about three feet here Between 16
- and 19 that's for the for the deck itself. There's the UDO has exceptions to setbacks for for decks
- so Wait, hold on. How many feet did you say? Well, I want to know so if they do the if they're gonna
- do that addition and
- What is the setback for the addition the required setback would be 25 feet and they're proposing they're
- just over 30. No, sorry What there's proposing 16 so Just over 16. So 16 to 25 is nine nine feet. Yeah,
- so it's not it's nine feet often So what you're saying is that the decks have a different Setback. Yes,
- that's correct. A deck a deck can Goes six feet
- into the required rear setback. So effectively, the minimum rear setback for a deck is 19 feet. The
- current deck is approximately 16 feet from the rear property line. It is lawful nonconforming, as the
- petitioner stated. As a lawful nonconforming feature, it can be repaired. There's no problem repairing
- it at all. If it were removed and something else were put there, such as an addition or a different
- different deck, then that would need a variance to be put back in the same place. But the current deck
- can be repaired. So it doesn't change the essence of what the petitioner was saying. I mean, there are
- restrictions on what can be done with the property given the reset back. But just clarifying that repairing
- the existing deck is totally allowed as a not conforming structure. OK, so the sticking point here is
- because they want to do an addition.
- that would be the same footprint as the deck. Correct. Correct. Yes. The existing deck. Sorry. Well,
- the proposed addition is a little wider east west than the existing deck. But the setback of the proposed
- setback of the addition is essentially the same as the existing setback. Yes. So you mean the width
- would be on the back of the house would be bigger.
- The setback would be the same for the addition. That's what yeah within a few inches of the same. Yes,
- okay But so if they were to do an addition they wouldn't be able to do it at all because there's not
- 25 feet You could do maybe an eight foot addition, which is not I think we calculated it something like
- that I mean so you could but you can't get a practical you can't get a bedroom
- It could go up the house could could potentially have another story In theory What's this what is the
- city's response to the issue of a wheelchair-bound person who's trying to Enjoy the use of their home,
- which is also part of the utio Absolutely. So I think that the way the way that we look at it is that
- that is definitely a desirable thing
- that is for someone to have that. And providing that at this location is not possible without taking
- out some of the existing living areas. Like if the living room were converted to a bedroom, or I believe
- there's a garage on the ground floor if that were converted to a bedroom. But practically speaking,
- given what the petitioner is looking for, that's not possible.
- and so that It's not possible within code Yes, yes. Yes. Thank you for that clarification. Yes. It's
- not possible within code and meeting exactly what the petitioner is looking for however staffs analysis
- is that You know, this is an ideal but it does not meet the the standards that we understand for what
- is a practical difficulty of the property, you know, you can't necessarily do everything everywhere and
- And this is the case where maybe that particular configuration is not feasible. But it's within the
- expectations of what you know. So the relief from BZA of a variance to allow for building to allow the
- person who's living in the house to enjoy the use of the house that happens to now be wheelchair bound.
- That's not a valid variance. Well, I mean, it's certainly valid for them to request it. And it's up
- to the board to decide whether it meets the threshold of practical difficulty. Staff's recommendation
- is that it does not. I'm trying to understand why it's not.
- Expand on that a little bit more. Why why is that not a reasonable? Wait, what does the staff think
- that that's not reasonable to grant a variance because of that? What's the other remedy The the other
- so so I'm not sure if remedy is the right word for it but if there are certain goals that someone has
- that are not achievable at a particular property and
- there are other locations where that... You're talking about moving. Right, which I'm not saying that's
- ideal at all. Well, I wouldn't think that you would think that's ideal. Right, but there are, the zoning
- code and land use regulations in general impose restrictions on the use of property. So that just goes
- with the territory. It's just when does the restriction on the property become a practical difficulty?
- And it's it's a single-family house. It can be used as a single-family house. It currently has I believe
- five bedrooms And you know, those are all things that are generally In this community anyway considered
- things that you would have in a house that houses the house and
- That's that's a reasonable expectation. The house has some bedrooms It's a reasonable expectation when
- you get down to the specifics of you know Can we have a bedroom on this particular level without losing
- garage space without losing? a living room space Yeah, that's that's not ideal at all. It has limitations
- But staffs analysis is that doesn't rise to the level of practical difficulty Any other questions comments
- for the board or petitioner? Sorry for the staff or the petitioner
- Can I just get a clarification? I thought the earlier question was pretty good. So what is the marginal
- difference in footprint of what's being proposed compared to the existing deck? I think we're gonna
- throw a site plan up.
