WEBVTT 00:00:00.290 --> 00:00:10.339 - Called to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for December 18th 2025 May I have a call 00:00:10.339 --> 00:00:20.587 - of the role, please? Here here Fernandez kutsinka here Throckmorton here First we'll look for approval 00:00:20.587 --> 00:00:29.342 - of minutes to have motion to approve the minutes or do we have any amendments to those? 00:00:32.162 --> 00:00:41.895 - Motion to approve minutes. I have a second second Call it Ballard yes, bro. Yes, Fernandez kusinko. 00:00:41.895 --> 00:00:50.558 - Yes, Throckmorton. Yes We'll start with any reports resolutions communications. Oh, yeah 00:00:51.682 --> 00:00:58.406 - Nothing from staff. You do have a few members or letters from members of the public that were distributed 00:00:58.406 --> 00:01:04.877 - at the meeting These are letters that came in after the packet was distributed. So we gave those they 00:01:04.877 --> 00:01:11.284 - relate to I think two petitions Or three petitions that are on the agenda tonight So you should have 00:01:11.284 --> 00:01:17.818 - copies of those and then we have copies as well any members of the public need those it'll be for case 00:01:17.818 --> 00:01:20.990 - be 42 25 and See you 56 25. What's the third one? 00:01:22.786 --> 00:01:34.221 - One of the letters referenced two petitions it referenced the grace our petition as well as the Petition 00:01:34.221 --> 00:01:45.982 - for the Jessup. Okay, very good. Thank you. Do I have any other business? I Make a motion to move v-42-25 I 00:01:46.754 --> 00:01:56.747 - Which is right now scheduled to be heard first to be heard third after the CU. That's fifty four that's 00:01:56.747 --> 00:02:06.453 - twenty five and fifty six. Fifty six is the second one. Yes. And after fifty six that's twenty five. 00:02:06.453 --> 00:02:16.542 - I'm sorry I cut you off. I hadn't finished. OK. Got it. Do I have a second. Second call the roll please. 00:02:18.466 --> 00:02:28.069 - Yes Yes Yes Sorry to cut you out there Flavia. Thank you. All right. So all that means is it will hear 00:02:28.069 --> 00:02:37.486 - the CU 5425 and see you 5625 first First of all, I do want to make a note that we have two petitions 00:02:37.486 --> 00:02:47.742 - that will be continued to the January 22nd 2026 meeting and that is a a dash 17 dash 22 Joe Kent construction 00:02:48.034 --> 00:02:58.147 - Blackwell construction also the cu-33-24 hat rentals LLC again those will be moving to our next meeting 00:02:58.147 --> 00:03:07.969 - which will be on Thursday January 22nd with that tonight we will hear the following cu-54-25 Charlie 00:03:07.969 --> 00:03:12.734 - Joseph cu-56-25 unlabeled holdings David Roberts 00:03:14.050 --> 00:03:20.850 - V dash forty two twenty five gray star development central LLC and our last of the evening will be V 00:03:20.850 --> 00:03:27.651 - dash fifty seven dash twenty five city of Bloomington parks and recreation with that Let's go to the 00:03:27.651 --> 00:03:33.374 - first petition, which is CU dash fifty four dash twenty five and please staff report 00:03:58.562 --> 00:04:05.099 - Good evening. Joe Patterson zoning a long range planner for the city Bloomington before you is a request 00:04:05.099 --> 00:04:11.697 - for a conditional use to allow for dwelling duplex and a residential small lot are three zoning districts 00:04:11.697 --> 00:04:17.923 - that properties located at one one one nine West Eighth Street and is located in the near west side 00:04:17.923 --> 00:04:24.210 - historic district and neighborhood association. You can see there is a little bit of a mix of zoning 00:04:24.210 --> 00:04:26.078 - there in that immediate area. 00:04:28.034 --> 00:04:36.815 - The lot itself is a point one six acre lot. The comprehensive plan designates it as mixed urban residential 00:04:36.815 --> 00:04:44.946 - from the previous screen with that mixed with the different zoning on the far left is the White Oak 00:04:44.946 --> 00:04:52.670 - Cemetery a couple parcels to the east and north is mixed use neighborhood zoning that contains 00:04:52.994 --> 00:05:00.077 - Girls Inc. of Monroe County. Then just to the south and east of there is the Binnicker Community Center 00:05:00.077 --> 00:05:07.161 - located in mixed use institutional. So as you can see, this property currently contains a single family 00:05:07.161 --> 00:05:14.381 - dwelling unit as well as a shed on the rear of the property. And the petitioners are proposing to convert 00:05:14.381 --> 00:05:21.396 - the existing single family residence into a duplex. Part of that, as you see on the left, does require 00:05:21.396 --> 00:05:22.622 - a minimum parking 00:05:22.818 --> 00:05:30.906 - to be available on site, so they do propose to add a driveway, essentially for a parking pad for a vehicle 00:05:30.906 --> 00:05:38.766 - to satisfy that minimum parking requirement. The existing floor plan, 8th Street would be to the north. 00:05:38.766 --> 00:05:46.476 - You can see between the main floor and upper floor, there are five, currently five bedrooms, and they 00:05:46.476 --> 00:05:49.726 - are proposing to split those five bedrooms 00:05:50.402 --> 00:05:57.402 - create two dwelling units with three bedrooms in each one. The rear entry would be portioned off and 00:05:57.402 --> 00:06:04.472 - that would be the access for the second floor unit while the main entry to the front would be for the 00:06:04.472 --> 00:06:11.403 - main floor unit. As you can see here, this would be a approximate location of the proposed driveway 00:06:11.403 --> 00:06:17.918 - that could involve removing a street tree as well to allow for that driveway to be installed. 00:06:23.874 --> 00:06:29.313 - Looking at our criteria and findings for conditional use permit, the general compliance criteria, we 00:06:29.313 --> 00:06:35.130 - find that there are use specific standards that apply to the dwelling duplex within the R3 zoning district. 00:06:35.130 --> 00:06:40.893 - This petition meets those standards and in accordance with those standards, each unit has its own separate 00:06:40.893 --> 00:06:46.548 - exterior entrance and the exterior design of the structure will remain largely intact with the exception 00:06:46.548 --> 00:06:52.149 - of some potential modifications for some window replacement. The duplex will not exceed the six bedroom 00:06:52.149 --> 00:06:53.118 - maximum allowance 00:06:53.410 --> 00:06:59.447 - and property owner does not have any notice of violation on file. No other applicable regulations or 00:06:59.447 --> 00:07:05.782 - prior approvals are on record for this site. For consistency with the comprehensive plan, as I mentioned, 00:07:05.782 --> 00:07:11.819 - this area is identified as mixed urban residential for future land use. And this is largely in older 00:07:11.819 --> 00:07:17.975 - neighborhoods and redevelopment should be compatible with its surroundings. Comprehensive plan further 00:07:17.975 --> 00:07:22.398 - states that for approvals within mixed urban residential, it should allow 00:07:22.498 --> 00:07:29.299 - context-sensitive multifamily redevelopment along higher volume roads along district edges and near 00:07:29.299 --> 00:07:36.508 - major destinations and policy further encourages opportunities for infill and redevelopment and Including 00:07:36.508 --> 00:07:43.309 - underutilized housing types such as accessory dwelling units and duplexes. We find this proposal is 00:07:43.309 --> 00:07:50.178 - congruent with the goals of the comprehensive plan Regarding that there are adequate public services 00:07:50.178 --> 00:07:51.198 - and facilities 00:07:51.522 --> 00:07:57.405 - We find that public service capacity does exist. The existing residence currently has those connections 00:07:57.405 --> 00:08:03.232 - and while no issues are anticipated, it will nonetheless be reviewed with the building permit process. 00:08:03.232 --> 00:08:09.002 - For additional criteria for minimizing and mitigating adverse impacts, we find there are no regulated 00:08:09.002 --> 00:08:14.998 - natural or scenic features that would be impacted. Property is located within the near west side historic 00:08:14.998 --> 00:08:19.806 - districts. And again, while the exterior design is planned to remain largely intact, 00:08:20.450 --> 00:08:26.665 - If that window replacement does require further exterior changes, the petitioners have been in contact 00:08:26.665 --> 00:08:32.699 - with the historic preservation program manager, and if approval is required, they will go down that 00:08:32.699 --> 00:08:38.854 - path with this historic preservation commission. There was a neighborhood meeting that was conducted. 00:08:38.854 --> 00:08:45.251 - Five people were in attendance at that meeting. Major concerns were noted to be with traffic and parking, 00:08:45.251 --> 00:08:50.078 - with the addition of the parking pad, as well as ongoing discussions with other 00:08:50.946 --> 00:09:01.666 - neighbors in the area regarding use of alleys and adjacent properties. We find that that impact for 00:09:01.666 --> 00:09:12.493 - parking and traffic and congestion is largely mitigated. No changes to trash or waste collection are 00:09:12.493 --> 00:09:18.174 - expected. And no phasing is proposed with this plan. 00:09:19.650 --> 00:09:24.638 - and therefore is the recommendation that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt the proposed findings and 00:09:24.638 --> 00:09:29.576 - approve this petition with the following conditions. The conditional use approval is limited to the 00:09:29.576 --> 00:09:34.860 - design shown and discussed in the packet, with the exception if window replacement requires minor exterior 00:09:34.860 --> 00:09:39.947 - changes, those design changes shall be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable. 00:09:39.947 --> 00:09:45.132 - A one-for-one replacement for any street trees removed for the driveway installation is to be satisfied, 00:09:45.132 --> 00:09:49.182 - and this conditional use approval requires petitioner to pass a rental inspection 00:09:49.602 --> 00:09:57.375 - housing and neighborhood development and procure rental permit for any units that will be rented and 00:09:57.375 --> 00:10:05.071 - I'm here for any questions you may have Thank you Is the petitioner present Okay, if you would come 00:10:05.071 --> 00:10:12.920 - forward will you be the only one speaking to towards this petition or will there be other speakers on 00:10:12.920 --> 00:10:18.846 - your behalf Okay in that case go ahead and come forward and have you sign in 00:10:19.042 --> 00:10:29.275 - Asked because after you sign in I'll swear you in you'll have 20 minutes To present up to 20 minutes 00:10:29.275 --> 00:10:40.116 - any of the time you do not use will be reserved Until the end of public comment for you to make additional 00:10:40.116 --> 00:10:48.222 - comments before any action is taken by the board State your first and last name 00:10:50.850 --> 00:10:57.926 - Legal name do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing 00:10:57.926 --> 00:11:04.602 - but the truth Yes, okay. You have up to 20 minutes. You don't have to use all of it now But you can 00:11:04.602 --> 00:11:11.544 - reserve what remains until later, okay? What's funny? I'm nervous tomorrow. I'll be performing in front 00:11:11.544 --> 00:11:17.886 - of 400 people at the busker chumlee and singing and yet this makes me ten times more nervous I 00:11:19.810 --> 00:11:27.675 - Joe already explained most everything that I would explain at this meeting. So it is a very large house 00:11:27.675 --> 00:11:35.238 - right now. The bedrooms are enormous. You walk in and each bedroom is twice the size, five bedrooms 00:11:35.238 --> 00:11:43.179 - that are all at least twice the size of a standard bedroom. And so it doesn't have much use for a normal 00:11:43.179 --> 00:11:49.758 - family. And we walked through and we recognized, wow, this would work really well as a 00:11:50.338 --> 00:11:57.174 - split duplex between the upper level and the lower level. And when I spoke with an architect, he said, 00:11:57.174 --> 00:12:03.811 - this is enough space to make a triplex. I mean, it's just a huge house. And so we feel it's walking 00:12:03.811 --> 00:12:10.913 - distance to downtown. It's walking distance to campus. And everyone knows how nice that is to have housing 00:12:10.913 --> 00:12:17.749 - that is that close to downtown. I recently moved within walking distance of downtown, and I use it all 00:12:17.749 --> 00:12:19.806 - the time. So it's really nice. 00:12:25.858 --> 00:12:34.106 - One of the constraints that came up during the process was parking. That's the main concern that everyone 00:12:34.106 --> 00:12:42.044 - has, whether it's the neighbors or the other people in the neighborhood worried about street parking. 00:12:42.044 --> 00:12:49.981 - And I understand that because it's very limited. A lot of these places around downtown where you only 00:12:49.981 --> 00:12:54.494 - have street parking and there are not a lot of driveways, 00:12:54.946 --> 00:13:02.314 - you're limited in that way. And so that was the main thing that we were trying to work around in this 00:13:02.314 --> 00:13:09.609 - situation. There used to be an unplatted alley behind the house. Behind this house there is a fence. 00:13:09.609 --> 00:13:17.049 - And then behind that fence we own another 10 yards of property. And that property's just overgrown now 00:13:17.049 --> 00:13:21.022 - and there are some power lines that run through there. 00:13:21.186 --> 00:13:27.856 - But at the back of our property, there's a bunch of old gravel that's been overgrown that used to be 00:13:27.856 --> 00:13:34.526 - a driveway and a large gate that opens up into the back of the home. So we were hoping that we would 00:13:34.526 --> 00:13:41.130 - be able to gain access through, through behind this, uh, this unplatted alley to gain access to the 00:13:41.130 --> 00:13:48.065 - back. It's not ideal that we put a driveway in the front because it just kind of lowers the curb appeal. 00:13:48.065 --> 00:13:50.046 - It lowers the, just the, the, 00:13:50.818 --> 00:13:57.969 - visual Appearance of the of the walkability of the of being in that neighborhood. I just like it cars 00:13:57.969 --> 00:14:05.330 - It's ideal to have them like kind of tucked behind houses But that's as far as we know that can't happen 00:14:05.330 --> 00:14:12.551 - as of now or it would potentially require some some Legal documents that were worked out amongst a few 00:14:12.551 --> 00:14:16.126 - neighbors if they're interested if not our plan is 00:14:16.290 --> 00:14:23.595 - A on here, but I ideally really our plan B would be to do that driveway in the front. And so it does 00:14:23.595 --> 00:14:30.900 - require a curb cut and it does require that we basically, um, take, um, up, I don't know, a third of 00:14:30.900 --> 00:14:38.711 - the front yard with a concrete pad, which is not ideal, but it's okay. The other thing is that the entrance 00:14:38.711 --> 00:14:42.110 - to the upstairs unit is the back of the house. 00:14:42.786 --> 00:14:48.720 - So the other thing that would be nice about having the parking in the back is that then it would create 00:14:48.720 --> 00:14:54.653 - a more convenient way to enter the house through the back. As of now, we'll have some kind of permeable 00:14:54.653 --> 00:15:00.416 - pavers that are going along the side of the house, and they would park on the street and walk around 00:15:00.416 --> 00:15:06.350 - the house and enter through the back. Everything else is pretty straightforward. We're dividing up some 00:15:06.350 --> 00:15:10.686 - rooms, putting up a few walls, taking a bedroom, turning it into a kitchen. 00:15:10.818 --> 00:15:17.575 - the bathroom upstairs is staying. There was already laundry upstairs and downstairs. It was a lot, a 00:15:17.575 --> 00:15:24.332 - lot of what was there was already conveniently placed to turn it into a duplex. So it's a relatively 00:15:24.332 --> 00:15:31.356 - minor, um, change, all things considered. Um, one thing that came up through the process is that I don't 00:15:31.356 --> 00:15:38.180 - know whether we were grandfathered in, um, uh, but there, the windows of the, of the front downstairs 00:15:38.180 --> 00:15:40.254 - unit would need to be, um, um, 00:15:41.026 --> 00:15:48.426 - I think because we are doing renovations, it has to meet current code. If correct me if I'm wrong, but 00:15:48.426 --> 00:15:55.683 - I think there's something like that. So the downstairs bedroom would require slightly expanding some 00:15:55.683 --> 00:16:02.940 - of these window rough openings so that it would meet egress. So it's a brick exterior facade. And so 00:16:02.940 --> 00:16:09.406 - we would have to potentially remove a few layers of brick in order to expand that window. 