WEBVTT 00:00:00.866 --> 00:00:18.220 - Welcome to the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday May 28th nine twenty twenty six. We are. We're starting 00:00:18.220 --> 00:00:30.110 - with a roll call please. Burrell here Fernandez Throckmorton. Good Cinco. 00:00:34.818 --> 00:00:50.205 - I'd like to approve the minutes. I have a second please. Second. This is for the approval of the minutes 00:00:50.205 --> 00:01:04.126 - of March 26 2026. I'm sorry. Was there a motion to approve. Yes. Thank you. Who is the second. 00:01:04.706 --> 00:01:13.895 - Leslie. Thank you. Borel. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Good Cinco. Yes. Do you have any reports resolutions 00:01:13.895 --> 00:01:23.543 - and communications from staff. We do have one remaining item which was the approval of the amended rules 00:01:23.543 --> 00:01:27.678 - and procedures that we gave to you in March. 00:01:28.098 --> 00:01:37.517 - So the main changes were the incorporation of the expedited agenda process, which was something that 00:01:37.517 --> 00:01:47.774 - is Being implemented tonight, but we do need to obviously formally approve those amended rules and procedures 00:01:47.774 --> 00:01:57.566 - to enable that That path. Oh shit. All right. I will entertain a motion to approve the amendment Barrell 00:01:58.050 --> 00:02:08.403 - Yes Fernandez could sinko. Yes all right. I think we also Jackie Scanlon assistant director wanted to 00:02:08.403 --> 00:02:18.046 - acknowledge Tim Ballard who was a member of this board for a number of years joined initially. 00:02:18.210 --> 00:02:24.764 - 2022 I think and he filled the role that was both a plan Commission and a BZA appointment of the mayor 00:02:24.764 --> 00:02:31.508 - And took it took his role very seriously and was very helpful I think especially to members of the public 00:02:31.508 --> 00:02:37.998 - understanding what was going on here and tried to you know, do his best to Make the role valuable and 00:02:37.998 --> 00:02:40.798 - helpful for the community he and his family 00:02:41.154 --> 00:02:47.884 - have moved on away and so they we just want to thank him publicly for You know the many hours he gave 00:02:47.884 --> 00:02:55.075 - to this board and planned mission as well And we will we are seeking to fill that position. And so hopefully 00:02:55.075 --> 00:02:59.166 - that will be done soon as well. Thank you Thank you very much 00:03:05.346 --> 00:03:15.013 - Okay so now we have one petition continuing to the meeting of June twenty fifth twenty twenty six and 00:03:15.013 --> 00:03:24.964 - that's ZR twenty twenty six dash zero five dash zero zero twenty. That is continued to June twenty fifth 00:03:24.964 --> 00:03:30.366 - meeting and we are now entertaining the expedite agenda. 00:03:31.138 --> 00:03:43.868 - And the first petition is ZR twenty twenty six dash twenty three dash zero zero seven. This is 6 1 3 00:03:43.868 --> 00:03:56.094 - North Street. Yes thank you. Jackie Scanlon again for this petition at 6 1 3 North North Street. 00:03:56.194 --> 00:04:03.653 - The petitioner is requesting a variance from front and side building setback standards to allow for 00:04:03.653 --> 00:04:11.187 - the replacement of a dwelling mobile home in the R2 zoning district So this property you can see the 00:04:11.187 --> 00:04:18.721 - aerial on the right and the survey on the left Historically contained a mobile home that mobile home 00:04:18.721 --> 00:04:21.854 - was on a pad that was longer than 70 feet 00:04:21.922 --> 00:04:28.535 - The petitioner has replaced that mobile home with a shorter mobile home so that you can see there on 00:04:28.535 --> 00:04:35.149 - the left It is contained within the property But does not meet the setback standards on the north or 00:04:35.149 --> 00:04:41.762 - the west side As you can see the arrows pointing to the locations where the corners are close to the 00:04:41.762 --> 00:04:43.006 - property lines the 00:04:43.202 --> 00:04:51.688 - Site has an improved right of way to the north and it actually contains a septic system as well and 00:04:51.688 --> 00:05:00.259 - sloping to the east and south of where the pad currently lays. And so the department is recommending 00:05:00.259 --> 00:05:09.085 - that the Board of Zoning Appeals approves the variance request to allow for the replacement mobile home 00:05:09.085 --> 00:05:10.782 - to use the existing 00:05:10.946 --> 00:05:19.390 - had that's already there with the condition that it is for the currently placed structure and does not 00:05:19.390 --> 00:05:28.162 - allow for additional encroachment or movement of that structure which is what the petitioner is requesting 00:05:28.162 --> 00:05:36.689 - and I can answer any questions. OK so do we. So the presentation from the petitioner is that 20 minutes 00:05:36.689 --> 00:05:39.230 - for this one or is it smaller. 