- Sorry, I got a little distracted while we're looking for what is the marginal difference between what
- and what? What's being proposed compared to the existing deck? Yeah, so this is probably the easiest
- way to see it. This is the existing site. We're looking at the top. Yeah of the image And That's proposed
- so I'll go back existing
- Does that say 31 is that what that can I clarify that that that's not correct? So we are not changing
- the setback the current deck is where the Where that room is the chart the comparison is incorrect.
- So we are keeping the the current footprint of the deck We just enclosed that and then along that border
- We're just standing it we extend that border. Yes, we're
- One thing that's confusing is the dimension that shows up there. This is 31 feet that's going to the
- house, right? That's not good. So so this where it says 16 and change Yeah, that that also is where
- the deck is so that that number is not changing worse So that that's 16 foot that we're looking at there
- Would touch the edge of the deck currently? That's correct. All right
- Just what I want just want to make sure I understood so To John's point it sounds like what you're saying
- is that you're not really getting any closer to the back fence By enclosing or rebuilding. Okay any
- other questions or comments from the board If not, we're at that point where we would entertain a motion and
- Before we entertain a motion just a quick question to to staff. So if an addition were was built in
- the same size as the deck as is currently located and not extended all the way I mean would that be
- I mean we're not causing a new footprint.
- I mean it's the same footprint of course it's a different structure. Would that be something the city
- would would be more amenable to than than the whole facade in the back. Yeah I guess staff's way of
- looking at analyzing that is that that reduces the potential impacts you know that it reduces the impervious
- surface it reduces the amount of the structure that's near the setback.
- It reduces the amount of building that a neighbor would see so that that really gets to mitigating Harmed
- injury to the community or adversely affecting neighboring properties staffs recommended findings are
- that It already doesn't injure the community the the full width as shown Doesn't injure the community
- and doesn't negatively affect properties so
- But it doesn't it doesn't change staffs analysis of the third criterion. So It doesn't make it any worse
- or better in staffs analysis What what the criterion itself is let me get the language Talking about
- the third point this strict application will result in practical difficulties that one and it's that
- the practical difficulty
- Difficulties are peculiar to the property in question that the development standards variance will relieve
- the practical difficulties. Is that your question? Yeah, so I'll just read it here. It's up at the top
- of the screen partially obscured there the strict application of the terms of the unified development
- ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property that the practical difficulties
- are peculiar to the property in question that the development standard and that the development standards are
- Variants will relieve the practical difficulties those three parts that there's something peculiar about
- the property that that creates a practical difficulty in use of the property and that the requested
- variance will relieve the practical difficulty and could you then put up the response from the petitioner
- she had a Summary of how she's addressed number three. Could we see that again? Certainly I'd also like
- to call your attention to in the staff Sorry, not the staff report the the packet
- Petitioner's statement Has it has some paragraphs that are one two three. Yep, and oddly paragraph one
- The one that's numbered number one is actually the one that addresses the third criterion Understood.
- Thank you. That would be page 229 in the packet And so I'm just asking to look at as Gabriel pulls this
- up this will be the response from the petitioner and
- Item number three So I'm not sure which page you're looking for it's not it's not in ours it was hers
- she presented to us Yeah, there was not that point. It would keep going. It's the one that is a summary
- That one right there So that was the response then I only asked for that because you just asked about
- item number three That was the petitioners response
- and part of this would be you know in your in your mind is that is that an finding of facts that would
- be an alternative to what the city is presenting I Don't have any action on that I just wanted to show
- it to you So we're still to the board for any action or any further discussion or questions Well, this
- is more of a clarification. I'm
- Apologize for even asking it but I'm trying to understand that The issue is that This is a
- lawful non-conforming Use right? No, the use the uses is not to use but deck the deck setback. Yes is
- lawful non-conforming. Yes Because the current zoning would what make it a smaller deck
- Yeah, you're not not as close to the rear property line. Yeah But I thought there was reference in here
- to a minimum the property it sees the minimum lot size for this district which is which is Meaning it
- exceeds the minimum which is that's that's still compliant with code Just saying it's a bigger property
- than it necessarily would have to be
- Any other questions or comments. Is there any question or procedure.
- Do I still have a chance to speak? Not unless we ask a question. It's complicated, but once we give
- you that 20 minutes, you can't present anything new. However, if we do ask you a question, you can absolutely
- respond to it. Okay, sure. So are we talking essentially about nine feet? Well, what you're talking
- about essentially is they have a non-conforming deck that they can fix quote unquote rebuild. So it's
- within code. That's not a problem.