00:16:09.602 --> 00:16:17.453 - which also is not ideal, but that's the extent of the exterior changes that would be happening. So yeah, 00:16:17.453 --> 00:16:25.004 - those were a few of the things that were kind of hiccups along the way that made it seem like it was 00:16:25.004 --> 00:16:32.630 - gonna be a little bit more challenging, but besides for that, everything seems straightforward. Okay, 00:16:32.630 --> 00:16:38.238 - thank you. So you'll retain 14 minutes and 30 seconds for later if needed. 00:16:38.370 --> 00:16:46.749 - Okay. Okay. So what we're gonna do now is if you just remain there We'll ask the board if you have any 00:16:46.749 --> 00:16:55.046 - questions For either the staff or the petitioner at this point before we go to public comment So I've 00:16:55.046 --> 00:17:03.344 - got a quick one to staff, can you pull that picture up of the driveway cut they're proposing I'm just 00:17:03.344 --> 00:17:08.062 - curious about how many cars could fit there Just one Okay 00:17:08.866 --> 00:17:17.768 - So you're talking three bed one bath potentially six individuals, but one spot Okay Currently a five-bedroom 00:17:17.768 --> 00:17:26.344 - house turning it into a six-bedroom house. Yeah, and adding one one total bedroom and adding one Parking 00:17:26.344 --> 00:17:34.430 - spot. Okay. So ideally I wouldn't make a change in terms of the sum total of of cars parked got it 00:17:35.106 --> 00:17:41.139 - So just another follow-up to staff on that is what is the issue behind? Them not being able to put this 00:17:41.139 --> 00:17:46.998 - in the back Well, they certainly can put it in the back if they have permission from adjacent owners 00:17:46.998 --> 00:17:52.856 - There's not a platted alley that runs through the back. So they'd have to secure access to that from 00:17:52.856 --> 00:17:58.889 - the adjacent owners Okay, it had to be granted an easement from the adjacent owners to get to the back. 00:17:58.889 --> 00:18:03.646 - Okay, so an easement into that cut alley that's like to the east of the house and 00:18:05.058 --> 00:18:12.787 - The well, so it's there's an alley one past the house one west of us That runs north south and then 00:18:12.787 --> 00:18:20.670 - it would be an alley off of that alley, right? So that's the weird part about the whole thing the two 00:18:20.670 --> 00:18:28.708 - adjacent homeowners to that alley are here present and I would need to have access to the alley as well 00:18:28.708 --> 00:18:34.814 - as passing through this current overgrown void at the back of the property and 00:18:35.298 --> 00:18:46.399 - Okay. Yeah, I think that answers. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board before we 00:18:46.399 --> 00:18:57.935 - go to the public? Please. The question is for the petitioner. So is this home used currently as a rental? 00:18:57.935 --> 00:19:03.486 - Do you have every room occupied at this point? No. 00:19:03.874 --> 00:19:10.673 - We're hoping to do this construction now. It's not it hasn't been occupied for the last month. 00:19:10.673 --> 00:19:18.474 - Okay Well, I was just trying to figure out the transportation I mean the parking if it was already inhabited 00:19:18.474 --> 00:19:25.917 - by five different individuals in five I believe there were There were three between three and four cars 00:19:25.917 --> 00:19:32.286 - there at a given time. Okay So that has already happened in the neighborhood in terms of 00:19:32.418 --> 00:19:40.683 - That was what was as of two months ago. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you The other questions for petitioner 00:19:40.683 --> 00:19:48.266 - or for the staff at this point With that we'll go to the public for comment. Is there anyone in the 00:19:48.266 --> 00:19:56.000 - public in Attendance in chambers who would like to come forward and speak if so come forward and sign 00:19:56.000 --> 00:19:58.654 - in and we'll give you five minutes 00:20:01.794 --> 00:20:12.192 - So just one, okay. So please step forward there, sign in on the sheet please, and then when you're ready, 00:20:12.192 --> 00:20:21.608 - I'll have you state your name. There may also be some people on Zoom. We'll check on that next, 00:20:21.608 --> 00:20:30.142 - thank you. I like that. Very concerned about those that are online, that's good. Okay. 00:20:30.946 --> 00:20:39.648 - Bill Boust, I'm... One second, so Bill Boust? B-A-U-S. Okay, do you affirm that the testimony you're 00:20:39.648 --> 00:20:48.694 - about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. You have five minutes. 00:20:48.694 --> 00:20:57.310 - Okay. Thank you. I'm one of the nearby landowners. I live just down the street and I own one of the 00:20:57.310 --> 00:21:00.670 - houses that is very close to this one. 00:21:00.930 --> 00:21:09.844 - That that house which is a rental Has a private drive that goes to the garage in the back of that house 00:21:09.844 --> 00:21:18.588 - I keep hearing this private drive referred to as an alley The city sometimes think it's an alley, but 00:21:18.588 --> 00:21:27.245 - it's not it's actually a private drive There is another drive that runs South to 7th Street. I don't 00:21:27.245 --> 00:21:28.702 - know if that's a 00:21:29.186 --> 00:21:38.999 - Public property or not, I've never checked into that. It's often used like an alley, even though it's 00:21:38.999 --> 00:21:48.716 - not. A very major concern is parking. There is very limited parking in the area. If you park on both 00:21:48.716 --> 00:21:57.086 - sides of the street with even moderate-sized cars, a fire truck could not get through. 00:21:57.922 --> 00:22:06.843 - pick up trucks on each side of the street, a normal car couldn't get through. Narrow streets, they were 00:22:06.843 --> 00:22:15.592 - built before modern transportation was common. We were very concerned with the fact that the previous 00:22:15.592 --> 00:22:24.598 - tenant in that house and the previous owners had one car. This will mean there will be somewhere between 00:22:24.598 --> 00:22:26.142 - two and six cars. 00:22:26.818 --> 00:22:37.026 - very likely to the higher number because they probably will not be families in the house, they'll probably 00:22:37.026 --> 00:22:46.566 - be individuals. Even families usually have two cars nowadays. This is a very major concern. Now, we 00:22:46.566 --> 00:22:52.958 - talked to Mr. Joseph about this with the Neighborhood Association. 00:22:53.314 --> 00:23:02.183 - Treasurer of the neighborhood association currently. I'm also on the design review committee for the 00:23:02.183 --> 00:23:10.964 - historic district for that neighborhood and We discussed the possibility of providing access to the 00:23:10.964 --> 00:23:20.008 - back of that house And that this would require Agreement with with myself and with one other landowner 00:23:20.008 --> 00:23:21.150 - and we would 00:23:21.314 --> 00:23:30.134 - hope to be able to work this out so that we could get vehicles to the back of the house. There is actually 00:23:30.134 --> 00:23:38.788 - a very large garage back there on that property. Right now, there's no way to get to the garage. I think 00:23:38.788 --> 00:23:47.608 - it's probably would hold two cars. So if this could be worked out, we could definitely improve the parking 00:23:47.608 --> 00:23:51.070 - situation. Another problem is the access. 00:23:51.426 --> 00:23:59.219 - In the neighborhood we believe that the city was incorrect in deciding that this did not have to go 00:23:59.219 --> 00:24:07.012 - before the design review committee It seems sounds like to me they're going to they want this to be 00:24:07.012 --> 00:24:14.806 - approved to have The current design and then Change the windows and then bring it up for the design 00:24:14.806 --> 00:24:21.118 - review committee for the windows. We think it should be the other way around the 00:24:21.506 --> 00:24:32.297 - Design guidelines for the historic district specifically say that the entrances need to be from the 00:24:32.297 --> 00:24:43.088 - front, not rear entrances. And it would be a little more difficult to have two front entrances, but 00:24:43.088 --> 00:24:49.886 - it could be done. And we believe that having the rear entrance 00:24:50.818 --> 00:25:00.346 - Is not in compliance with the design review and and then and so this would be considered along with 00:25:00.346 --> 00:25:09.969 - any upcoming changes for the windows, so we do the neighborhood board Did not specifically say we're 00:25:09.969 --> 00:25:12.446 - against this proposal but 00:25:12.642 --> 00:25:20.312 - I think I'm correct in saying that we believe that the Approval of this is premature and that we should 00:25:20.312 --> 00:25:28.056 - work out some of these details before before it's finally approved. Thank you. Thank you Is there anyone 00:25:28.056 --> 00:25:35.505 - else in chambers who would like to speak to this petition? Please come forward sign in and I'll have 00:25:35.505 --> 00:25:42.142 - you state your name and I will swear you in My name is Tom Flynn, please sign in there Oh 00:25:43.586 --> 00:25:53.712 - Okay And Tom do you affirm or attest the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth 00:25:53.712 --> 00:26:03.839 - and nothing but the truth Yes, you have up to five minutes. Okay, I'll be I'll be much briefer Thank 00:26:03.839 --> 00:26:11.358 - you. My wife and I own the property immediately to the west 1131 and we're 00:26:11.778 --> 00:26:20.152 - Definitely not opposed to the idea of a duplex there. But the alley is a problem that Mr. Bauss had 00:26:20.152 --> 00:26:28.525 - mentioned. He referred to it as a private drive. If that alley, or whatever it is, I don't actually 00:26:28.525 --> 00:26:37.067 - know the legal definition of that driveway alley, let's call it a drally, is within about two feet of 00:26:37.067 --> 00:26:41.086 - our house. And we hope to retire there someday. 00:26:41.250 --> 00:26:49.442 - And if that became the thoroughfare to get back to the other proposed alleyway, we'd be surrounded on 00:26:49.442 --> 00:26:57.954 - three sides by traffic, which is kind of a non-starter for us. So that was really all I wanted to comment 00:26:57.954 --> 00:27:06.387 - to. And I would love it if it was true that four to six adults only drove one car, or even better, none. 00:27:06.387 --> 00:27:09.278 - But I just don't think that's real. 00:27:09.378 --> 00:27:19.215 - Everyone in town drives unfortunately, so thank you. Thank you anyone else here in Chambers, you'd like 00:27:19.215 --> 00:27:28.958 - to speak to this Did we put out a notice online for those who would like to speak? How many do we have 00:27:28.958 --> 00:27:35.390 - waiting? I see one individual Tom pain you should be able to Unmute 00:27:38.626 --> 00:27:44.101 - Tom Payne, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear. I didn't know if I needed to go on video or not. Well, 00:27:44.101 --> 00:27:49.576 - that's okay. Now, Tom, do you affirm or attest the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the 00:27:49.576 --> 00:27:55.106 - whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. You have up to five minutes, Tom. Thank you. 00:27:55.106 --> 00:28:00.910 - I'm the president of the Near West Side Neighborhood Association. I will start by echoing Bill's concerns 00:28:00.910 --> 00:28:06.878 - already raised. As I look at that property, again, due to my concerns with access and parking and, you know, 00:28:07.426 --> 00:28:15.425 - The idea of achieving a gentle increase in density is to be desired, right? We have no opposition to 00:28:15.425 --> 00:28:23.345 - that in any way, shape or form. It's good for the city to have gentle infill without destroying the 00:28:23.345 --> 00:28:31.819 - character of the near west side. When I look at the area, especially behind the house, where the utilities 00:28:31.819 --> 00:28:36.254 - run, I mean, not only are there poles, there are trees, 00:28:37.026 --> 00:28:44.591 - one of the concerns I have, however, such an alley were created through these properties. I mean, not 00:28:44.591 --> 00:28:52.083 - only would it have to go through two people's property, but there could be further compensatory tree 00:28:52.083 --> 00:28:59.574 - plantings that may be needed depending upon where this access is to be placed. And that was the only 00:28:59.574 --> 00:29:04.766 - additional concern I wanted to raise. Thank you very much. Thank you. 00:29:06.210 --> 00:29:13.673 - Did anyone else sign in online If there is anybody else online that would like to speak to this petition, 00:29:13.673 --> 00:29:20.714 - please use the Raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can recognize you We'll wait a 00:29:20.714 --> 00:29:27.895 - moment for that And do we see anything I don't see anybody else with their hand raised. No. Thank you 00:29:27.895 --> 00:29:35.358 - Now we have others in public. That's of course, we're still daring public comment. Please come forward. I 00:29:36.066 --> 00:29:43.677 - We'll go ahead and then check again online after these comments go ahead and sign in please State your 00:29:43.677 --> 00:29:51.140 - first and last name I'm Jude Flynn. Do you affirm or test the testimony? You're about to give us the 00:29:51.140 --> 00:29:58.529 - truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do you have five minutes to present your comments 00:29:58.529 --> 00:30:05.918 - But I want to talk also about the fact that you might have people come visit you you might you know 00:30:06.050 --> 00:30:14.346 - For dinner or for whatever or your parents want to come stay with you for a couple of days And You know 00:30:14.346 --> 00:30:22.482 - if there's already four cars that live there and now you have five more people coming over for dinner 00:30:22.482 --> 00:30:30.698 - Where are they gonna park and I? I hope that there can be a way to figure this out because I also like 00:30:30.698 --> 00:30:35.006 - the idea of it being a duplex. It is a huge house and 00:30:35.426 --> 00:30:46.176 - And I can't speak, you know, I we have the house 1131 Definitely no alley access, you know behind that 00:30:46.176 --> 00:30:57.343 - house Plus there's telephone poles all along there the other side. There is a little bit more availability 00:30:57.343 --> 00:31:03.710 - but I'm I do question how the neighbors are gonna feel about 00:31:04.802 --> 00:31:12.065 - having their now they have a lot of traffic too, so It would be nice if there could be a way for it 00:31:12.065 --> 00:31:19.546 - to be figured out Somehow in in that little back corner that's kind of not being used and I don't know 00:31:19.546 --> 00:31:26.954 - what you're gonna do with that garage But anyway, I think that's all I got I mean I just feel like we 00:31:26.954 --> 00:31:29.278 - need to kind of remember that I 00:31:30.018 --> 00:31:37.556 - You know, even if you only own one car and you live there, there's gonna be people coming to visit you. 00:31:37.556 --> 00:31:45.021 - Where are they gonna park? Thank you. Thank you I'll go back again to the public. Is there anyone else 00:31:45.021 --> 00:31:52.342 - in the public in chambers who'd like to speak to this petition and Anyone else online will check one 00:31:52.342 --> 00:31:58.430 - more time, please I'm not seeing anybody else online with their hands. Very good. I 00:31:58.594 --> 00:32:09.517 - All right, this is I'm sorry. We have someone else from the public. Please come forward sign in My name 00:32:09.517 --> 00:32:11.198 - is Matt Gleason 00:32:23.906 --> 00:32:30.108 - And Matt do you affirm or test the testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing 00:32:30.108 --> 00:32:35.962 - but the truth Yes, you have five minutes to present your comments so I noticed there's been a lot of 00:32:35.962 --> 00:32:41.816 - discussion about a drive to the shed in the back of the unit and you know the ramifications of that, 00:32:41.816 --> 00:32:47.671 - but I wanted to point out that the proposal text only discusses a parking pad that is a cut from the 00:32:47.671 --> 00:32:51.902 - curb and you know would not be close to a neighbor's house and would not 00:32:52.450 --> 00:33:01.506 - not provide as much parking, but it would also meet the staff's recommendations as proposed in the text. 00:33:01.506 --> 00:33:10.131 - So I would hope that the proposal is not rejected based on what could be, what the builder may want 00:33:10.131 --> 00:33:19.101 - in the future, but maybe if that was a separate proposal, it could be approved in addition to this that 00:33:19.101 --> 00:33:22.206 - meets staff recommendation. Thanks. 