00:05:39.394 --> 00:05:44.810 - Yes, so the petitioner still has the same a lot of time the main difference with the expedited agenda 00:05:44.810 --> 00:05:50.120 - is there's a three-minute public comment period for that The petitioners certainly still has the 20 00:05:50.120 --> 00:05:55.484 - minutes Although we encourage petitioners that are on the expedited agenda if they so choose to keep 00:05:55.484 --> 00:06:00.741 - the presentation a little bit briefer Sure, but yeah, so it's the same full-time. So same present. 00:06:00.741 --> 00:06:04.670 - All right, so may I have the petitioner, please? Are they in the house? I 00:06:14.594 --> 00:06:23.015 - How many people are going to speak? I'm going to swear you in. We both speak. It's OK. Nice. Can I have 00:06:23.015 --> 00:06:31.273 - both your names please. I'm Stacey Renard and I'm Mike Renard. All right. Mr. and Mrs. Bernard do you 00:06:31.273 --> 00:06:39.532 - swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing 00:06:39.532 --> 00:06:42.366 - but the truth. Thank you. Proceed. 00:06:45.090 --> 00:06:52.384 - We when we bought the property we called the planning department We asked if it was okay to put another 00:06:52.384 --> 00:06:59.678 - mobile home back in there. The only stipulation was as we move it a little bit to the east we had Water 00:06:59.678 --> 00:07:06.972 - ran to it because when we bought the property it said it had city water it did not so I work with Nancy 00:07:06.972 --> 00:07:14.126 - axum utilities Senator construction run their water. It was a year into this before I'd ever heard of 00:07:14.126 --> 00:07:15.038 - a right away 00:07:15.842 --> 00:07:21.403 - So we're kind of new at this. You mean we had the property surveyed to two different people. The first 00:07:21.403 --> 00:07:27.233 - one wasn't didn't we feel like it's incorrect. Correct. So Deckard surveyed it and this would make somebody 00:07:27.233 --> 00:07:32.686 - a nice home. We said from very beginning we'd turn it into a section eight or affordable housing for 00:07:32.686 --> 00:07:38.247 - somebody to live there. I feel like the property we have we cleaned it up. It was a mess. I'm not sure 00:07:38.247 --> 00:07:42.782 - if you guys are familiar with the area but it was quite the mess when we bought it. 00:07:43.298 --> 00:07:50.589 - Over 200 used syringes throughout their property and the yard. Yeah Thank you Yeah, take turns so mr. 00:07:50.589 --> 00:07:57.737 - Ornard go on so I mean like I said, we're kind of new at this You mean I'm not really sure what you 00:07:57.737 --> 00:08:05.599 - if you have questions from us or anything like that Those are intentions though is to turn it into affordable 00:08:05.599 --> 00:08:12.318 - housing. I know there's a high demand for affordable housing in Bloomington We're close there 00:08:12.482 --> 00:08:17.995 - Like I said, we ran water to it. We got a mobile home there. We got permit foundation There was a variance 00:08:17.995 --> 00:08:22.838 - passed 30 years ago for the property. I Felt like it I feel like it'd be a pretty good thing. 00:08:22.838 --> 00:08:28.299 - Like I said, we've cleaned it up It looks nice at first when we first bought it we had to call the police 00:08:28.299 --> 00:08:33.864 - out a few times you mean to run people off and a couple people got arrested but It's really been a positive 00:08:33.864 --> 00:08:39.170 - effect I think for the neighborhood and we will continue to make it a positive effect if you guys will 00:08:39.170 --> 00:08:40.510 - give us that variance and 00:08:41.282 --> 00:08:50.247 - Mrs. Renard would you like to speak. That's OK. I don't have anything to add. Are you OK then. You still 00:08:50.247 --> 00:08:59.298 - have time remaining if you have to add anything. OK. Do you have any questions. We will get the questions 00:08:59.298 --> 00:09:08.007 - in just a little bit. OK. All right. Now from questions from staff or for the staff or the petitioner 00:09:08.007 --> 00:09:10.654 - from the board. Any questions. 