- Okay in its current foot footprint the request is essentially to change that into an enclosed structure
- and extend it Okay, so here's my question for staff. So if if that deck was in fantastic perfect condition
- Then Then the variance is still the setback, correct? Yeah, because it's a change of the structure take
- the deck condition a little bit out of it
- Because if the deck was in perfect condition, then we're still talking about a setback number Yeah,
- it's and then it's a the deck is irrelevant because it's essentially grandfather. So what you're talking
- about is She wants to do a new it's it's new construction She wants to do new construction for so the
- deck is irrelevant at that gentleman and a wheelchair on the first floor Yeah, okay if I could speak
- for the for the city that's
- That's essentially it. I mean she's asking to build something that's out of coat Yeah, so she is this
- the rear yard setback is 25 feet she's asking to build where she's only She's nine feet over nine where
- she's only 16 feet from the rear yard, right? But she wants to go nine feet, but just in this case there
- happens to also be a deck there That's at that same line so you can like get an idea of how deep it
- is Yeah so
- You know it goes to the questions of is it injurious, you know to the public because there's already
- a structure there so that but to find alternative facts to to say here's why we would allow that construction
- is our So we're within you know to help to we're within our we're within the
- construct of what this board does by saying, hey, we would allow that construction, but we need to provide
- a rationale for why that is. I wanted to show the petitioners three points in response to ask whether
- that was, to your point, is that enough to say, oh, that's a valid rationale that would allow us to
- vote to allow that to be constructed? And then Flavi, I think, had some questions about what if you just
- rebuild over the current footprint as opposed to extending it etc. So there's nuances there as well.
- You sure can go ahead. Miss Lee. So would you be opposed to building on the footprint of the current
- deck instead of extending all the way to the back. Do you see what I'm saying. So it would be 16 feet
- Well I don't know the the measurements there but of your deck. But would that be helpful. So then you
- are not creating a new footprint. You have you already have an existing footprint where the deck is.
- I am just asking a question. Yeah.
- And you can, you can say, yeah, so I need to check the feasibility of converting that deck space with
- the current foundation to a bedroom because the current condition is not strong enough to hold
- the construction of the room because you will need a foundation anyway. Yeah. Yeah. It's,
- It's not ideal for for converting that space to it's we were hoping that to keep the current the exterior
- wall to be straight and then that's physically also more appealing and also give more space for my parents
- so they could live in the bedroom as do access the and the enclosed deck area for out
- for outdoor air or more exposure so And we feel like that would be also keeping the physical appearance
- of the house better Yeah, I think the major Disagreement between the proposal and the staff assessment
- is that interpretation of a practical difficulty because there was no disagreement about the previous
- to appear we don't we all agree on that and
- I don't know what is the legal definition for practical difficulty, but from a general public's
- interpretation, it just means practical difficulty, meaning that we are currently in the shape of the
- area that already has a 16 setback, and to just build along that line, we're not extending actual space.
- We're now creating new, shorter setback, and it's practically
- impossible for my parents, for my father in wheelchair to go to any of the bedroom. Although there are
- five bedrooms, four are upstairs, one is downstairs. It's not safe. My biggest fear is that one of them
- will fall, right? So he's in wheelchair, he cannot climb stairs. So that's what I see the biggest practical
- difficulty.
- To conform to that code, if your suggestion is for me to move my house or buy another house for my father,
- I have even greater practical difficulty. So everyone will age. We all have these kind of practical
- needs. I feel like the spirit of the code is to create a better community for
- for the residents, for the neighbors, we're not harming neighbors, we're enhancing the value of the
- neighborhood, we're conforming all the codes, we're solving a practical problem that every household
- will face to create a safe deck for their kids, to create an accessible living space for their parents
- when they get older. I feel this is typically the interpretation, the meaning of practical difficulty.
- I do want to be certain that, say that you were granted the
- Variants to build you have no intention to add a deck to that as well Add a deck. No, we were not So
- that 16 feet would be the extent to which yeah, that's a current a step. I will keep that so yeah It
- wasn't in the it wasn't in the plan. I just write sure that's clear that yeah You know, there will be
- no addition of a deck. No, okay How many years have you owned the home? I owned it for nine years
- Yeah. That's irrelevant but I just OK. You want to tackle that on their issue. More like a comment.
- Again I know I sound like it. I'm not trying to pick on people or sound like a jerk but I just you know
- I'm looking at the proposed finding in number two and it just seems like there's a lot of unnecessary language.