00:33:22.946 --> 00:33:32.978 - Anyone else from the public in chambers? Okay with that it's back to the petitioner to use the remainder 00:33:32.978 --> 00:33:42.819 - of your 14 plus minutes if you'd like to have any additional comments to either address questions that 00:33:42.819 --> 00:33:50.462 - have come up or comments or new information for us No, I don't have much to add 00:33:50.562 --> 00:33:57.349 - but I do understand I just want to say that I understand because I recently moved to a home on a On 00:33:57.349 --> 00:34:04.204 - a street that has zero street parking I moved from a home that had ample parking on to a street that 00:34:04.204 --> 00:34:11.195 - Had that shares two spots of public spark parking and we have a single lane driveway and it is a total 00:34:11.195 --> 00:34:15.742 - hassle so I totally understand and respect your guys's concern and 00:34:15.970 --> 00:34:24.452 - And I I do think that our proposal of putting in a single driveway in the front would meet the requirements. 00:34:24.452 --> 00:34:32.311 - I'm potentially open to although it would really lower the curb appeal of the house to do a two wide 00:34:32.311 --> 00:34:40.248 - lane parking driveway right in front. So the entire front of the house would just be covered with two 00:34:40.248 --> 00:34:44.606 - cars. That's not completely off the table if that meets 00:34:45.250 --> 00:34:53.362 - code as long as it might potentially push the limit of permeable surface on the whole property. So that 00:34:53.362 --> 00:35:01.474 - would be a concern. But if that was the make or break, I'm happy to discuss that. But it does seem like 00:35:01.474 --> 00:35:09.274 - that's the main concern. So I think I'll just leave it at that unless there are any other questions 00:35:09.274 --> 00:35:10.366 - for me. Okay. 00:35:10.754 --> 00:35:20.351 - So that'll conclude the petitioners comments and just stay there for me, please. It's back to the board 00:35:20.351 --> 00:35:29.764 - for action. We'll either take a motion or additional discussion before a motion is made, please. I do 00:35:29.764 --> 00:35:39.454 - have a question about the near west side historic district commission not commission, but the group that 00:35:40.226 --> 00:35:48.622 - They are talking about that they have to make the design approval before we approve this. So I wanted 00:35:48.622 --> 00:35:56.936 - to I want to understand that a little bit and I believe it was one of the comments that talked about 00:35:56.936 --> 00:36:05.332 - that. So the way the condition is is expressed right now and the way it's written right now on number 00:36:05.332 --> 00:36:07.966 - one talks about that it will be 00:36:11.618 --> 00:36:19.334 - is just talking about the Historic Preservation Commission approval. And I think in this case because 00:36:19.334 --> 00:36:27.049 - they are a historic district they have it has to go before them. And if I don't know do you know that 00:36:27.049 --> 00:36:35.294 - Eric has a fact. So there's not necessarily a sequence of events that has to happen in any particular order. 00:36:35.362 --> 00:36:40.733 - Obviously, you know, both things happen independent of each other. So you have the near west side historic 00:36:40.733 --> 00:36:45.903 - district guidelines which have to be met, but also the unified development ordinance requirements that 00:36:45.903 --> 00:36:50.972 - have to be met. So, you know, in our report, we acknowledge that this is in historic district and is 00:36:50.972 --> 00:36:56.142 - subject to those guidelines. If there are any changes to the outside, those have to be reviewed by the 00:36:56.142 --> 00:37:01.262 - historic district guidelines and the HPC. So this is just granting the approval of the use. You know, 00:37:01.262 --> 00:37:05.328 - as I mentioned, we've got a condition of approval that, you know, references the 00:37:05.328 --> 00:37:12.716 - them. So those need to work through that approval process separately. OK. So we don't have to state 00:37:12.716 --> 00:37:20.770 - specific on the conditional on one of the conditions that they have to go in front of the historic district. 00:37:20.770 --> 00:37:23.134 - Well that already is listed as. 00:37:23.234 --> 00:37:29.396 - Reference says the condition of approval that if there are any changes to the exterior those have to 00:37:29.396 --> 00:37:35.620 - receive approval You know when we specifically reference the windows that the petitioner mentioned as 00:37:35.620 --> 00:37:41.843 - well that might need to be modified So that's built into our approval. Okay, I'm just I'm just making 00:37:41.843 --> 00:37:47.944 - sure. Yeah. Thanks It's another quick question since you brought it up that was gonna be what I was 00:37:47.944 --> 00:37:51.422 - gonna inquire about is how big of a pad driveway pad and 00:37:52.130 --> 00:37:58.238 - Could they potentially put in the front because I'm definitely supportive of the duplex. I think we 00:37:58.238 --> 00:38:04.407 - we need things like this But also, you know the concerns are there If staff knows that or could find 00:38:04.407 --> 00:38:10.270 - out or if the petitioner if you know Yeah, so the UDO would allow for an 18 foot wide drive cut 00:38:10.466 --> 00:38:15.833 - Along the front of the UD only requires one parking space for a duplex which the site plan meets know 00:38:15.833 --> 00:38:21.304 - the petitioner mentioned that they certainly can Widen the driveway if need be they could even possibly 00:38:21.304 --> 00:38:26.724 - lengthen it, you know subject to the impervious surface coverage requirements But they're not required 00:38:26.724 --> 00:38:32.090 - to so that would be their choosing if they want to extend that parking capacity on the site You know, 00:38:32.090 --> 00:38:37.615 - it doesn't necessarily affect this approval Okay, because I appreciate the willingness of the petitioner 00:38:37.615 --> 00:38:39.614 - to be even, you know open to that and 00:38:40.258 --> 00:38:45.825 - And I know we've seen several of these before where obviously You know you want to weigh the concerns 00:38:45.825 --> 00:38:51.283 - of your neighbors But that is something you're open to if you could potentially fit, you know three 00:38:51.283 --> 00:38:56.851 - or four cars depending on what's allowed In the driveway, there's not enough depth. Okay, there's not 00:38:56.851 --> 00:39:02.363 - and because we have to still leave the sidewalk because there's a sidewalk there clear so in between 00:39:02.363 --> 00:39:08.040 - the sidewalk and the house there's only room for one car so it would have to be side-by-side and I know 00:39:08.040 --> 00:39:09.950 - that we were within ten percent of 00:39:10.082 --> 00:39:16.713 - of the impermeable surface of the whole property I think was like 43 percent or something but something 00:39:16.713 --> 00:39:23.152 - within striking distance of that number. So I am hesitant for that and for the curb appeal. But I am 00:39:23.152 --> 00:39:29.592 - open to it. OK. So the most you could probably get is to and that's not definitely the most we could 00:39:29.592 --> 00:39:36.286 - possibly do is to unless we use the back which is off the table at this point. OK. All right. Thank you. 00:39:37.602 --> 00:39:49.939 - Any other questions comments from the board. I will make a motion that we approve CU 5425 adopt the 00:39:49.939 --> 00:40:02.277 - findings as written in the staff report subject to the three conditions that are set forward in the 00:40:02.277 --> 00:40:06.718 - report as well. Do I have a second. 00:40:07.490 --> 00:40:17.211 - We have a motion in front of the board before we Take the call the question. Is there any further comments 00:40:17.211 --> 00:40:26.387 - from board members before the vote? Then I call the question Ballard. Yes, bro. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, 00:40:26.387 --> 00:40:35.563 - Katsenko. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes Motion passes your petition has been granted Thank you. Have a good 00:40:35.563 --> 00:40:36.926 - show Thank you 00:40:37.922 --> 00:40:54.365 - 730 p.m. Tomorrow night, let's go chumlee full band gonna be great All right, we will now move on to 00:40:54.365 --> 00:41:07.390 - the next see you and that is get to my pager That would be That's us See you 56 00:41:07.522 --> 00:41:16.617 - 125 and That is he stated correctly That is David Roberts 121 Kirkwood Avenue suite 300. Can I have 00:41:16.617 --> 00:41:25.985 - a staff report, please? Yes. Thank you. Good evening to the board. My name is Jamie Kreindler. I'm the 00:41:25.985 --> 00:41:28.350 - senior zoning planner and 00:41:33.634 --> 00:41:40.080 - And the petitioner for this case as you mentioned is David Roberts. The request is a conditional use 00:41:40.080 --> 00:41:46.718 - approval to allow a duplex in the residential small lot R3 zoning district. The property is on a corner 00:41:46.718 --> 00:41:53.101 - lot at the southwest corner of South Clark Street and East Fifth Street and it's in the green acres 00:41:53.101 --> 00:41:58.462 - neighborhood. The surrounding properties are also zoned R3 the size of this lot is. 00:41:58.626 --> 00:42:05.370 - 2.14 acres and the lot currently contains a small one-story detached single-family residence The property 00:42:05.370 --> 00:42:11.732 - is surrounded by a mix of single-family homes and the comprehensive plan designation is mixed urban 00:42:11.732 --> 00:42:18.157 - residential The petitioner is proposing to remove the existing residents and develop the site with a 00:42:18.157 --> 00:42:24.647 - new duplex each unit has a separate exterior entrance with the entrance for unit a facing South Clark 00:42:24.647 --> 00:42:26.110 - Street to the east and 00:42:27.138 --> 00:42:34.277 - and the entrance for unit B facing facing East Fifth Street to the north. The proposed duplex includes 00:42:34.277 --> 00:42:41.555 - a new one and a half story structure with two three bedroom three bath dwelling units. The plan features 00:42:41.555 --> 00:42:48.555 - a gable bungalow design and is similar to the roof pitch front porch size front building setback and 00:42:48.555 --> 00:42:55.486 - vehicle parking access of surrounding properties in the neighborhood. The existing driveway on East 00:42:55.650 --> 00:43:02.393 - Fifth Street to the north will be removed and a new carport and parking area will be installed. There 00:43:02.393 --> 00:43:09.664 - is an access improved alley access to the west of the site. So the petitioner is working with the engineering 00:43:09.664 --> 00:43:16.340 - department to have access off of that alley. The proposed duplex is set back at the required 15 foot 00:43:16.340 --> 00:43:23.678 - front build to line. And this applies to both of the frontages along South Clark Street and East Fifth Street. 00:43:25.730 --> 00:43:31.857 - The submitted site plan is compliant with the maximum impervious surface limitation of 45 percent in 00:43:31.857 --> 00:43:38.046 - the R3 zoning district and this petition was presented to the Green Acres Neighborhood Association in 00:43:38.046 --> 00:43:44.112 - October of this year. Notes from the neighborhood meeting were provided in the packet to the board. 00:43:44.112 --> 00:43:50.361 - We did receive one public comment after the packet was distributed and that was provided this evening. 00:43:50.361 --> 00:43:52.606 - They were expressing concerns about. 00:43:52.898 --> 00:43:59.116 - trash specifically where the bins will be stored and if enough trash bins will be provided I know on 00:43:59.116 --> 00:44:05.273 - the plan the petitioner did show sidewalks out to the streets there but maybe they can address that 00:44:05.273 --> 00:44:11.676 - in further detail this evening for the general compliance criteria it was found that the petition meets 00:44:11.676 --> 00:44:18.141 - the use specific standards for a duplex in the R3 zoning district the proposal is in line with the goals 00:44:18.141 --> 00:44:19.742 - of the comprehensive plan 00:44:20.834 --> 00:44:26.667 - And the petitioner stated that new water service and sanitary connection will be coordinated with city 00:44:26.667 --> 00:44:32.670 - utilities and new electrical service will be coordinated with Duke Energy. No significant adverse impacts 00:44:32.670 --> 00:44:38.163 - are expected from the proposed duplex. No phasing is proposed with the plan. So the department's 00:44:38.163 --> 00:44:43.883 - recommendation is that the BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve this case with the conditions 00:44:43.883 --> 00:44:49.773 - stated in the staff report. And I'm happy to provide any additional information or answer any questions 00:44:49.773 --> 00:44:50.622 - that you have. 00:44:54.114 --> 00:45:08.026 - Thank you All right with that is the petitioner here in attendance Will it just be yourself? Yes, okay. 00:45:08.026 --> 00:45:14.046 - Go ahead and sign in and I'll swear you in I 00:45:23.714 --> 00:45:29.898 - You ready state your first and last name Yeah, Matt Ellen would with Matt black architecture. Do you 00:45:29.898 --> 00:45:36.021 - affirm or test the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the 00:45:36.021 --> 00:45:42.327 - truth I do Okay, you'll have 20 minutes and any of the time and use during this portion of the process 00:45:42.327 --> 00:45:48.511 - You'll hold in reserve to use again before the board Takes action after the public comment Thank you 00:45:48.511 --> 00:45:52.062 - David Clark with enabled holdings is on the zoom call for 00:45:52.226 --> 00:46:01.140 - Are there any specific owner related questions but I'm just going to speak briefly to the question about 00:46:01.140 --> 00:46:09.374 - the trash collection I guess or storage if you could pull up the site plan Jamie please. Thanks. 00:46:22.242 --> 00:46:29.403 - Thank you. So probably what we would propose is an area between the Main structure in the carport in 00:46:29.403 --> 00:46:36.635 - the rear or in the West. We've got about 10 feet there Between the structures and the walks from each 00:46:36.635 --> 00:46:43.726 - unit and we'll go to that parking area So we'd look to place trash bins and in that general area to 00:46:43.726 --> 00:46:51.454 - store them that's where tenants will be coming and going most the time between their vehicles makes sense to 00:46:51.650 --> 00:46:57.553 - to have them there and then they would you know wheel them out to the street for pickup. That would 00:46:57.553 --> 00:47:03.457 - all be part of the tenant agreements and instructions. So we didn't show it in the site plan but as 00:47:03.457 --> 00:47:09.596 - a good question by a neighbor to ask that because I know it does become can become an issue when you've 00:47:09.596 --> 00:47:15.558 - got multiple tenants. So that's our plan to address that. Otherwise Jamie cover everything should be 00:47:15.558 --> 00:47:20.222 - obvious in the design. But if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them. 00:47:21.250 --> 00:47:29.931 - Thank you, you'll hold Was it 18 minutes something? Roughly 18 They used about a minute and 40 seconds. 