00:09:11.490 --> 00:09:21.091 - Questions. OK so we're going to open up to public comment. Is there anybody in the house or online that 00:09:21.091 --> 00:09:30.507 - would like to speak. If you are on zoom you can send a message to the host or raise your virtual hand 00:09:30.507 --> 00:09:37.246 - in order to be acknowledged for public comment. I don't see any on zoom. 00:09:40.162 --> 00:09:47.771 - None in the house. So we are back to the board for a final action. If there are no questions no statements 00:09:47.771 --> 00:09:50.046 - I'd like to entertain a motion. 00:10:11.778 --> 00:10:23.009 - I have a second. Second. Roll call please. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Because I think yes. Motion is approved. 00:10:23.009 --> 00:10:34.026 - Thank you. Congratulations. All right. We're now moving on to ZR twenty twenty six dash zero four zero 00:10:34.026 --> 00:10:41.086 - zero one four. This is for one twenty two north Roosevelt Street. 00:10:45.026 --> 00:10:58.444 - I have the staff report please. Good evening. I'm Joe Patterson zoning along range planner. Before us 00:10:58.444 --> 00:11:11.731 - is a request for conditional use to allow for a duplex by converting the existing single family home 00:11:11.731 --> 00:11:14.494 - through an addition. 00:11:14.658 --> 00:11:24.087 - as well as a variance from the front build to to accommodate that addition for the duplex. As you can 00:11:24.087 --> 00:11:33.424 - see here the existing home is currently placed on the far east end of the property and by adding the 00:11:33.424 --> 00:11:41.374 - addition to the home. It does not meet the front build to requirement in addition the 00:11:42.562 --> 00:11:50.410 - For the front built to also helps to maintain some existing vegetation some long established trees there 00:11:50.410 --> 00:11:58.557 - petitioner did work with staff to meet parking requirements and the impervious surface coverage requirements 00:11:58.557 --> 00:12:06.331 - And through that process we find that all the conditions are met for the conditional use for the duplex 00:12:06.331 --> 00:12:09.470 - as well as for the variance and therefore 00:12:13.378 --> 00:12:20.034 - We do recommend that both the conditional use and variants are approved with conditions that any use 00:12:20.034 --> 00:12:26.822 - to be ran must be registered and inspected by hand and that the trees identified in the front the west 00:12:26.822 --> 00:12:33.412 - end of the property are to be maintained to the maximum acceptable. And I'm here for any questions. 00:12:33.412 --> 00:12:37.630 - Thank you. I have the petitioner on this case please. He is on. 00:12:45.634 --> 00:12:53.252 - Uh, the petitioner is online at Daniel. You should be able to unmute and speak now and you'll have 20 00:12:53.252 --> 00:13:00.869 - minutes once you get sworn in. Yes. Before you start speaking, uh, can you say your name, please? Oh, 00:13:00.869 --> 00:13:08.487 - hello. Yes. This is Daniel. Thank you. Do you swear to swear or affirm that the testimony we're about 00:13:08.487 --> 00:13:15.358 - to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you. 00:13:16.194 --> 00:13:31.742 - proceed. Okay. 00:14:41.474 --> 00:14:49.298 - your time and you still have some remaining time if necessary. All right. Any questions from staff for 00:14:49.298 --> 00:14:56.969 - the staff or the petitioner from the board. I have a question for staff. How many parking spots were 00:14:56.969 --> 00:15:05.021 - it looks like a long drive and then is it three parking spots in the new for the new approved potentially 00:15:05.021 --> 00:15:10.110 - approved plan. Correct. There are three proposed spots for the new 00:15:10.530 --> 00:15:21.366 - And then the rest would be street parking. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any public comment here or online 00:15:21.366 --> 00:15:31.892 - for this project. If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition please use the 00:15:31.892 --> 00:15:39.838 - raise hand function and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody online. 00:15:41.602 --> 00:15:50.864 - So we're back to the board for a final action. John could you is your mic on. We're having trouble picking 00:15:50.864 --> 00:15:59.694 - you up. Sorry about that. Here we go. Yeah. So I'll make a motion that we adopt the proposed findings 00:15:59.694 --> 00:16:08.437 - and approve the petition for ZR 20 26 0 4 0 0 1 4 with the three conditions articulated in the staff 00:16:08.437 --> 00:16:09.822 - report. Second. 