- that I think is kind of superfluous and it confuses the issues. I mean, you know, it references that,
- you know, the budding property to the north is a non-residential use. And then it hypothetically talks
- about, well, if it ever developed, then it might have some kind of less aesthetic visual separation
- between the buildings than desirable for this location.
- Based on the setback standards for this zoning district. I Don't know what that means to begin with
- but I just find that that's like saying the the aesthetics of all those houses I don't know what it
- means and I don't really see the value of including that. I mean it's owned by the church It's
- a non-residential use. It's a fact and so if somebody decided to somehow redevelop that property to
- You know, that's a choice it would make and there'd be a pre-existing Aesthetic that they would be looking
- at and that would be a choice they would make or not make But I just think we I don't know what the
- purpose of that language is I would also have you look at the Building at 2627 which is to the east
- and 2624 which is to the west and the edges of their
- Structure looks like decks, but they are extended out even past that 16 foot Of the building of the
- 26 16 in question, you know, so there is already in that area it's it's it's very odd because it's this
- cul-de-sac and it's also I think less less of an issue to find
- a way to provide a variance because it is abutted against essentially an empty, open space. And the
- petitioner's not really asking to encroach any further than they're currently encroaching. They currently
- have a 16-foot setback for all practical purposes. The really only big change is to ask for the extension.
- I mean, it is a big change to go from a deck to an enclosed space. However,
- It doesn't really necessarily change much. Now, I happen to think that one of the solutions would be
- to add another floor. I think that actually would be a much more odd structure to find in a cul-de-sac
- than providing relief by saying, yeah, you can rebuild your deck area into an enclosed space.
- I don't know. That's just kind of where I'm at with. I agree that the only other thing I would add is,
- and I think that page,
- But I don't think it was Developed substantially Later than like Cayenne Lane or Cheyenne Lane that
- whole area That was all developed in relatively a same period of time As compared to further south where
- you get into Stratford and Kensington But I mean if you look at the neighborhood as a whole I don't see how
- Disaddition would be radically different in scale and proximity to adjoining properties as the development
- on Cheyenne Lane Well, I just even look at pages way because the building there that's on the it's on
- the East Rock Creek Drive on the west side sits up against that fence much closer and the one on the
- west side at 2655 which actually abuts the High Street and
- That sits almost practically on top of that sidewalk. We're talking about now of holding this property
- at a much stricter restrictions that I think that were within our rights in order to provide a variance.
- I thought that the findings that the petitioner had presented were compelling.
- on item number three, but I don't know. I just don't see how this is going to be an injury to anything
- in that neighborhood. I don't see how it's going to hurt. And we're not providing additional setback.
- They're only going to be at the setback that they're currently at.
- And I definitely don't want to see the building. I don't want to see the house built as another story.
- I think that's that would really be Good in with your lot in the way that it is. I mean you couldn't
- do the typical outdoor mother Well, that was the other thing is a secondary Yeah, because of a lot size
- you could not do an exterior it wouldn't meet the setback
- Yeah, and that was the first thing that I thought that's a great point It was the first thing I thought
- of is can you have a secondary dwelling unit there and that's the city's understanding, right? They
- don't have space for that So a minimum rear setback for an accessory structure including an accessory
- doing it would be five feet So given that there's 16 feet there It would have to be you know between
- the deck in the rear lot So they can touch the deck it would it would be
- I mean, you'd have to do some sort of site analysis to see, but you might be able to squeeze it in there,
- but then how would you access it? And there's a slope, and we're talking about someone in a wheelchair
- who doesn't, the grade change is difficult. I mean, so feasible. Well, that was the first thing that
- popped into my mind, and I didn't think that it could fit. Because that's what that secondary dwelling
- unit is for, is to meet some of these issues. So this, I just don't see how we're gonna
- Anything is gonna be hurt by grain and the variance unless you someone can sway me differently We still
- are to the board for any action if there's a desire to make a motion we can certainly do that and can
- continue discussion after the emotion I'm just trying to find the page
- So the recommendation from the cities on page 226 and the recommendation from the city is the department
- has considered feasible alternatives the goals of the petitioner and the goals of the city that were
- the basis of the standards within the UDO in reaching their recommendation the department's recommendation.
- So based upon the written findings that they provided us the department recommends that the BZA adopt
- the proposed findings and deny the requested
- Variance that's that's what's being recommended by the city now with that. Do we have a motion? I Don't
- know how to word this but my I'll give it a shot. Well, we'll be lenient I Motion that the Board of
- Zoning Appeals do not adopt the proposed findings that
- They adopt the proposed findings and approve the requested variance With a third finding Presented by
- the petitioner Well, I mean you could you could so thank you for simplify by just saying that she she
- moves for the approval V dash 49 just 25 Okay to start with and then we could add the additional language.