00:47:29.931 --> 00:47:38.362 - So we have 1825 left. Okay 1825 So you'll have that much time for comments again before after public 00:47:38.362 --> 00:47:46.877 - comment now, we're back to the board for comments or questions, John Yeah, I just had a question. I'm 00:47:46.877 --> 00:47:49.214 - you know And looking at the 00:47:50.882 --> 00:47:57.416 - Kind of like the Google map of it. I'm just confused about the the access the alley access from the 00:47:57.416 --> 00:48:03.949 - city What alley are we talking about? Or right away. I guess I'm confused by that Yeah, it's a good 00:48:03.949 --> 00:48:10.679 - So there's a planet alley that runs along the west side of the property that the petitioners proposing 00:48:10.679 --> 00:48:17.343 - to utilize for the driveway access So they need to coordinate any improvements in the right away with 00:48:17.343 --> 00:48:20.414 - the engineering department. So that's the main 00:48:20.962 --> 00:48:29.344 - Behind that particular condition It's one of our infamous platted allies. That's never been an alley 00:48:29.344 --> 00:48:38.057 - Yeah, so it's platted just hasn't been improved. So the petitioner would be improving it for the portion 00:48:38.057 --> 00:48:47.518 - along there Right, yep, we just we reached out to the city Contact us. Yeah Any other comments or questions board 00:49:02.850 --> 00:49:09.573 - Seeing none if you'll have a seat, we'll go to the public for comment Is there anyone in the chambers 00:49:09.573 --> 00:49:16.163 - who'd like to speak to this as members of the public? Seeing none we'll go to the online Version to 00:49:16.163 --> 00:49:22.754 - see if anyone there is waiting to make comment If there's anybody online, please use the raise hand 00:49:22.754 --> 00:49:27.038 - function and we can recognize you or send a message via chat and 00:49:32.034 --> 00:49:40.287 - Not seeing anybody Okay. So with that if the remaining time we'd go back to the petitioner if you have 00:49:40.287 --> 00:49:48.380 - anything further you'd like to state If not, we're back to the board for action. We'll take a motion 00:49:48.380 --> 00:49:56.474 - or continued discussion All I move that we approve see you 5625 Adopt a proposed findings as forward 00:49:56.474 --> 00:49:59.198 - in the staff report and adopt the 00:50:00.098 --> 00:50:08.285 - The four condition or five conditions also included in the staff report of a second. I'll second And 00:50:08.285 --> 00:50:16.633 - at this point any further comments no questions been any comments from the board If not, I'll call the 00:50:16.633 --> 00:50:24.901 - question Ballard yes, Burrell. Yes, Fernandez. Yes, could Cinco. Yes, Throckmorton. Yes, the petition 00:50:24.901 --> 00:50:28.062 - passes and the petition is granted and 00:50:28.610 --> 00:50:38.716 - Thank you for your time. Good luck Now with that we will go to be dash 42 dash 25 It'll be the graystone 00:50:38.716 --> 00:50:48.438 - Let me get to that page here and that will be great. I'm sorry gray star development central and May 00:50:48.438 --> 00:50:51.710 - we have a staff report? Certainly 00:51:09.858 --> 00:51:18.643 - I'm Gabriel Holbrough, zoning planner. I'm here presenting the staff report for ZR2025-09-0097 for 503 00:51:18.643 --> 00:51:27.343 - North Roger Street. This might look, this might be a familiar location. It has come before the board. 00:51:27.343 --> 00:51:36.383 - This property has been before the board two times recently. One under a previous petitioner for a similar 00:51:36.383 --> 00:51:39.198 - project, got variances, and then 00:51:39.298 --> 00:51:48.932 - came back earlier this year with the current petitioner for a package of variances, another back for 00:51:48.932 --> 00:51:58.565 - more variances. So this is 503 North Rogers Street. It is currently, well, let's see. It's 5.2 acres 00:51:58.565 --> 00:52:04.670 - between Rogers Street on the east, Fairview Street on the west, 00:52:05.186 --> 00:52:12.441 - B-line curves along the north property. It also has frontage on 9th Street to the south. It's in the 00:52:12.441 --> 00:52:19.697 - mixed use downtown zoning district within the showers technology character overlay. So we abbreviate 00:52:19.697 --> 00:52:27.024 - that MD-ST. The comprehensive plan designation is also downtown. It's currently a salvager scrap yard 00:52:27.024 --> 00:52:34.782 - being run as Bloomington Iron and Metal, also known as BIM, also known as Fell Iron and Metal or Fell Iron. 00:52:37.090 --> 00:52:47.598 - so I'm gonna skip over the The details of the proposal other than to say that the petitioner proposes 00:52:47.598 --> 00:52:57.899 - to redevelop the site as a mixed-use multifamily development And the petitioner is requesting three 00:52:57.899 --> 00:53:04.286 - variances at this time they all have to do with trees and the 00:53:04.770 --> 00:53:13.252 - planting trees and the constraints that the petitioner identified after they began detailed work on 00:53:13.252 --> 00:53:21.903 - the landscape plan for the development. So the first one is relief from tree and forest preservation. 00:53:21.903 --> 00:53:30.470 - This is a photo looking, so generally there are trees along the perimeter of the property, generally 00:53:30.470 --> 00:53:31.742 - speaking, that 00:53:32.322 --> 00:53:41.618 - currently serve as sort of visual buffer around the scrap yard. They have the characteristic of appearing 00:53:41.618 --> 00:53:50.650 - as if the trees there were not intentionally planted but grew up over time. We don't have verification 00:53:50.650 --> 00:53:59.595 - of that, but it sort of has that look to it. This is a photo from the inside of the site of a portion 00:53:59.595 --> 00:54:01.086 - of that existing 00:54:01.666 --> 00:54:08.930 - treed area This is from another portion of the site It looks similar from the other side Just to give 00:54:08.930 --> 00:54:16.123 - you a sense of it so all in all there's about just over an acre 1.09 acres of existing closed canopy 00:54:16.123 --> 00:54:23.743 - wooded area that is subject to tree and forest preservation standards in the unified development ordinance 00:54:23.743 --> 00:54:30.366 - in order to make way for the development the petitioner is proposing to remove all of it and 00:54:31.074 --> 00:54:41.043 - which is more than the tree and forest preservation standards would allow. The second request is about 00:54:41.043 --> 00:54:51.303 - how many interior trees they plant back. This is a image up there is the landscape plan that was included 00:54:51.303 --> 00:54:58.078 - in your packet with tree planting locations identified in the colored 00:54:58.306 --> 00:55:07.438 - areas that snake across the site are different utility constraints where it's either not possible or 00:55:07.438 --> 00:55:16.661 - difficult to put trees. So I think this chart, which comes from that same landscape plan, is the best 00:55:16.661 --> 00:55:26.878 - summary of what's going on. So there's the first two lines, existing tree canopy, 1.09 acres, and then they'd be 00:55:27.106 --> 00:55:34.529 - the UDO would require 0.872 acres of existing canopy to be preserved unless you grant a variance. So 00:55:34.529 --> 00:55:41.878 - then there's proposed off-site plantings and proposed on-site plantings. To go to the bottom first, 00:55:41.878 --> 00:55:49.300 - proposed on-site plantings, 73 large canopy trees, 20 ornamental trees, 844 shrubs. So that fulfills 00:55:49.300 --> 00:55:53.342 - all shrub planting requirements, tree requirements for 00:55:54.082 --> 00:56:01.752 - parking lot landscaping and also street tree requirements But they're short on the number of interior 00:56:01.752 --> 00:56:09.422 - trees and they also aren't providing any trees on the site to make up for the Removed existing trees. 00:56:09.422 --> 00:56:17.017 - So instead they're proposing to do off-site planting which is the the one in the middle. There'll be 00:56:17.017 --> 00:56:23.710 - 97 large canopy trees planted off-site in 46 Sorry, 97 that count as replacement for the 00:56:24.130 --> 00:56:34.528 - to be removed and then 46 to make up for the deficit. So how do they get to 97 trees to count for the 00:56:34.528 --> 00:56:45.129 - removed area? Well, this is a calculation proposed by the petitioner that boils down to how much canopy 00:56:45.129 --> 00:56:53.182 - would be covered by trees planted 25 feet on center once they get large enough 00:56:53.538 --> 00:57:00.835 - to be a closed canopy from that. So that's where the 97 comes from. I wanna point out that there's nothing 00:57:00.835 --> 00:57:07.928 - in code that says how you calculate that, because code does not envision an offsite planting like this. 00:57:07.928 --> 00:57:15.089 - If code did envision that, they could just use that and they wouldn't need a variance. So they're coming 00:57:15.089 --> 00:57:21.022 - to you with a variance, so this is not, this doesn't have a basis in the code already, 00:57:22.466 --> 00:57:30.764 - However staffs Analysis of this is that staff recommends this seems appropriate For the number of trees 00:57:30.764 --> 00:57:38.983 - to be planted back to account for the removal that they're doing So, how are they what is this offside 00:57:38.983 --> 00:57:47.201 - planting the petitioner has proposed to To do a memorandum of memorandum of understanding an agreement 00:57:47.201 --> 00:57:48.318 - with the city 00:57:48.610 --> 00:57:54.759 - Parks Department, City of Wilmington Parks and Recreation Department, and then also Planning 00:57:54.759 --> 00:58:01.371 - and Transportation, our department would be involved as well to do the offsite planting. A draft of 00:58:01.371 --> 00:58:08.049 - this MOU was included in the packet. It may be revised according to the needs of parks, the specific 00:58:08.049 --> 00:58:14.661 - legal things. Everybody's lawyers have looked at it, but they haven't signed off on it, so it might 00:58:14.661 --> 00:58:17.438 - change a little bit in the exact wording. 00:58:17.538 --> 00:58:27.287 - However, everyone's in agreement on the intent. And the big picture of what the intent is is that the 00:58:27.287 --> 00:58:36.845 - Parks Department will identify planting locations on parks managed city owned land and right of way 00:58:36.845 --> 00:58:47.454 - street tree planting locations in the right of way. Then Grey Star will propose what species they're gonna put 00:58:47.842 --> 00:58:55.091 - where in those planting locations. Planning will approve those. Then Grey Star, the petitioner will 00:58:55.091 --> 00:59:02.630 - go plant them or have a contractor plant them however they want to do it. And then Parks and Recreation 00:59:02.630 --> 00:59:09.662 - will make sure that they were planted according to specifications, communicate that to planning, 00:59:09.954 --> 00:59:17.575 - And then that'll be the sign off. While we're talking about parks and recreation, I do want to mention 00:59:17.575 --> 00:59:25.196 - that our urban forester Haskell Smith is here this evening. If you have any questions for him directly 00:59:25.196 --> 00:59:32.669 - about parks role in this or about the urban forester's role for the urban canopy in Bloomington. The 00:59:32.669 --> 00:59:37.182 - third variance is about street trees. This is something that 00:59:37.346 --> 00:59:45.012 - is often handled at the staff level, but for transparency, they're bringing it forward to look at. So 00:59:45.012 --> 00:59:52.603 - the issue is they're proposing the total number of required street trees, but not necessarily in the 00:59:52.603 --> 01:00:00.119 - locations that the UDO requires. So there's various requirements about locations, how far apart the 01:00:00.119 --> 01:00:04.478 - trees can be, how far they have to be from utility lines, 01:00:05.058 --> 01:00:11.742 - The proposals is following all the requirements of distance from utility lines. So that's, we're taking 01:00:11.742 --> 01:00:18.234 - that as given because even a variance wouldn't get them around that. They would have to get approval 01:00:18.234 --> 01:00:24.918 - from the gas company from CBU if they wanted to violate those. So they're planning on meeting all those 01:00:24.918 --> 01:00:31.666 - distance requirements, but not necessarily the spacing requirements. So this is a view of along Fairview 01:00:31.666 --> 01:00:34.430 - Street, north is to the right, the red-ish 01:00:35.074 --> 01:00:42.066 - line that goes north-south horizontal across this image is 10 feet on either side of an existing gas 01:00:42.066 --> 01:00:49.128 - line that is running underground along there. So you'll see that all the street trees are out of that 01:00:49.128 --> 01:00:56.121 - area, but it doesn't mean that there's some smaller trees on the left and some small trees along the 01:00:56.121 --> 01:01:03.390 - right, and in the middle there's kind of some large trees, and then where all those colors come together 01:01:03.618 --> 01:01:11.146 - in the middle, that's a big gap that's I believe about 130 feet where there's no street trees. So normally 01:01:11.146 --> 01:01:18.534 - that gap doesn't meet those distance requirements. So that's one of the challenges along Fairview, along 01:01:18.534 --> 01:01:26.062 - Rogers, so now north is up again, Rogers is there on the right. They're proposing one street tree actually 01:01:26.062 --> 01:01:31.198 - in the right of way because it's very, the width of the frontage is not, 01:01:31.426 --> 01:01:37.937 - very great. So there's not a lot of room and they need to get in a path and entrance. So there's one 01:01:37.937 --> 01:01:44.383 - tree instead of two. And then over on ninth, we're packing in a lot of trees because of our number. 01:01:44.383 --> 01:01:51.023 - But then if you look really closely, there's a water line that's running approximately seven feet from 01:01:51.023 --> 01:01:57.534 - the trees that are closest to the street. So those might need to be switched out for small trees. So 01:01:58.818 --> 01:02:06.523 - The main takeaway about the street trees is they are proposing the required number, but some of them 01:02:06.523 --> 01:02:14.914 - are farther apart than the code ordinarily requires or farther from the right of way than the code ordinarily 01:02:14.914 --> 01:02:22.695 - requires. So there's three criteria. I will summarize them briefly. The full proposed findings are in 01:02:22.695 --> 01:02:27.806 - the packet. For the first criterion, tree and forest preservation, 01:02:28.194 --> 01:02:34.265 - that the proposal is not injurious so long as the petitioner plants at least 97 large canopy trees offsite 01:02:34.265 --> 01:02:39.938 - as remediation. Interior planting trees having a deficit will not be injurious since the petitioner 01:02:39.938 --> 01:02:45.839 - will be required to plant trees both on the site and offsite, which will mitigate and reduce the number 01:02:45.839 --> 01:02:51.910 - of trees on site, which will mitigate the reduced number of trees on site. For street trees, not injurious 01:02:51.910 --> 01:02:57.470 - since the petitioner will be required to plant the same number of trees in appropriate locations. 01:03:00.194 --> 01:03:06.125 - Second criterion, the effect on adjacent properties, the recommended finding for tree and forest preservation 01:03:06.125 --> 01:03:11.517 - is no substantial adverse impacts, including that adjacent properties are either separated from the 01:03:11.517 --> 01:03:17.233 - existing wooded area by streets or trails, or located to the south or at higher elevation than the wooded 01:03:17.233 --> 01:03:20.414 - area, so the removal will result in minimal loss of shade. 