00:16:12.610 --> 00:16:27.653 - Please Borel. Yes Fernandez Yes, kusinko. Yes motion is approved All right moving right along congratulations 00:16:27.653 --> 00:16:33.534 - Thank you to the council members and staff 00:16:39.842 --> 00:16:54.206 - I have the presentation on ZR 20 26 0 dash 0 4 dash 0 0 1 9. This is 4 0 2 West 6th Street. Thank you. 00:16:54.206 --> 00:17:03.550 - Eric Grulig development services manager presenting this petition. 00:17:03.906 --> 00:17:15.189 - So this is a request for a property at 402 West 6th Street from the petitioner to several variances 00:17:15.189 --> 00:17:26.585 - are being requested tonight. One I'm so sorry here. I pulled up the wrong presentation. Give me just 00:17:26.585 --> 00:17:29.406 - one second. There we go. 00:17:59.010 --> 00:18:05.508 - There we go. I should have everything working now. So this is a request for a property at 402 West 6th 00:18:05.508 --> 00:18:11.942 - Street. The petitioner is here tonight to request variances from architectural and design dimensional 00:18:11.942 --> 00:18:18.251 - standards to allow for the use of fitness center small in the mixed use downtown. The petitioner is 00:18:18.251 --> 00:18:24.559 - specifically requesting five variances in order to reuse this property. The petitioner is proposing 00:18:24.559 --> 00:18:25.758 - to construct a new 00:18:26.050 --> 00:18:32.416 - two new outdoor sauna buildings on the property. The property has been developed with a one story story 00:18:32.416 --> 00:18:38.599 - and a half multi tenant building that has a large green space on the northwest side of the property. 00:18:38.599 --> 00:18:44.414 - So the petitioner is trying to reutilize that green space to construct two new outdoor saunas. 00:18:44.514 --> 00:18:51.434 - So that use is classified as a fitness center, which isn't allowed use. However, in order to utilize 00:18:51.434 --> 00:18:58.627 - this green space on the property. The petitioners are trying to work within the confines of the downtown 00:18:58.627 --> 00:18:59.518 - zoning code. 00:19:00.034 --> 00:19:06.162 - Which presents some challenges in terms of utilizing this green space while at the same time accommodating 00:19:06.162 --> 00:19:12.062 - the petitioner's proposal to construct two new buildings. So the two new buildings that the petitioner 00:19:12.062 --> 00:19:17.904 - is proposing to construct are about eight by 10 and are located on the west side of the property. The 00:19:17.904 --> 00:19:22.142 - structures are about 10 feet tall and would be used for an outdoor sauna. 00:19:22.562 --> 00:19:29.457 - So as I mentioned, trying to accommodate this use with the zoning district standards creates some challenges 00:19:29.457 --> 00:19:36.037 - that are certainly unique to this property because it is unique in the downtown. They have a large open 00:19:36.037 --> 00:19:42.553 - green space on a particular property while trying to incorporate a new building design and at the same 00:19:42.553 --> 00:19:44.830 - time preserve an existing building. 00:19:44.930 --> 00:19:50.758 - So the petitioners are requesting a variance from the minimum structure height So 20 feet is what is 00:19:50.758 --> 00:19:56.586 - required within the downtown as I mentioned these buildings would be about 10 feet in height So this 00:19:56.586 --> 00:20:02.413 - is a request to allow up to an 11 foot They also requesting a variance from the building roof design 00:20:02.413 --> 00:20:04.606 - to allow for the shed roof design and 00:20:05.218 --> 00:20:12.004 - Also requested a variance from the windows and door requirement for primary facades to allow for In 00:20:12.004 --> 00:20:18.994 - essence a variation in the design to accommodate this unique building use Also requested as a variance 00:20:18.994 --> 00:20:25.848 - from the primary pedestrian entry standards these buildings While they are a primary use are kind of 00:20:25.848 --> 00:20:32.635 - functioning really as accessory buildings and would be accessed through the main building itself so 00:20:32.635 --> 00:20:34.942 - the users of the property are not 00:20:35.074 --> 00:20:41.680 - Directly going to these buildings. So they are requesting a variance from the primary pedestrian entry 00:20:41.680 --> 00:20:48.285 - standards As well as because of