- Is that what you're asking?
- So that's the motion and then and then with the additional findings of What was presented by the petitioner
- Correct with the additional findings of the presentation by the position Okay, so that's the motion.
- Yes, so back to city Then what are we missing off of that then if we were to make such a motion? I would
- just like clarification
- So we like to do written findings they get written up Are you doing the the paragraph from the petitioner's
- statement that was in the packet or are you doing? the slide that appeared on the screen or both So
- the motion that includes the the findings to be that that was presented by the petitioner on the slide
- With the with the bullet points. Okay, so for clarification, let me put the slide that I think I believe it was
- three Thank you for the patience This is what we're talking about right yes criterion three Okay, so
- that's that is the motion and the motion is to approve the request for variance under V dash 49 dash 25 with
- Understanding that this is the additional findings now with that in front of us Gabriel. Is that a valid
- motion? Yes, and just asking for clarification. I understand. I just want to make sure that we're good
- This is for the the finding for the third criterion and for the first two criteria use the staff recommended
- Which are also would be consistent with approval Correct. I Understand the motion if you all understand
- the motion. Yep
- Does that mean what you're trying to do that meets what the motion I'm trying to convey so we now have
- a motion in front of us That meets the goal of the the member who has made it. Do we have a second?
- So first and second, is there any additional? Discussion my understanding is if this motion passes that
- means that the petitioner will have the permission to build out to that existing 16 foot
- Under the plan that she's presented to the city you might want to add the usual condition of The this
- is the plans as as submitted are the ones that are approved. Do you entertain that? Yes, and okay So
- both the petition both the person making the motion and the person seconding agree with that. All right,
- so with that said that's what it means to to vote yes on this to vote no means to deny the variance Okay
- Do we have any further discussion or clarification? I just wanted to So miss Lee, do you understand
- that if you change the plans then the variance doesn't apply? I understand. Yeah, so he needs to stay
- the same as you presented today Yeah, okay. So that's an important distinction. Yes. Okay, so we have
- the motion We have it clarified. We have a second about the second. We've had discussion any further
- discussions or clarifications or questions anything
- Call the question All right. So we are voting on the motion to approve v49 25 based on staff's findings
- for the first and second criteria with additional findings from the petitioner that was shown on the
- screen for the third criteria with one condition that this variance approves the plans as submitted
- Correct Rock Morton. Yes Burel. Yes, Fernandez. Yes. Good Cinco. Yes. Thank you. All right
- That was a tough one. Thank you. We appreciate your patience. Good luck. And again, I'll stress if there's
- any changes you'll be making Please it is required that you discuss it with the city. Thank you so much.
- Thank you. Good luck Thank you everyone, that's great Don't worry about that. We'll work through those
- until Especially on more complicated ones like that. Okay, so now we're page 248 and the packet
- This will be V dash 50-25 that is Let me get to that and that is Nick scar lattice, is that right? Nick
- scar lattice and associate LC is it scar? He's online. I believe yeah. Okay, very good. So this is V
- dash 50-25 Can we have a staff report, please? Sorry first we need to vote to suspend the rules all meetings
- Shall adjourn by 9 p.m. And no new cases shall be heard after 830 p.m. And it is a that's right I brought
- that up at the beginning with the 40-minute delay as to whether we should probably make that motion
- Do I have a motion to extend suspend the rules? Okay move in the second it call it Fernandez Yes Katsinko
- Throck Morton. Yes, burrow. Yes. Thank you And it applies only to this case. We won't hear any
- Beyond this this is V dash 50-25. It's to the staff Thank you, I will just get this pulled up
- One second here, sorry. Yeah, just when you're ready it's fine.
- Okay, thank you, sorry about that. So my name is David Brantes, a zoning planner here. So the petition
- before us is going to be V50-25. The petitioner is Raina LJS, represented by Nick Scarlatis and Associates.
- The petitioner is here in person, and Nick Scarlatis is with us online.
- The petitioner requests variances from the maximum parking standards, driveway separation requirements,
- and signage standards to allow for the construction of a restaurant in the mixed use medium scale zoning
- district. As shown on the right, the property, and those to the east and west are zoned mixed use medium
- scale. The property to the north is a mixed use corridor, and to the south is residential high density.