01:03:21.282 --> 01:03:27.866 - For the interior planting trees, no substantial adverse impacts. The plant provides trees at all feasible 01:03:27.866 --> 01:03:34.078 - planting locations on the site, including along adjacent streets and shared property lines. For the 01:03:34.078 --> 01:03:40.663 - street trees, no substantial adverse impacts. The plant provides trees at all feasible planting locations 01:03:40.663 --> 01:03:47.123 - along adjacent public streets. So then to the third criterion, for tree and forest preservation, unique 01:03:47.123 --> 01:03:48.862 - site conditions that create 01:03:50.018 --> 01:03:56.131 - Practical difficulty includes steep grade changes, the need to accommodate utilities, fire lanes, public 01:03:56.131 --> 01:04:01.545 - connections to the beeline and Butler Park. Make the meaningful preservation of the existing 01:04:01.545 --> 01:04:07.483 - trees infeasible. Large size of the property in the presence of tree canopy coverage is very atypical 01:04:07.483 --> 01:04:13.363 - for a property in the downtown. And the requested variance provides the minimum relief necessary. So 01:04:13.363 --> 01:04:17.438 - because they're planting stuff off site, it's the minimum relief that 01:04:18.274 --> 01:04:25.157 - that could be offered. For interior planting trees, multiple underground utilities, grade changes, easements, 01:04:25.157 --> 01:04:31.478 - buildings, parking areas, and green stormwater detention facilities, all of which limit space needed 01:04:31.478 --> 01:04:37.986 - for tree survival. The large size of the property requires on-site detention that would not be required 01:04:37.986 --> 01:04:44.431 - for smaller, more typical properties in downtown zoning districts. So I think this is a key thing here 01:04:44.431 --> 01:04:47.998 - that most properties downtown are under a size threshold 01:04:48.290 --> 01:04:55.109 - where not all, but most properties downtown are under a size threshold where there is minimal or no 01:04:55.109 --> 01:05:02.337 - on-site stormwater detention required. There's certain assumption that the existing stormwater utilities, 01:05:02.337 --> 01:05:09.292 - stormwater infrastructure in downtown is enough to handle it. This site is larger and there's room to 01:05:09.292 --> 01:05:16.247 - handle the stormwater on-site. So it's perfectly reasonable through CBU standards to have them retain 01:05:16.247 --> 01:05:17.406 - that stormwater. 01:05:17.698 --> 01:05:24.206 - The UDO counts areas for detention basins and things like that as landscape area, which in downtown, 01:05:24.206 --> 01:05:30.843 - the UDO's assumption is if there's landscape area, it is planted chock-a-block with trees, nothing but 01:05:30.843 --> 01:05:37.415 - trees. Because for a typical site downtown, there's like this tiny little postage stamp of green area 01:05:37.415 --> 01:05:43.923 - and there's one tree in it. So that's where there's this mismatch between the standard tree planting 01:05:43.923 --> 01:05:45.534 - requirements in downtown 01:05:45.922 --> 01:05:53.197 - This particular site now for a hypothetical comparison if this were in the RH residential high-density 01:05:53.197 --> 01:06:00.402 - multifamily zoning district, which it is not but if it were Well their current proposed plan couldn't 01:06:00.402 --> 01:06:07.677 - be couldn't possibly done But if a site of this size were developed in the RH district the requirement 01:06:07.677 --> 01:06:13.822 - would be 44 interior trees So they're already providing 73 which is way more than that 01:06:14.402 --> 01:06:21.095 - So, which isn't to say that they're providing more than they're required to. No, they're actually providing 01:06:21.095 --> 01:06:27.292 - less than they're required to. That's why they're coming to a variance. But the size of the site is 01:06:27.292 --> 01:06:33.613 - unusual for downtown. And a site of this size elsewhere in the city under a different zoning district 01:06:33.613 --> 01:06:40.368 - would not run into this difficulty. So, I'm pointing out that there's something peculiar about the property. 01:06:40.368 --> 01:06:43.838 - That's the whole point of that little digression there. 01:06:44.674 --> 01:06:50.181 - Large size of the property is a peculiar feature of the property, which creates practical difficulties. 01:06:50.181 --> 01:06:55.476 - And again, the requested variance provides the minimum relief necessary. And finally for the street 01:06:55.476 --> 01:07:01.036 - trees, there's limited right of way along Rogers and the presence of underground utilities and easements 01:07:01.036 --> 01:07:06.225 - along other streets create conflict with tree planting locations without relief from the location 01:07:06.225 --> 01:07:11.678 - requirements. The project would be unable to comply with both street tree minimum planting numbers and 01:07:11.678 --> 01:07:13.214 - utility clearance standards. 01:07:13.794 --> 01:07:21.190 - I do also want to draw your attention to a number of letters that were included in the packet that staff 01:07:21.190 --> 01:07:28.304 - received. So those are in there. We also received two letters about this petition that came in after 01:07:28.304 --> 01:07:35.418 - the packet was already sent to you. Those are provided in hard copy to you here. Anyone who from the 01:07:35.418 --> 01:07:42.673 - member of the public wants to have those, there's copies here in City Hall or you can contact planning 01:07:42.673 --> 01:07:43.518 - afterwards. 01:07:44.642 --> 01:07:50.601 - So the recommendation, the petitioner's solution of offsite remediation planting has an essential nexus 01:07:50.601 --> 01:07:55.815 - to the goals of the UDO tree and forest preservation standards and landscape standards. It 01:07:55.815 --> 01:08:01.545 - also is proportional to the goals of the UDO's tree and forest preservation standards and landscape 01:08:01.545 --> 01:08:07.390 - standards. So based on the report and the written findings of fact that are found in your packet, the 01:08:07.390 --> 01:08:13.406 - department recommends that the BZA adopt the proposed findings and approve all three requested variances 01:08:13.506 --> 01:08:20.044 - with three conditions. So the first condition is repeating a condition that was in the previous variance 01:08:20.044 --> 01:08:26.272 - approval and staff's recommending including because this is relevant to how much space is available 01:08:26.272 --> 01:08:32.748 - for tree planting. And that is the site shall provide a new multi-use trail with access easement that's 01:08:32.748 --> 01:08:39.037 - open to the public, providing a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection from Rogers Street at the B 01:08:39.037 --> 01:08:42.462 - line to Reverend Butler Park as shown in the submitted 01:08:42.594 --> 01:08:48.204 - Conceptual site plan and that shall be demonstrated in an approved site plan the reason to put it here 01:08:48.204 --> 01:08:53.815 - is because if that wasn't there Maybe they could plant a few more trees in the location of it But this 01:08:53.815 --> 01:08:59.371 - is something that they are proposing that the city is supportive of and provides a public benefit the 01:08:59.371 --> 01:09:04.927 - second second one is the summary is this this is where the MOU comes in this is this is how we ensure 01:09:04.927 --> 01:09:06.942 - that off-site planting gets done and 01:09:07.362 --> 01:09:13.086 - Prior to final occupancy for the proposed development, the petitioner shall plant large canopy trees 01:09:13.086 --> 01:09:18.924 - as remediation at offsite locations. The number of offsite remediation trees shall be at least the sum 01:09:18.924 --> 01:09:25.045 - of 97 plus any deficit in the number of onsite interior planting trees. Prior to issuing a site development 01:09:25.045 --> 01:09:30.712 - permit associated with this development, the petitioner shall execute an agreement with the City of 01:09:30.712 --> 01:09:35.870 - Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning and Transportation Department 01:09:36.002 --> 01:09:43.502 - in a form acceptable to both departments, which commits the petitioner to the offsite remediation plantings 01:09:43.502 --> 01:09:50.864 - required by this condition. And finally, the site shall provide at least as many street trees as required 01:09:50.864 --> 01:09:58.226 - by the UDO along the front dishes in the general areas shown on the submitted plan. And that it's spacing 01:09:58.226 --> 01:10:05.726 - distances that comply with UDO standards to the maximum extent practicable, as demonstrated in a site plan. 01:10:06.114 --> 01:10:12.449 - You'll notice that this one says what they have to do, but also says what wiggle room they have. So 01:10:12.449 --> 01:10:19.228 - this is going forward with the idea that the final landscape plan might not be exactly what you're looking 01:10:19.228 --> 01:10:25.627 - at tonight, but it'll be very similar to, and will have at least the number of trees, and that there 01:10:25.627 --> 01:10:32.215 - will be trees, there will be street trees in the general locations as they are shown on here. They just 01:10:32.215 --> 01:10:34.686 - might move a little bit left to right, 01:10:34.914 --> 01:10:40.621 - Be a small tree be two small trees and several large trees something like that With that that's the 01:10:40.621 --> 01:10:46.786 - end of the staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you petitioner present and How many people will be speaking 01:10:46.786 --> 01:10:52.550 - on behalf of the petitioner if we could get all of you up at the same time now And I'll go ahead and 01:10:52.550 --> 01:10:55.518 - square you all in and that way you can free form it 01:10:59.266 --> 01:11:05.365 - So while you're signing in, let's get everyone to get their names in there for me, please. I'll go ahead 01:11:05.365 --> 01:11:11.289 - and explain what's gonna happen here. So we have multiple petitioners, I'm sorry, multiple presenters 01:11:11.289 --> 01:11:17.097 - for the petitioner. They will have a total of 20 minutes. Those petitioners can use that 20 minutes 01:11:17.097 --> 01:11:22.964 - in any way that they would like. Any unused time of that 20 minutes during your initial presentation 01:11:22.964 --> 01:11:28.830 - can be reserved and used to address any comments or questions that come in after the public comment. 01:11:30.050 --> 01:11:37.535 - I say like a point of order on this please. I mean, I just want to be patient. I mean we previously 01:11:37.535 --> 01:11:45.543 - heard this petition and granted approvals to the uses and all the other design elements So for the purpose 01:11:45.543 --> 01:11:53.402 - of tonight's discussion, we're really just talking about this tree issue, correct? Okay, that's correct. 01:11:53.402 --> 01:11:55.198 - Okay. Thank you Gabriel 01:11:56.834 --> 01:12:02.967 - One point also if you have questions about hey, when does when do we address this other issue? I'd be 01:12:02.967 --> 01:12:09.461 - happy to answer when that's gonna happen. But if it's not about trees, it's not tonight that it's happening 01:12:09.461 --> 01:12:15.594 - Yeah, I mean the point I'm trying to make is that we're having a debate about trees, right and We had 01:12:15.594 --> 01:12:21.847 - to stay within the scope of what's in front of the trees As I'm sorry is if you're in the public you'll 01:12:21.847 --> 01:12:25.214 - have the opportunity to comment on what we've said here 01:12:26.978 --> 01:12:32.844 - We'll give you an opportunity to speak during the public comment now. I don't have to have you all say 01:12:32.844 --> 01:12:38.711 - your names out loud I'll just ask do you each affirm or test the testimony you're about to give be the 01:12:38.711 --> 01:12:44.862 - truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth verbal I do Okay, we'll start the timer you have 20 minutes 01:12:56.258 --> 01:13:02.932 - Good evening, everyone. My name is John Anist and I'm with gray star development and Want to start by 01:13:02.932 --> 01:13:09.475 - thanking you all and thanking staff. We've been working together for several months to come up with 01:13:09.475 --> 01:13:16.018 - the best solution here we believe that the redevelopment that we're proposing here on the 5.2 acres 01:13:16.018 --> 01:13:22.626 - and focusing on The existing trees that are in place. We really wanted to have a very thoughtful way 01:13:22.626 --> 01:13:25.374 - of mitigating the removal of those so our 01:13:25.858 --> 01:13:33.968 - Site plan that you all saw back in June Could best be implemented Through the design process. We looked 01:13:33.968 --> 01:13:41.766 - at a lot of different schemes for this site. It has a lot of unique elements like Gabriel mentioned 01:13:41.766 --> 01:13:49.798 - earlier and we also evaluated several alternate designs through staff comments and through our process 01:13:49.798 --> 01:13:55.646 - and I'll share a little bit about that but just overall want to touch on a 01:13:55.970 --> 01:14:05.119 - Goals here and that's to redevelop this site. That's currently a scrap metal yard into multifamily housing 01:14:05.119 --> 01:14:13.841 - something that we believe would be a benefit to the needed housing here in the community and Our goal 01:14:13.841 --> 01:14:22.649 - is to meet the intent of the UDO we want to plant trees on our site we want to do that in the best way 01:14:22.649 --> 01:14:25.214 - we can but also be mindful of 01:14:25.442 --> 01:14:32.974 - Some unique constraints. There's a lot of utilities here There's a limited amount of area and then there's 01:14:32.974 --> 01:14:40.013 - also a large number of trees required So we plan of plant all of the trees required What we're what 01:14:40.013 --> 01:14:47.192 - we're asking for is the ability to do that in a combination of on-site planting and off-site planting 01:14:47.192 --> 01:14:52.542 - which we've worked with the Parks Department and planning to come up with a 01:14:52.930 --> 01:15:00.465 - Memorandum of understanding that will allow us to plant trees in the most desirable locations for the 01:15:00.465 --> 01:15:07.853 - city So it's anticipated that the majority of the site plannings will be where those trees are most 01:15:07.853 --> 01:15:15.462 - needed there also be a lot of thought put into how The Parks Department spaces these trees so that way 01:15:15.462 --> 01:15:20.190 - there can be a reestablishment of a closed cell canopy area and 01:15:20.386 --> 01:15:27.401 - Currently on the site, as was shown in the photos and mentioned by staff, there's a large amount of 01:15:27.401 --> 01:15:34.556 - perimeter screening trees. Walking in the area, it's not very thoughtful landscaping. It just is what 01:15:34.556 --> 01:15:41.712 - has grown over the course of the recycling yard operating. It currently serves a good purpose of help 01:15:41.712 --> 01:15:49.077 - screening the recycling yard. What we're proposing is as many trees as we can fit on site. We want trees 01:15:49.077 --> 01:15:50.270 - on the property. 01:15:50.658 --> 01:15:59.287 - Know that they're a benefit to the property and we want to put as many as we can Unfortunately, there's 01:15:59.287 --> 01:16:07.751 - just a number of constraints that we have between utilities fire access lanes The connection from the 01:16:07.751 --> 01:16:16.629 - beeline trail to the park There's just a limited amount of space where trees can be planted. Well, they'll 01:16:16.629 --> 01:16:20.446 - have the ability to thrive and survive and so 01:16:20.546 --> 01:16:28.246 - Our landscape team is here tonight as well, but we really worked hard to identify as many planning locations 01:16:28.246 --> 01:16:35.382 - as we could on site At one point we evaluated an alternate Location of the fire axis lane which runs 01:16:35.382 --> 01:16:42.588 - along the beeline trail and We're currently a large number of existing trees exist The fire axis lane 01:16:42.588 --> 01:16:48.734 - is needed for the fire department to provide life safety to the buildings we evaluated 01:16:49.282 --> 01:16:57.111 - Having that fire axis lane be In the same alignment as the current beeline trail We talked to the parks 01:16:57.111 --> 01:17:04.640 - department to see if that could be an option based on some fat some feedback. We've gotten from the 01:17:04.640 --> 01:17:12.168 - environmental planner and ultimately the Use of incorporating the beeline trail in a fire axis area 01:17:12.168 --> 01:17:16.158 - just did not work for the parks department, so we've 01:17:17.186 --> 01:17:24.852 - We went back to the original design that you all had seen in June and Largely what you're seeing today 01:17:24.852 --> 01:17:32.443 - and the trees were proposing are very similar to what was seen and approved in June and Our goal here 01:17:32.443 --> 01:17:39.960 - really is to work with The city the community and staff so that way this can be a successful project 01:17:39.960 --> 01:17:44.574 - Overall our intent is to plant as many trees. You'll see that 01:17:44.930 --> 01:17:51.716 - the way staff had written the Approval criteria is that it we want to plant as many trees on site as 01:17:51.716 --> 01:17:58.503 - we can and any trees that we fall short we will plant a hundred percent of those off-site as part of 01:17:58.503 --> 01:18:05.490 - the MOU so Happy to address any questions comments and We'll take the remainder of the time to do that. 01:18:05.490 --> 01:18:12.344 - So thank you all very much. Appreciate it Anyone else from the petitioner would like to speak at this 01:18:12.344 --> 01:18:13.822 - point? Okay with that 01:18:15.010 --> 01:18:23.398 - Make sure my rules of order Do we have any questions from the board to the staff or to the petitioner 01:18:23.398 --> 01:18:31.703 - at this point? please So what is the total this is for staff? What is the total amount of trees? How 01:18:31.703 --> 01:18:40.256 - many trees that they are planting on site and how many they should plant off site? Yeah, so the easiest 01:18:40.256 --> 01:18:43.134 - way to answer that is to pull up a 01:18:44.578 --> 01:18:55.416 - that slide. This is a table from their lands, oh, there it is. This is a table from their landscape 01:18:55.416 --> 01:19:06.470 - plan. Where it says propose onsite plantings that groups trees for meeting different requirements, so 01:19:06.470 --> 01:19:13.406 - the parking lot requirements, the street tier requirements, but 01:19:13.602 --> 01:19:23.962 - The current landscape plan shows 73 large trees plus 20 ornamental trees on sites for a total of 93 01:19:23.962 --> 01:19:34.634 - on site. But that leaves a deficit of 46 that would be required to meet interior plantings. So there'd 01:19:34.634 --> 01:19:41.886 - be 46 off site plus 97 off site for remediation for the close canopy. 