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.