- The property is currently vacant and the petitioner proposes a 2,285 square foot restaurant with a drive
- through and surface parking. This is the existing lot. Here is the proposed site plan from the petitioner.
- So based on the 600 square foot interior dining space and the maximum proposed, or the maximum parking
- spaces allowed is six
- The petitioner is requesting a variance from max parking to allow for 10 parking spaces. An analysis
- of parking needs was performed by the petitioner and is outlined in their statement. The petitioner
- states that four to six employees would be typical for a shift at this location. The petitioner is requesting
- a variance from signage from the drive through signage section for mixed use districts, so this would
- be a variance from max size of the sign on the left and height for the sign on the left and then also
- max size for the signs on the right and height for the signs on the right. The petitioner proposes two
- locations for those directional signs on the right. Based on the width of the building as proposed by
- the petitioner, the UDO allows a maximum of 54.5 square feet
- or the, yeah, the UDO allows 54.5 square feet of wall signage here. The petitioner proposes 98.5 square
- feet of wall signage. So here's the first criteria that the use and value of the area adjacent to the
- property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. We found no injury for parking, freestanding signage
- or wall signage the driveway separation staff found that to be injurious to the general welfare of the
- neighborhood and the community because it does not because it creates more conflict points
- between pedestrians on sidewalk and Cars entering and exiting there is a drive to the west That is two-way
- and then there is drive to the east which is one way
- but it does not meet the separation requirements from each other or from the drives of the businesses
- to the east or the west. For the second criteria, no adverse impacts are found for any of the proposed
- variances. And for the last criteria, I'll just go through these one at a time.
- So maximum parking number we found would result in a practical difficulty based on the number of employees
- that they would need and it's laid out in the parking study. Their use of those additional spaces, only
- four more additional parking spaces are proposed here.
- So we found that to be relieving the practical difficulty. And for driveway separation, no practical
- difficulty is found in the strict application of the terms of the UDO. The parking exceeds the minimum
- lot size, which is to say it is an acceptable lot size, it's not too small, and it is also an appropriate
- width for the district as well. There are no topographic environmental or utility constraints present.
- and no peculiar conditions were found. The frontage of 140 feet exceeds the minimum lot width of 50
- feet and can be developed with one drive cut. Two happens to be the max, but two different drive cuts
- is not guaranteed. And only having one drive cut does not limit the use of the property.
- So as I mentioned here, we've got about 70 feet of separation between them and the property, between
- their proposed drive and the property to the west. And then there's, I think the petitioner measures
- 66 feet in between their two drives. And then there is about 31 feet between the easternmost drive and
- the drive of the property to the east. So here the maximum
- or I'm sorry, the minimum separation should be 100 feet. And if 100 feet is not available, then the
- petitioner can choose an equidistant spot from any adjacent drive from the adjacent properties or as
- approved by the city engineer. So the proposed findings for the third criteria about practical difficulties is that
- There is no practical difficulty found on this property that would necessitate taller and larger signs
- for the drive-through signs. We find that to be inherent to the petitioner's desires that would follow
- them to any other property where the same regulation would apply. Similarly for the wall signage, we
- find that no practical difficulty is found in strict application
- of the terms of the UDO. The petitioner's plan for wall signage, essentially the petitioner could change
- the configuration of the building to accommodate larger wall signage, and there's nothing about the
- property that forces them to have wall signage that is beyond what is allowed in code. And just to reiterate,
- this is their menu board to the left,
- To the right is the two different directional signs. And here's the wall signage. So the image on the
- top of the screen, that is the view that you would see if you were north of the property, and then the
- one lower is just the west. So you would see it driving along third, going east.
- So with that, the department recommends approving the variance for maximum parking and denying the variance
- for drive separation and for the directional signage and the wall signage. The approval of the maximum
- parking would attach four conditions to it as seen on the screen.
- including that The number is to remain as the petitioner proposed and that those parking spaces in excess
- of the maximum parking number of six must be construction of permeable pavers as it's outlined by the
- UDO and No other development standards are approved and the staff level minor site plan is required
- before the property is to be developed That concludes my presentation Happy to answer any questions
- All right. Thank you. No questions for the staff at this point. I'll go ahead and go to the petitioner
- petitioner come forward sign in please When you're done signing in just say your first and last name
- for me Vic Patel, okay, have you signed in? I'm sorry. Did you get a chance to sign in? Oh
- Well, that's gotta be a first. Someone stole our sign-in sheet. So you said Nick, is it Nick Scarlattis?