01:19:42.274 --> 01:19:51.920 - for a total, going by these numbers, a total of 143 offsite. So that's, keep that number in mind. They're 01:19:51.920 --> 01:20:01.110 - proposing 143 large canopy trees planted offsite. That number could change if they fit more trees on 01:20:01.110 --> 01:20:10.392 - the site. Or if it turns out that something comes up and oh, this one tree we wanted to put over here 01:20:10.392 --> 01:20:12.030 - in this courtyard 01:20:12.162 --> 01:20:18.950 - Won't work because there's got to be a waterline under it or something like that So in that case, maybe 01:20:18.950 --> 01:20:25.542 - that number off-site will go up a little bit. But in the end the number would be Between what planet 01:20:25.542 --> 01:20:32.331 - on-site and off-site it would equal the requirement plus 97 trees for the removed existing close canopy 01:20:32.331 --> 01:20:38.923 - Thank you any other questions from the board at this point except one when I first of all, you know, 01:20:38.923 --> 01:20:39.902 - I think you're 01:20:40.130 --> 01:20:46.432 - Staff report is very thorough. So I don't want to push that aside, but I I just want to clarify I thought 01:20:46.432 --> 01:20:52.616 - I heard you gave her out the beginning of your comments Say that this is something that could have been 01:20:52.616 --> 01:20:58.740 - handled at a staff level specifically the street tree one Not the other ones. There's there's no staff 01:20:58.740 --> 01:21:04.924 - authority to grant off-site planting at all I mean it's something we might look at in the future. Maybe 01:21:04.924 --> 01:21:09.918 - if this goes well, I don't I don't want to promise us to do anything, but Thank you 01:21:10.530 --> 01:21:17.505 - Any other comments or questions of the petitioner or staff at this time? Seeing none we are going to 01:21:17.505 --> 01:21:24.412 - move to comments from the public So those wanting to make comments anything, please you can come up 01:21:24.412 --> 01:21:31.525 - to the podium And we'll take our time here. Make sure we get everyone covered Please sign in And again 01:21:31.525 --> 01:21:38.570 - each of you will have up to five minutes you've already signed in and you are under an affirmation of 01:21:38.570 --> 01:21:40.158 - testimony if you would 01:21:40.290 --> 01:21:50.058 - Go ahead. I just state your name again for the record. All right Bill mouse, please you have five minutes 01:21:50.058 --> 01:21:59.733 - I'm on the board of the narrow side neighborhood association which adjoins that our neighborhood adjoins 01:21:59.733 --> 01:22:07.934 - this area We have a very serious problem with this proposal First of all We did not know 01:22:08.642 --> 01:22:16.901 - that this was happening until we heard about the trees. So if there are problems in addition to the 01:22:16.901 --> 01:22:25.407 - trees that we object to, particularly the increased traffic on Fairview Street, which is a very narrow 01:22:25.407 --> 01:22:34.161 - street, two blocks from a grade school. And I'm not aware of anything in this proposal that will mitigate 01:22:34.161 --> 01:22:37.630 - that serious situation. As for the trees, 01:22:37.954 --> 01:22:47.291 - The idea of not planting trees on this site and planting them somewhere else is a scam. The purpose 01:22:47.291 --> 01:22:56.815 - for having requirements for trees in developments is so those areas will have tree cover. The problem 01:22:56.815 --> 01:23:06.339 - in this city is that our parks don't have enough trees. If our parks needed more trees, we would have 01:23:06.339 --> 01:23:07.646 - planted them. 01:23:09.634 --> 01:23:18.626 - The cost of buying small trees and planting them and letting them turn into big trees is rather small. 01:23:18.626 --> 01:23:27.355 - I'm sure the Parks Department appreciates not having to buy trees and letting somebody buy them for 01:23:27.355 --> 01:23:36.259 - them. However, this doesn't solve the requirement for planting trees on site. There will never be any 01:23:36.259 --> 01:23:37.918 - trees on this site 01:23:39.298 --> 01:23:48.273 - Well, not never any trees. There will be always forever be fewer trees on-site than the current requirements 01:23:48.273 --> 01:23:56.837 - are. And so by permitting them to plant trees off-site instead of on-site, basically you're just saying 01:23:56.837 --> 01:24:05.318 - they don't have to plant, they don't have to meet the requirements. The reason is because of utilities 01:24:05.318 --> 01:24:07.294 - and access, fire lanes. 01:24:07.458 --> 01:24:14.900 - Every site has those problems. That's not a real excuse The reason they don't want to plant that many 01:24:14.900 --> 01:24:22.342 - trees is Because they want to cram as many buildings on the site as they can and they don't care what 01:24:22.342 --> 01:24:29.785 - does to the Long-term viability of the city. Thank you Thank you. Go ahead and sign in there and when 01:24:29.785 --> 01:24:35.038 - you're signed in state your first and last name and I'll swear you in I 01:24:48.834 --> 01:24:56.446 - I live at 703 West 9th Street, which is very close to. Okay, do you affirm or attest the testimony you're 01:24:56.446 --> 01:25:03.700 - about to give us, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Of course. Okay, you have five minutes. 01:25:03.700 --> 01:25:10.881 - Well, I am quite surprised to see that the fact that the neighborhood and I have submitted a letter 01:25:10.881 --> 01:25:18.206 - to the zoning department, and Gabriel is here, that there was no mentioning about the traffic issues. 01:25:18.434 --> 01:25:26.917 - Session is about trees. The park has already trees. I live in the neighborhood that I cannot get out 01:25:26.917 --> 01:25:35.064 - of my driveway when the parents come to drop off their kids in the morning and in the afternoon. 01:25:35.064 --> 01:25:43.546 - I live on, my house is on the corner of West 9th and Fairview. When I come out, I cannot drive north 01:25:43.546 --> 01:25:45.310 - to south on Fairview 01:25:45.602 --> 01:25:52.701 - to go to where I need to go. I have to come and make a turn, go on 9th Street, go to Maple or other 01:25:52.701 --> 01:26:00.013 - streets in order to be able to go to downtown. Traffic is a major problem there. We all complain about 01:26:00.013 --> 01:26:07.538 - that. Now having a five-story building, people living there, I'm sorry, affordable or for family housing, 01:26:07.538 --> 01:26:12.862 - having a swimming pool for the people, really, that's questionable for me. 01:26:14.914 --> 01:26:22.426 - We have problem with traffic. We have trees there. Just two years ago, teachers came with students. 01:26:22.426 --> 01:26:29.939 - They planted really nice trees in that park. Traffic is an issue. We are against that. No variance. 01:26:29.939 --> 01:26:37.676 - Please consider that. We live there and we see that every day. Imagine if somebody has a heart attack. 01:26:37.676 --> 01:26:40.606 - Ambulance cannot come in to save them. 01:26:41.122 --> 01:26:47.339 - Is a big issue there having five stories there. Everybody's gonna have one or two cars there Imagine 01:26:47.339 --> 01:26:53.557 - what will happen there? I would request that the city thinks about it We are very happy to hear that 01:26:53.557 --> 01:26:59.836 - the company would like to plant trees wonderful great But what are you going to do about the traffic? 01:26:59.836 --> 01:27:06.115 - That is the main issue for me. Thank you for your attention Yeah, thank you. Go ahead and sign if you 01:27:06.115 --> 01:27:07.038 - would please I 01:27:08.930 --> 01:27:20.431 - Okay, I'll wait for you there to sign in And do you affirm or test that the testimony you're about to 01:27:20.431 --> 01:27:32.382 - give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth you have up to five minutes for your comments 01:27:32.578 --> 01:27:40.425 - Thank you. I am not immediately connected to the immediate neighborhood. I don't live near enough to 01:27:40.425 --> 01:27:48.349 - discuss the question of traffic, but I wanted to discuss the question of viability in general of this 01:27:48.349 --> 01:27:56.585 - particular plan. It seems to me it's a pharaonic plan in the most negative sense. It covers up the entire 01:27:56.585 --> 01:28:02.334 - available surface of this property. It jars with the general environment. 01:28:02.498 --> 01:28:13.928 - it removes native trees and native green and I do not see how even that could, it's applicable to, it 01:28:13.928 --> 01:28:26.590 - already violates and it requires exemptions from a series of code rules. I do not believe that the city was not, 01:28:26.722 --> 01:28:34.571 - our citizens were not apprised of this earlier so we can provide some more feedback. I do not know why 01:28:34.571 --> 01:28:42.495 - we need such a huge development there. I do not know why the area could not be rezoned so it would have 01:28:42.495 --> 01:28:50.268 - a milder footprint in terms of the surface covered. For example, the garage they proposed to plant to 01:28:50.268 --> 01:28:55.678 - put in there, it's huge. There are already parking garages surrounding 01:28:55.938 --> 01:29:03.378 - within walking distance in other parts of the area. And they're not fully utilized. I do not know why 01:29:03.378 --> 01:29:10.745 - the particular garage area that they've planned could not be used to simply have green there. I am a 01:29:10.745 --> 01:29:18.258 - little shocked, actually, when I fully want to urge you to read the letters of my fellow citizens that 01:29:18.258 --> 01:29:25.406 - are included in the packet. I do not have anything to add. They've already made the point for me. 01:29:26.338 --> 01:29:33.562 - I am truly shocked. And also the company does not have a very good legal past. Nine different attorneys 01:29:33.562 --> 01:29:41.063 - general from other states already suing this company does not have credibility in terms of what it promises 01:29:41.063 --> 01:29:48.078 - to do. I do not think that it will be any different in the case of the city of Bloomington. I do not 01:29:48.078 --> 01:29:53.982 - wish to be learning from the news that we have to sue them for any other violations. 01:29:54.434 --> 01:30:01.689 - I do not believe they keep their promises. Please do not grant them these viruses or other exemptions 01:30:01.689 --> 01:30:08.802 - which is the proper name for this particular. They've already been exempted, it seems to me they've 01:30:08.802 --> 01:30:16.057 - received plenty of exemptions. I do not want to see the expertise and the knowledge and the education 01:30:16.057 --> 01:30:22.174 - of people who work for this city utilized for free by this company for all I can see. 01:30:22.338 --> 01:30:30.794 - these wonderful people working for the city, that I would like to see them working for us and not indirectly 01:30:30.794 --> 01:30:38.706 - for a company that is not very credible. Please do not do this. Do not grant these variances. They do 01:30:38.706 --> 01:30:42.430 - not deserve it. Thank you very much. Thank you. 01:30:55.746 --> 01:31:00.648 - Your first and last name Tim Dwyer and do you affirm or attest the testimony? You're about to give us 01:31:00.648 --> 01:31:05.886 - the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do You have up to five minutes for your comments 01:31:06.306 --> 01:31:11.249 - Thank you. Good evening. My name is Tim Dwyer, and I'm a resident of Bloomington. Now, admittedly, I 01:31:11.249 --> 01:31:16.291 - don't live particularly near this site, but as a resident engaged in the community, I care a lot about 01:31:16.291 --> 01:31:21.283 - housing affordability and long-term economic prosperity, and I appreciate the opportunity to share my 01:31:21.283 --> 01:31:26.177 - perspective here. I urge the BZA to grant these three variants requested related to landscaping and 01:31:26.177 --> 01:31:30.974 - tree coverage. The property currently houses Bloomington Iron and Metal, which is a bit of an odd 01:31:31.170 --> 01:31:36.725 - semi-industrial site, given it's near downtown, and this is an area that the city is targeting for long-term 01:31:36.725 --> 01:31:42.025 - growth and economic development. If the city is successful in bringing in new employers into the trades 01:31:42.025 --> 01:31:47.530 - district, there will be the need for new housing nearby, and converting this site into something productive 01:31:47.530 --> 01:31:52.677 - seems like a reasonable path forward. The variances requested here seem pretty reasonable to me, and 01:31:52.677 --> 01:31:57.875 - they don't seem to pose any significant risk to the neighborhood. Based on information in the meeting 01:31:57.875 --> 01:31:59.710 - packet and some of the other folks, 01:31:59.874 --> 01:32:05.096 - who've testified and from the staff presentation, it seems like swapping out current tree coverage for 01:32:05.096 --> 01:32:10.165 - off-site is a reasonable path forward, given the site restrictions. It also seems like a lot of the 01:32:10.165 --> 01:32:15.488 - opposition isn't really germane to the tree issue, but related to other issues, and while I think that's 01:32:15.488 --> 01:32:20.608 - important to hear, obviously when we're talking about tree variances, we should be talking about the 01:32:20.608 --> 01:32:21.470 - subject at hand. 01:32:21.602 --> 01:32:27.458 - For these reasons, I support granting the variances. I also wanna highlight the willingness to construct 01:32:27.458 --> 01:32:33.035 - a new multi-use trail connection between the beeline and the park on the west side of the property. 01:32:33.035 --> 01:32:38.668 - You know, folks mentioned traffic issues. Well, a new bicycle connection could potentially alleviate 01:32:38.668 --> 01:32:44.245 - some of those issues and provide some accessibility for neighbors to more easily get into downtown, 01:32:44.245 --> 01:32:47.870 - to City Hall here, and even to the farmer's market on Saturdays. 01:32:48.066 --> 01:32:54.156 - I think that we should focus on the fact that the BZA here is being asked to weigh these right that 01:32:54.156 --> 01:33:00.306 - existing regulations pose particular burdens on this site. I really appreciated mr Holbro's comments 01:33:00.306 --> 01:33:06.396 - about how the Other zoning districts wouldn't apply such a strong tree planting requirement. That's 01:33:06.396 --> 01:33:11.998 - just a facet of the downtown zoning I think that's important to consider and we should also 01:33:12.194 --> 01:33:17.195 - Be mindful that this site has previously been targeted for redevelopment in a pretty long and drawn 01:33:17.195 --> 01:33:22.246 - out process. Indiana Public Media reported in October of 2023, a different developer wanted to build 01:33:22.246 --> 01:33:27.397 - a site project here. And I'm not exactly sure why that didn't come to fruition, but it seems like this 01:33:27.397 --> 01:33:32.648 - site does pose unique challenges. So on the whole, given our need for workforce housing near an emerging 01:33:32.648 --> 01:33:37.799 - employment center, the public benefits and the commitments from the developer, I respectfully urge the 01:33:37.799 --> 01:33:41.150 - BZA to approve these requested variances. Thank you for your time. 01:33:42.274 --> 01:33:50.219 - Thank you. Is there anyone else here in chambers from the public who would like to speak to this petition. 