- So Nick Scarlattis is our architect. I'm representing the developer, Sinjeev Katao, who is developing
- the Duncan. Okay, so say your name again for me. Vic Patel.
- Okay, that's my mistake. All right. Do you affirm that the testimony? You're about to give will be the
- truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes Okay, so just to reiterate you have 20 minutes
- what you don't use right now After we have questions and before action by the board You'll be able to
- use the remainder of that time if you so choose with that Let's hear from you Good evening members of
- the board Thank you so much David for presenting of your proposing a new ground up 2,000 square feet Duncan
- in the third street of Bloomington with ask of the standard is six parking space. We are asking for
- four additional for accommodating the employees and the easability of customers. We're asking for the
- two curb cuts since this is a drive through space and it would accommodate,
- We don't want a bottleneck with just having just one drive. And with the signage package, we're just
- using the standard signage that the brand, Duncan brand, allows us to use. That was it. Sorry, I'm not
- great at public speaking. Fine. We do have the architect online. Does the architect wish to speak to this?
- This is Nicoletta the project architect for this project. I would like to speak. Okay, so you're say
- your first and last name, please Nicoletta Scarlattis, do you affirm that the testimony you're about
- to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do. Okay. How much time do we they
- have left? You have just over 18 minutes left. Go ahead, please 19. Okay, great
- Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this project. I wish I could
- be there in person, but I wasn't able to be there tonight. A couple of items that I want to request
- that the board consider in this project is that this location is a drive-through location.
- and we did consider multiple options in order to make this feasible. In our discussions and the help
- of the planning department, this particular site plan was the one that we decided to proceed with because
- it offered the most compliance to other UDO standards that we would have otherwise had to request variances
- for. I want to point out to you that this
- Particular site is only accessible from the eastbound direction on West 3rd Street. There is a median
- just north of our property that does not allow cross traffic to access the site. So I would like you
- to take into consideration that we're not going to be having cross traffic coming in. And in addition
- to that, our driveways will be right in and right out only.
- This was definitely something that we took into consideration in proposing this particular site plan
- because we do believe that this lessens the possible impact on pedestrian traffic because we won't be
- having traffic coming from the westbound lane of West 3rd Street.
- That's most of what I want to speak to about the site plan. In terms of the signage, for the site signage,
- we are slightly over the required maximums per the UDO. And if we were allowed and received approval
- for that variance, it would allow my client to go with the standard elements instead of having to do custom
- signage. And then in terms of the building signage, if we went with the full Duncan standards, our entire
- square footage of signage would be at 157 square feet. After discussing the UDO and the intent of the
- UDO with the planning department, we did eliminate a substantial amount of the signage and significantly
- reduce the amount of signage to 98.5 square feet. We did still include and we discussed internally about
- eliminating all of it and complying with the variance or complying with the UDO and not proceeding with
- the variance. However, we do think that the signage on the west side of the building is very beneficial
- to the east
- bound traffic in terms of wayfinding and being able to find their way around our building. So we do
- think that that improves the safety around our building and helps prevent vehicular traffic from passing
- our building and then wanting to turn around possibly in adjacent properties or around the street.
- these these are the main elements that I wanted to point out and wanted to bring to the board's attention
- and And I appreciate the time to do so. Thank you And thank you and thank you just for the record you
- have fifteen and a half minutes left That you can use before the board goes to any action. All right
- with that Are there any
- Questions from the board for the staff or the petitioner at this point before we go to the public Okay
- with that is there anyone anyone from the public that's in chambers who'd like to speak to this petition
- Seeing none. Is there anyone online who would like to speak to this? if you would like to speak to this
- petition as a member of the public you can raise your virtual hand or send a message to the host and
- I don't see anything on Zoom. Thank you. So to the petitioner, we've had no questions from the board
- or comments from the board nor from the public, but you do have the time left that I just mentioned.
- Would you like to use that now? This is the opportunity to do so. Anything further you'd like to present
- before we go to the board for action? The only thing I would say is that we normally put, we always put,
- big and beautiful building. So we own the Long John Silvers adjacent to the property that we have right
- now. So we own the dirt on it, we don't own the building. So right now we have a lease to kick them
- out. So we went back to Speedway saying, if you're able to sell this lot, we'll put a new one and we'll
- have the Long John Silvers build a new one as well.