01:33:50.219 --> 01:33:57.793 - Seeing none let's go to online to see if we have anyone in the public who would like to make comment. 01:33:57.793 --> 01:34:06.110 - If there is anybody online please use the raise hand function or send a note via chat and we can recognize you. 01:34:12.482 --> 01:34:20.772 - Okay Seeing none we do go back to the petitioner at this point to be able to address any comments or 01:34:20.772 --> 01:34:29.391 - questions up to this point in the petition process And how much time do they have again Gabriel or Eric? 01:34:29.391 --> 01:34:38.092 - Okay, please Good evening for the record. My name is Tim Oaks. I'm an attorney at ice Miller representing 01:34:38.092 --> 01:34:41.950 - the petitioner tonight I'll be very brief here 01:34:42.210 --> 01:34:49.763 - First we've got a number of people here that can answer any questions that the board might have in terms 01:34:49.763 --> 01:34:57.172 - of some of the technical issues But I want to point out a couple things one a lot of the comments that 01:34:57.172 --> 01:35:03.934 - Were stated particularly those involving traffic are not relevant to tonight's considerations 01:35:04.514 --> 01:35:11.363 - There there is another approval that will occur here Which is development plan approval at the Planning 01:35:11.363 --> 01:35:17.948 - Commission and certainly there will be time to address some of those issues that pop up in a public 01:35:17.948 --> 01:35:24.731 - format That's number one to there was a notion that this is some kind of scam that we're avoiding some 01:35:24.731 --> 01:35:29.406 - responsibilities here with respect to to trees in the neighborhood and 01:35:29.986 --> 01:35:39.476 - We respectfully disagree with that conclusion for a couple of reasons one We're not avoiding the planting 01:35:39.476 --> 01:35:48.519 - of any what we view required trees here You're looking at a total of 216 large canopy trees 20 Small 01:35:48.519 --> 01:35:57.651 - ornamental trees in 844 trubs. It's over a thousand plantings for this project More significantly the 01:35:57.651 --> 01:35:59.710 - study that a certified 01:35:59.874 --> 01:36:10.555 - You know person did the study of the of the trees it was done in a haphazard way the the current landscaping 01:36:10.555 --> 01:36:20.551 - then It was noted that there were 36 trees Of significance that were six inches of caliper larger The 01:36:20.551 --> 01:36:29.566 - plan that we're proposing anticipates 73 large canopy trees on site. So we're taking 36 and 01:36:29.826 --> 01:36:38.130 - Going to 73. Um, so I think a suggestion that somehow this we're, we're trying to avoid having, uh, 01:36:38.130 --> 01:36:46.767 - significant amounts of trees on the site, uh, particularly as compared to what exists there now is just 01:36:46.767 --> 01:36:55.486 - not true. Um, as John stated in the primary presentation, um, gray star is trying to plant as many trees 01:36:55.486 --> 01:36:58.974 - on the site as they can. They really are. 01:36:59.490 --> 01:37:07.524 - And the constraints that exist here are such that they are they've got as many as they can and we're 01:37:07.524 --> 01:37:16.036 - full and we think the idea of Planting them off-site at locations not that gray star selects But locations 01:37:16.036 --> 01:37:23.990 - that the city selects that the Parks Department selects and says this is where we want them this is 01:37:23.990 --> 01:37:28.286 - where we think they will have the best benefit to the 01:37:28.514 --> 01:37:36.504 - You know the people of Bloomington as a whole plant them here at Grey Star's cost That is the best way 01:37:36.504 --> 01:37:44.416 - we could come up with to try to mitigate this situation So with that we respectfully request approval 01:37:44.416 --> 01:37:52.173 - and we'd be happy to answer any questions that the BZA might have Are there any other comments from 01:37:52.173 --> 01:37:57.758 - those on the petition team that are with us Okay. Well that'll conclude 01:37:58.114 --> 01:38:07.604 - Official 20-minute comments and we will have questions for you. I'm sure we're back to the board For 01:38:07.604 --> 01:38:17.095 - action. We're looking for either a motion or continued discussion on this petition, please I'll move 01:38:17.095 --> 01:38:24.894 - that we approve v 42 25 adopt the Proposed findings including the staff report and 01:38:25.602 --> 01:38:34.037 - Approved the request of variance with the three conditions included in the staff report. I Have a motion 01:38:34.037 --> 01:38:42.070 - in front of the board. Do I have a second? I'll second that And before any action is taken on this. 01:38:42.070 --> 01:38:47.774 - Is there any further comments from the board before a vote is taken? I 01:38:54.306 --> 01:38:59.630 - You know, I want to make the point that you know, we see a lot of these Multifamily developments come 01:38:59.630 --> 01:39:04.850 - in I have to say I think this is one of the best proposals we've seen and You know, they're they're 01:39:04.850 --> 01:39:10.122 - they're meeting really the requirement just in a different way. So I understand the public's concern 01:39:10.122 --> 01:39:15.602 - to a degree, but it's also Our board is very limited in what we can do We have to have like overwhelming 01:39:15.602 --> 01:39:20.822 - evidence to overturn something that's already approved that checks the boxes of the UTO so while we 01:39:20.822 --> 01:39:22.910 - may be concerned to a degree as well as 01:39:23.170 --> 01:39:30.451 - I feel like the scope of this the housing it's going to bring in which we we definitely need I think 01:39:30.451 --> 01:39:37.733 - any supply any supply to the housing situation we have is helpful that may be debated by others, but 01:39:37.733 --> 01:39:45.303 - it's I think it's a significant well thought-out well plans Project that could bring in some desperately 01:39:45.303 --> 01:39:51.070 - needed housing and the trees are To me we're gonna get them. So I support it. I 01:39:52.290 --> 01:39:59.805 - Any further comments from the board before any action is taken on this motion? Just a one quick comment 01:39:59.805 --> 01:40:07.176 - similar to what Tim was saying I you know, I think it's important to kind of put this kind of project 01:40:07.176 --> 01:40:14.474 - in context I mean essentially we're removing a non-conforming use Particularly a scrapyard which for 01:40:14.474 --> 01:40:19.966 - those of us have been around a while, you know, that was a PCB cleanup site 01:40:22.818 --> 01:40:33.148 - It's been a functioning business. I've known the owners. It serves a purpose but that is not the kind 01:40:33.148 --> 01:40:43.579 - of use that's consistent with our city's comprehensive plan our vision for the empty showers district. 01:40:43.579 --> 01:40:47.934 - And you know it's just going to be a major 01:40:48.386 --> 01:40:56.549 - transformation of a site that is long overdue for redevelopment that's consistent with our plans. And 01:40:56.549 --> 01:41:05.033 - you know I think the staff report speaks for itself in terms of the scope of the tree canopy replacement. 01:41:05.033 --> 01:41:13.036 - I think it's the way they work together to come up with a plan for maximizing increasing the canopy 01:41:13.036 --> 01:41:18.238 - in our city is a good one. So I'm going to support the proposal. 01:41:19.746 --> 01:41:27.830 - Will ask again if there are any further comments from the board before action is taken Seeing none I 01:41:27.830 --> 01:41:36.235 - call the question Ballard. Yes, bro. Yes Fernandez Kutsenko. Yes, it's Rock Morton. Yes petition passes. 01:41:36.235 --> 01:41:41.758 - The petition is granted I would also like to extend my thanks to our 01:41:41.954 --> 01:41:50.628 - Petitioner for allowing me to move the continued Conditional uses forward to hear those before your 01:41:50.628 --> 01:41:59.562 - scheduled time. Thank you for your patience with that we will move on to B-57-25 it's a page 82 of the 01:41:59.562 --> 01:42:08.062 - packet for those that are following along with the packet and Let me get there Is that 82 page 82 01:42:12.482 --> 01:42:28.147 - And this will be I'm there now be b-57 just 25 Rebecca Swift Bloomington parks and rec. May I have a 01:42:28.147 --> 01:42:35.902 - staff report, please? Certainly I will pull it up 01:43:16.482 --> 01:43:16.862 - they have. 01:43:49.602 --> 01:44:14.430 - Just gonna take a quick moment for One of our members So 01:44:22.818 --> 01:44:50.590 - Oh. 01:44:57.634 --> 01:45:06.174 - Okay, I'm ready. 01:45:31.042 --> 01:45:49.102 - I worked at like 505 when I tested it, but I don't know if it'll work at like 80. I don't think so. 01:45:49.102 --> 01:45:52.894 - Maybe you shouldn't. 01:46:16.450 --> 01:46:37.754 - What's his name again? Thank you, Eric. You knew exactly what I was asking. I did. But it had been our 01:46:37.754 --> 01:46:42.718 - impression in the past. 01:46:53.154 --> 01:47:02.035 - We're going to make the motion to deny them the continuance because they've been on it for more than 01:47:02.035 --> 01:47:10.828 - three. And they either have to withdraw within 24 hours or they have to be heard. So to put them on 01:47:10.828 --> 01:47:17.598 - notice, let's get this heard. And that may push them. And what we can do is, 01:47:17.890 --> 01:47:43.999 - Okay, thank you we are now ready to hear at the last What are we on V dash 57 dash 25 Excellent staff 01:47:43.999 --> 01:47:47.838 - report, please 01:47:50.402 --> 01:47:58.254 - My name is David Brantes zoning planner and GIS analyst before us is petition v-57-25 at Browns Woods. 01:47:58.254 --> 01:48:05.953 - This is roughly between 500 and 760 South Basswood Drive the community foundation of Bloomington and 01:48:05.953 --> 01:48:14.110 - Monroe County owns the property the Parks Department is the petitioner for this variance case representing 01:48:14.110 --> 01:48:19.294 - them today is operations and development director Rebecca Swift and 01:48:19.490 --> 01:48:30.720 - the petitioner requests variants from riparian buffer steep slope karst preservation standards and required 01:48:30.720 --> 01:48:41.535 - easements in BMC 20.04 030 for the use of park and the mixed-use institutional zoning district As shown 01:48:41.535 --> 01:48:49.438 - on the right the properties to the east and the south are zoned residential 01:48:49.858 --> 01:48:59.202 - a high density multifamily RH which is developed with multifamily apartments. The property is adjacent, 01:48:59.202 --> 01:49:08.277 - a railroad to the north and an interstate to the west. So shown here, this is the wooded lot with no 01:49:08.277 --> 01:49:16.094 - structures or roads. There's a 10.9 acre parcel. The comprehensive plan designation is 01:49:16.194 --> 01:49:26.009 - parks and open space. Right now it is set aside as a conservation area managed by the Parks Department 01:49:26.009 --> 01:49:36.014 - and it will continue with that use. This is the original plat. The property is located on lot two. North 01:49:36.014 --> 01:49:38.110 - is to the right here. 01:49:38.274 --> 01:49:46.080 - Lot two of the Canterbury Park subdivision that was plotted and approved in 2000 under case SP-27-00 01:49:46.080 --> 01:49:54.195 - and was set aside from other developable lots because of the environmental features on the site. There's 01:49:54.195 --> 01:50:01.924 - currently a Karst Conservancy easement that was plotted for two Karst features on the south side of 01:50:01.924 --> 01:50:07.102 - the site. So this is closest to the South Basswood Drive frontage. 01:50:07.202 --> 01:50:15.721 - And the Parks Department, as I said before, manages this, but it has not been developed with any formal 01:50:15.721 --> 01:50:24.077 - trails or vehicular access. So according to the Parks Department, to address recent public health and 01:50:24.077 --> 01:50:32.268 - safety concerns, there's a proposed access road that will be installed on a portion of the property 01:50:32.268 --> 01:50:34.398 - to access the site later. 01:50:35.490 --> 01:50:43.646 - A limited internal trail system will be installed. The access road will consist of a short land bridge 01:50:43.646 --> 01:50:51.643 - to cross an intermittent stream using two culverts that are 10 feet long and four feet high, so four 01:50:51.643 --> 01:50:59.720 - foot diameter. The bridge will serve both future trail users as well as allow the installation of the 01:50:59.720 --> 01:51:05.342 - temporary limited access road. So according to the petitioner, it will 01:51:05.506 --> 01:51:14.172 - it will address their urgent public safety concerns. So the trail here is quite faint. It's shown in 01:51:14.172 --> 01:51:22.925 - green. You also have elevation showing how far down the trail goes from Basswood Drive. And the point 01:51:22.925 --> 01:51:32.106 - with the arrow is showing the location of the culvert. So we have a number of exhibits here. The temporary 01:51:32.106 --> 01:51:33.822 - vehicle access path 01:51:33.986 --> 01:51:42.349 - will need about nine feet of clearance. Once it's no longer needed, the parks department proposes to 01:51:42.349 --> 01:51:50.630 - construct a six foot wide natural surface trail that for the majority of that, uh, uh, the majority 01:51:50.630 --> 01:51:58.993 - of that vehicle access path, um, will be used for the trail. Um, but they will deviate slightly from 01:51:58.993 --> 01:52:00.318 - each other. Um, 01:52:00.514 --> 01:52:07.833 - So unfortunately, given the limited access to the property from Basswood Drive, a location of the road 01:52:07.833 --> 01:52:15.223 - must pass through the riparian buffer zone and through the karst area near Basswood Drive and the steep 01:52:15.223 --> 01:52:22.541 - slope as you descend towards the interior of the property. So the trail is shown is roughly 1200, from 01:52:22.541 --> 01:52:28.510 - start to finish is roughly 1200 feet from the Basswood Drive entrance headed north. 01:52:29.058 --> 01:52:36.951 - So the vehicular access point will have a direct connection to South Basswood and pass through all of 01:52:36.951 --> 01:52:45.231 - those environmental features that I mentioned, riparian buffer, karst and steep slope. So if we're looking 01:52:45.231 --> 01:52:53.201 - at the exhibit to the left, it shows the trail that's headed towards the middle of the site in purple. 01:52:53.201 --> 01:52:56.606 - And then the vehicular access road is shown 01:52:56.738 --> 01:53:07.273 - in blue. So on the right, there's an inset that shows the culvert location approximately. And the vehicle 01:53:07.273 --> 01:53:17.511 - route takes a slightly different path to accommodate the larger vehicles. And then moving forward, the 01:53:17.511 --> 01:53:24.766 - more sustainable descent includes switchbacks for trail users to be more 01:53:25.538 --> 01:53:33.095 - cognizant of that slope there and it's a safer way to get down. So along with the trail, these exhibits 01:53:33.095 --> 01:53:40.507 - show elevation karst buffer slope and riparian buffer. The petitioner proposes to restore any part of 01:53:40.507 --> 01:53:48.065 - the vehicle access trail not used in the route for the hiking trail. The petitioner requests a variance 01:53:48.065 --> 01:53:54.750 - from the requirement to establish easements for each of these features, the riparian buffer 01:53:55.170 --> 01:54:04.261 - karst and steep slope that would be required due to the proposed land disturbing activity in those areas. 01:54:04.261 --> 01:54:12.837 - And here is the culvert. This is taken probably November. Um, and there's the, the one on the right 01:54:12.837 --> 01:54:21.757 - is a picture, uh, looking essentially south towards that, um, the, the path that a vehicle could, could 01:54:21.757 --> 01:54:24.158 - take to get up to Basswood. 01:54:26.306 --> 01:54:36.885 - and this is a lower area that we've determined is a stream and thus has the graduated buffer zones, 01:54:36.885 --> 01:54:47.782 - the riparian buffer zones from that point. So I'm gonna cover all four of these areas, the stream, the 01:54:47.782 --> 01:54:53.918 - steep slopes, riparian buffer zones, karst and easements. 