- In theory, if we get denied this, the double drive, basically, the main thing is the double drive, if
- we get denied the double drive variance, we might have to keep, we'll have to kick the Long John Silvers
- out and then just retrofit a Duncan into that space. Hmm. So let me just summarize. What you're saying
- is if you had to, if you can't get the double cut, you would essentially vacate the Long John Silvers
- and put your new,
- building there, is that what I'm hearing you just say? Yes, if you don't get the double drive, we will
- abandon this property altogether and then just take the Long John Silvers and then just retrofit into
- a Dunkin' Donuts. But you're not making any, like tearing down the building or anything, we'll just
- keep the building as is. I understood, I just wanna make sure I understood. That makes sense.
- So anything else from the architect while you have your remaining time? Which is about 14 minutes. No,
- I think that that pretty much sums up our position. Okay.
- Thank you so much. Sure. Now, at this point, what will happen is we will go to the board for action.
- There may be questions of you. We will ask those questions, but you'll not be able to ask for more time
- to present at this point. It will only be to respond to questions presented to you from the board. OK?
- So with that, we're back to the board for action, questions, comments, clarifications to either the
- petitioner or to the staff or to make a motion. I have a question for the staff.
- On the two driveways I can't see it from here. I see you have red lines up there. So what are we talking
- about there in terms of they are too close together. Is that what you're saying. Yes. So in in this district.
- In this district the required separation Of the drives in arterials Would be I'll just read out the
- language no entrance or drive along an arterial arterial or collector Street shall be installed within
- 100 feet of another driveway entrance So it essentially there is there's one to the east
- And then which the petitioners said that they own and that there's one to the West and so there is a
- compliant path for It essentially we say that the hundred foot is required and if that is not allowed
- if that's not feasible due to other properties adjacent to you, then you may move forward with a single
- drive cut that is equidistant from a
- each of those two to the to the east or the west or if there's some other site feature that the engineering
- department can approve a Deviation from the equidistant part if that happens to be the case. So on this
- property, it's only 140 feet Wide that frontage along 3rd Street so they don't have room for separation
- from the speedway and the launch on Silvers drives but they can still
- Put a single drive equidistant So if they had a single drive we wouldn't be talking about this variance
- Not not this one in particular now But then they wouldn't be able to do that what the intent of what
- they want to do which is one one driveway in and one out, correct
- They could they could potentially reconfigure the site you know the a drive-thru is not a Guarantee
- on any given site that does allow the use. So this is an accessory use It's not the the main use of
- the property. So you could have a restaurant here without a drive-thru So this may not be the best place
- for it. There are other examples within the city in this district, I believe
- Where the the drive doesn't necessarily circle the building but circles parking or a landscape area
- and is able to circle back to that same drive cut so that we don't have multiple drive cuts and Essentially
- more more places for conflict where it's just less predictable an environment to navigate
- 100 feet is it from like the it's a hundred feet from another driveway Yes, that's correct. So including
- the ones that they would be building and the existing ones on adjacent properties How far are they from
- the adjacent properties It should be 31 feet from the Long John Silver's one to the east and then it's
- about 70 feet from the speedway to the west and
- And then Dave created another space in between those two drives, which is also not compliant and that
- the petitioner stated is 66 feet Thank you So I have a question for the petitioner then you The speedway
- property you own the speedway property Not this not not not the speedway, but this is being sold by
- the speedway to us Okay
- You own the Long John Silvers, though? Yes, we do, yeah. So you have a curb cut right there on the Long
- John Silvers, and then you have a curb cut that currently exists in this property that's undeveloped.
- Yes, that is correct. Did you consider just... Well, we actually thought of having an exit from our
- drive-through to the Long John Silvers. The Long John Silvers, since it's a ground lease, they said,
- So here's the thing, they either keep their parcel as is, or if we make any modifications to that, then
- they'll want to like, it's basically like they will want us to like tear down the building and do the
- whole building again. Okay, that was my question. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. So we explored that option
- of just. No, you explained it, that makes sense, thank you. So any other comments or questions from
- the board?
- Do we have a motion to get things going. I'm going to recommend that we adopt the findings for the 50
- 25 as your 20 25 10 0 1 0 5 and approve the variance for maximum parking.
- Number and deny the variances from driveway separation and sign standards with the Adopting the four
- recommended conditions. I Have a motion do I have a second second any further discussion So just as
- a recap to that motion this motion if you voted yes for this motion it would be to approve
- Recommendations made by the city. Yeah Do we do we have any further questions or comments? And I'll
- call the question Fernandez yes, Katsinko. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Burel. Yes Okay, so there were some
- partial variances that were approved there and others that were not thank you for your time and attention
- of this good luck with that development and
- Is there any more? Are there any other? Is there any other business before this board before we adjourn?
- No, thank you. Thank you. We stand in adjournment.