01:54:54.210 --> 01:55:00.768 - going one criteria at a time of the three. So staff found that the disturbance of the steep slope area 01:55:00.768 --> 01:55:07.200 - will not have a negative impact on public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Parks proposes 01:55:07.200 --> 01:55:13.822 - to stabilize and restore the vehicle route that's not used for the surface trail. And the culverts were 01:55:13.822 --> 01:55:19.998 - deemed by the city of Bloomington utilities to be a sufficient size for the intermittent stream. 01:55:20.610 --> 01:55:28.019 - and are not expected to clog or impede the flow of water going forward. And the trail route is routed 01:55:28.019 --> 01:55:35.354 - to minimize the destruction of vegetation in the buffer zones. In regards to karst and easements for 01:55:35.354 --> 01:55:42.618 - karst, the variance to allow disturbance within the 25 feet of the last closed contour of the karst 01:55:42.618 --> 01:55:50.462 - feature is not expected to negatively impact the community. The petitioner does not propose any disturbance 01:55:51.074 --> 01:55:59.068 - in the karst areas beyond what is necessary to provide access to the site from Basswood. The route minimizes 01:55:59.068 --> 01:56:06.476 - disturbance and the plan is to have a silt fencing to protect that karst feature as well. In regards 01:56:06.476 --> 01:56:13.810 - to the easements, the petitioner and the property owner plan to protect the sensitive environmental 01:56:13.810 --> 01:56:18.430 - features during construction and stabilize the affected areas. 01:56:18.754 --> 01:56:26.313 - Disturbance is minimal and unlikely to affect the other properties. These are just the areas that we're 01:56:26.313 --> 01:56:33.946 - talking about again. For the second criteria, use and value, no adverse impact is expected for the steep 01:56:33.946 --> 01:56:41.287 - slopes as the vehicle route will be temporary and restored with erosion control blankets. The hiking 01:56:41.287 --> 01:56:47.102 - trail switchbacks will be constructed in a sustainable and safe way for hikers. 01:56:47.266 --> 01:56:54.917 - and the staff finds this will not have an adverse impact to the adjacent properties as any erosion or 01:56:54.917 --> 01:57:02.492 - drainage concerns are mitigated. And for riparian buffer zones, the variance of work in the riparian 01:57:02.492 --> 01:57:10.368 - buffer allow for only the culvert in the bridge and there will not be a substantial impact as structures 01:57:10.368 --> 01:57:14.718 - are proposed. And the drainage has been deemed sufficient 01:57:15.426 --> 01:57:25.324 - and eventually it will provide a new public amenity. And as for the Karst, no adverse impact is found. 01:57:25.324 --> 01:57:35.511 - This is a relatively minimal disturbance and temporary. They also request relief to construct the vehicle 01:57:35.511 --> 01:57:42.430 - access in the current Karst easement near the front of the property and 01:57:42.786 --> 01:57:49.708 - once they installed a hiking trail that is already in allowable use for the, for the current easement. 01:57:49.708 --> 01:57:56.698 - Um, so granting relief from the requirement to establish easements, uh, is not expected to be injurious 01:57:56.698 --> 01:58:03.687 - to the public. It is already set aside as a, um, as a passive park. Um, the petitioner plans to protect 01:58:03.687 --> 01:58:10.878 - these features going forward. Um, so the neighboring properties are not expected to be adversely impacted. 01:58:11.458 --> 01:58:19.120 - Platting of the additional easements creates an undue burden on the property that is not necessary at 01:58:19.120 --> 01:58:26.782 - this time, given that number one, the UDO restrictions that prohibit certain land disturbing activity 01:58:26.782 --> 01:58:34.444 - already, and this would cross much of the property due to its unique topography. And the placement of 01:58:34.444 --> 01:58:41.054 - this lot as a separate non-buildable lot provides adequate protection as it stands now. 01:58:41.474 --> 01:58:50.379 - As I stated before, the sinkhole near Basswood is already protected in an easement and we propose minimal, 01:58:50.379 --> 01:58:59.451 - or staff finds that minimal disturbance is happening and it is being properly mitigated during construction. 01:58:59.451 --> 01:59:08.606 - For the third criteria, the strict application of the terms of the UDO will result in practical difficulties. 01:59:08.738 --> 01:59:15.946 - We find that there is a practical difficulty for the steep slope as in there's no practical way to access 01:59:15.946 --> 01:59:22.882 - the property without crossing these deep slope areas There is currently no vehicular access, which is 01:59:22.882 --> 01:59:29.886 - a reasonable expectation for managing the property and Same goes for the riparian buffer zone. There's 01:59:29.886 --> 01:59:36.414 - not a great way to access the property without crossing through this zone as it kind of makes a 01:59:36.802 --> 01:59:45.937 - a horseshoe shape that encircles most of the property. So not being able to cross it essentially means 01:59:45.937 --> 01:59:54.805 - you can't drive into the property at all because it's got the railroad to the north and the highway 01:59:54.805 --> 02:00:03.851 - to the east, which has no access. And for the Karst features, again, the Karst feature is immediately 02:00:03.851 --> 02:00:06.334 - adjacent to Basswood Drive. 02:00:06.786 --> 02:00:18.427 - So there's not really a way to access the site without crossing that existing easement or passing through 02:00:18.427 --> 02:00:29.408 - within 25 feet of the last closed contour of the cross features there. And lastly, for establishing 02:00:29.408 --> 02:00:36.766 - new easements as required, we find that this is not a proportional 02:00:36.898 --> 02:00:44.964 - not proportional to the limited scale of the project. So we find that establishing easements for all 02:00:44.964 --> 02:00:53.189 - of these is not necessary. It would place much of the property into various restrictive easements that 02:00:53.189 --> 02:01:01.574 - create practical difficulties in the use and maintenance of the property at a future time. And the scope 02:01:01.574 --> 02:01:06.366 - is not threatening those environmental features now either. 02:01:06.882 --> 02:01:14.494 - So moving on to recommendation, based on the written findings above, the department recommends that 02:01:14.494 --> 02:01:22.488 - the BZA adopt their proposed findings for V-57-25 and approve the requested variances with the following 02:01:22.488 --> 02:01:30.633 - conditions as listed on the screen. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions. 02:01:30.633 --> 02:01:36.190 - Okay, thank you, David. As petitioner in chambers come forward, sign in. 02:01:36.674 --> 02:01:43.038 - We'll get you started here in a moment state your full name when you're ready Hello, I'm Rebecca Swift 02:01:43.038 --> 02:01:49.216 - on the operations and development division director for city Bloomington parks and recreation Thank 02:01:49.216 --> 02:01:55.765 - you. Do you affirm or attest the testimony? You're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing 02:01:55.765 --> 02:02:02.375 - but the truth I do you know the rules of this order which is you have 20 minutes what's not used initially 02:02:02.375 --> 02:02:04.414 - can be used after public comment 02:02:04.898 --> 02:02:10.777 - I definitely won't need 20 minutes and I won't read word for word what I've put in my petition or letter 02:02:10.777 --> 02:02:16.544 - but just here to make the case that you all know Parks and Recreation the city is all about stewarding 02:02:16.544 --> 02:02:22.143 - our national resources. We don't do this lightly. We don't just go in there start cutting trees and 02:02:22.143 --> 02:02:27.910 - bulldozing down things. We're doing this in a very sustainable very thoughtful approach. And so as our 02:02:27.910 --> 02:02:29.758 - planning department has told you 02:02:29.922 --> 02:02:35.133 - Some of this is unavoidable disturbance, but I do assure you that we will go in there and restore any 02:02:35.133 --> 02:02:40.497 - disturbance around the riparian corridor, the karst sensitive features, as well as just the steep search 02:02:40.497 --> 02:02:45.862 - in general. As well as I was stated, this was pretty unavoidable. We did look at every other opportunity 02:02:45.862 --> 02:02:50.971 - to come in in different sections of Browns Woods. This was the most straightforward and reduced the 02:02:50.971 --> 02:02:55.262 - amount of disturbance in other areas, including a much larger floodplain off of the 02:02:55.426 --> 02:03:00.903 - Railroad corridor. I did try to approach the railroad. I did try to approach in dot They're not as easy 02:03:00.903 --> 02:03:06.326 - to work with either. So working with also notifying the apartment complexes on the north and south I'm 02:03:06.326 --> 02:03:11.592 - sorry east and west portion of Browns Woods They have been notified of what's going on out here and 02:03:11.592 --> 02:03:16.911 - just to acknowledge again What was the reason for this the health and public safety concern? We were 02:03:16.911 --> 02:03:22.493 - going in there trying to actively manage Encampment that was torn down that was no longer active anymore. 02:03:22.493 --> 02:03:23.230 - But still the 02:03:23.586 --> 02:03:29.635 - You know the impact of that couldn't just be ignored either. We needed to be able to get equipment in 02:03:29.635 --> 02:03:35.684 - there in order to do a cleanup. So again, I wish I could say I brought everybody on foot traffic, but 02:03:35.684 --> 02:03:41.733 - that was just not possible here. So again requesting a variance from the disturbance going in through 02:03:41.733 --> 02:03:47.070 - the riparian buffers the karst the steep slopes and for future easement. I'm sorry. Yeah. 02:03:47.746 --> 02:03:53.590 - Easements when I go in and put in a permanent hiking trail So I know I'm disturbing it and another reason 02:03:53.590 --> 02:03:59.268 - why the situation Became what it is is because it was a dense set of woods that nobody was able to get 02:03:59.268 --> 02:04:05.002 - into So this hiking trail will both be a benefit to the community and also for the park manager as well 02:04:05.002 --> 02:04:10.680 - as our first responders Happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you You'll withhold 18 minutes that 02:04:10.680 --> 02:04:16.193 - you may use after public comments at this point Are there any questions from the board to the staff 02:04:16.193 --> 02:04:17.406 - or to the petitioner? 02:04:20.834 --> 02:04:28.249 - Quick question It's not so much about the technicalities of the variance it just What's the intended 02:04:28.249 --> 02:04:35.736 - purpose here? I mean it I mean you guys have had a management agreement for this land for a long time 02:04:35.736 --> 02:04:43.224 - His goal here to make some modest improvements to create more access and activity within the park for 02:04:43.224 --> 02:04:47.262 - the general public not just the basswood residents but 02:04:47.458 --> 02:04:53.362 - Absolutely, correct. So it is a public park and will remain publicly accessible and this trail once 02:04:53.362 --> 02:04:59.503 - it's all said and done with the cleanup operations will become publicly available and so it's an added, 02:04:59.503 --> 02:05:05.702 - you know amenity to this property that for the most part has had none other than being a protected green 02:05:05.702 --> 02:05:11.961 - space Great Any other questions for the staff or the petitioner? seen none We'll go to anyone in chambers 02:05:11.961 --> 02:05:15.326 - from the public who would like to speak to this petition 02:05:16.386 --> 02:05:23.686 - Seeing none anyone online who would like to address this petition as members of the public Again if 02:05:23.686 --> 02:05:31.279 - there's anybody online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you more send a message 02:05:31.279 --> 02:05:38.871 - via chat Not seeing anybody seeing none we're back to the petitionary Would you like to use any of your 02:05:38.871 --> 02:05:44.638 - 18 minutes that remain to make any further statements comments or responses? I 02:05:45.698 --> 02:05:52.331 - No, thank you. Okay. Thank you. That brings us back to the board for action seeking a motion or further 02:05:52.331 --> 02:05:59.155 - discussion I'll provide a motion for the dash 57-25 to approve the requested variances with the conditions 02:05:59.155 --> 02:06:05.533 - as stated in the staff report. I Have a motion in front of the board. Do I have a second second any 02:06:05.533 --> 02:06:12.102 - further discussion from board members before this vote or comments for the record? Seeing none. I call 02:06:12.102 --> 02:06:14.270 - the question Ballard. Yes Borrell 02:06:14.466 --> 02:06:22.771 - Yes Fernandez. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Your petition passes the petition is granted 5 0. 02:06:22.771 --> 02:06:31.734 - Now there is one piece of additional business before we adjourn tonight. You want to just bring up something 02:06:31.734 --> 02:06:39.134 - I'm going to make a motion here but I do want to draw attention to where this comes from. 02:06:41.858 --> 02:06:48.844 - So from the city Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals rules procedure in Article 5 Section G it reads 02:06:48.844 --> 02:06:56.246 - whenever a zoning petition is continued for three consecutive hearings any further request for continuance 02:06:56.246 --> 02:07:03.370 - requires a majority vote by the board. If the board denies such a request for continuance the petition 02:07:03.370 --> 02:07:10.910 - shall be treated as a denial unless the petitioner elects to formally withdraw the petition within 24 hours. 02:07:11.714 --> 02:07:21.795 - So, I'm going to make a motion that we deny continuance to AA-17-22 Joe Kemp and CU-33-24 Hatt Rentals. 02:07:21.795 --> 02:07:31.683 - Do I have a second? Okay, further discussion on this is as follows. Please be aware that they have 24 02:07:31.683 --> 02:07:41.086 - hours to withdraw. If they do not, they need to appear before us next month with their petition. 02:07:41.922 --> 02:07:48.647 - If they fail to do so then they have officially withdrawn Further is in consultation with the staff 02:07:48.647 --> 02:07:55.574 - They are allowed to come to us and say they'd like to hear that It within two months because the rules 02:07:55.574 --> 02:08:02.433 - do allow that they come back within after six So any petition is denied any action. They have to wait 02:08:02.433 --> 02:08:09.494 - six months before they return, correct? Yeah, and by making this motion in this vote we would be denying 02:08:09.494 --> 02:08:11.646 - it but I do want to stress that 02:08:12.098 --> 02:08:19.816 - Article 9 section D If further public discussion is warranted in the opinions, I'm sorry. I just read 02:08:19.816 --> 02:08:27.382 - the wrong one section 9 is The suspension of any rules may be ordered at any meeting by a unanimous 02:08:27.382 --> 02:08:35.100 - vote of those present so if we choose that we want to hear one of these within the next six months it 02:08:35.100 --> 02:08:40.926 - can be presented to us as a request by the city and we have that ability and 02:08:41.602 --> 02:08:47.968 - If it's unanimous to then hear it but this way it'll get these that are continuing to get off the books 02:08:47.968 --> 02:08:54.150 - this these two have been on for 12 months each. So it's just kind of labor. I know there's been some 02:08:54.150 --> 02:09:00.393 - assurance from the city that they both intend to be here next month. But this will this will actually 02:09:00.393 --> 02:09:06.881 - push the point forward. So a vote for this motion will be to deny them continuance. Do I have any further 02:09:06.881 --> 02:09:11.166 - questions or comments with that. Could we take a vote on that please. 02:09:12.098 --> 02:09:19.808 - Ballard yes, Burrell Yes, Fernandez. Yes, could sink him. Yes, Throckmorton Yes, so they have 24 hours 02:09:19.808 --> 02:09:27.592 - to withdraw and then return or show up next month and present a petition with that Is there any further 02:09:27.592 --> 02:09:32.158 - business in front of this board? We are adjourned. Thank you