this unique building use The typical design standards for the downtown 00:20:48.285 --> 00:20:54.763 - are designed to accommodate long-standing buildings that are permanent much taller in size and scale 00:20:54.763 --> 00:21:01.240 - So these buildings typically are made of wood. So the petitioner is requesting a variance from those 00:21:01.240 --> 00:21:04.190 - architectural materials in order to allow for 00:21:04.354 --> 00:21:10.603 - The buildings as as they've shown So as I mentioned there are several variances that the petitioners 00:21:10.603 --> 00:21:17.038 - requesting variances from and so we did make findings for those base and part of as I mentioned on this 00:21:17.038 --> 00:21:23.844 - unique property in the downtown that has been developed in a way that is very atypical of downtown properties 00:21:23.844 --> 00:21:30.526 - that has a large open green space on it that is very challenging to use while keeping the existing building 00:21:30.690 --> 00:21:38.593 - So we did make findings to support the variance criteria and are recommending approval with the three 00:21:38.593 --> 00:21:46.650 - conditions that are listed in staff's report and I'm happy to answer any questions after the petitioner 00:21:46.650 --> 00:21:52.926 - speaks Thank you May I have the present presentation by the petitioner, please I 00:22:02.274 --> 00:22:08.212 - State your name Anderson Arante Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will 00:22:08.212 --> 00:22:14.329 - be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do Thank you So I think staff did a great job 00:22:14.329 --> 00:22:20.564 - of summarizing what we're looking to or what we are requesting Our petitioner statements pretty thorough 00:22:20.564 --> 00:22:26.206 - as well out of respect to the expedited agenda. I'm happy to take any questions you may have I 00:22:29.378 --> 00:22:37.180 - Thank you. You will still have some remaining time if necessary. Thank you. Any questions from staff 00:22:37.180 --> 00:22:45.137 - for the staff or the petitioner from the board. All right. We are open to public comment then if there 00:22:45.137 --> 00:22:53.017 - is anybody that is in council chambers certainly feel free to approach the podium. If there's anybody 00:22:53.017 --> 00:22:58.270 - online please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. 00:23:06.754 --> 00:23:18.038 - not seeing anybody online. All right. Well, we're back to the BZA for a final action. I'll entertain 00:23:18.038 --> 00:23:29.546 - a motion for ZR 2026-04-0019 to approve the variances. The three variances listed in the staff report. 00:23:29.546 --> 00:23:34.238 - The conditions. Thank you. The variances. 00:23:34.370 --> 00:23:43.868 - three conditions I Motion to approve ZR two zero two six dash zero four dash zero zero one nine with 00:23:43.868 --> 00:23:53.460 - the variances in the three conditions listened in staff report Thank you roll call, please Borel. Yes 00:23:53.460 --> 00:24:03.710 - Fernandez. Yes, could sinker. Yes All right. Congratulations Moving right along. All right I just make sorry 00:24:03.842 --> 00:24:12.342 - Yes I just this is a really funky site so I didn't really want to extend the expedited nature of this 00:24:12.342 --> 00:24:20.843 - but I really appreciate the petitioner's willingness to make this kind of investment downtown and the 00:24:20.843 --> 00:24:24.926 - staff's ability to work through this. Thank you. 00:24:28.290 --> 00:24:36.665 - Moving on to see our twenty twenty six dash zero four dash zero zero one six. And this is for a request 00:24:36.665 --> 00:24:44.799 - that Patterson drive from north of Allen Street to the east of Fairview Street. Thank you. This is a 00:24:44.799 --> 00:24:51.966 - request from the city engineering department for a project that the city is undertaking. 00:24:52.066 --> 00:25:00.119 - That involves resurfacing as well as installing some pedestrian improvements along a substantial section 00:25:00.119 --> 00:25:07.865 - of Patterson Drive as mentioned from Allen Street to Fairview down to Roger Street. So this petition 00:25:07.865 --> 00:25:15.765 - involves resurfacing the road as well as installing new sidewalks along a portion of the road frontage 00:25:15.765 --> 00:25:18.526 - so this project does cross across a 00:25:18.754 --> 00:25:26.324 - A intermittent stream that is subject to floodway floodplain Regulations as well as riparian buffer 00:25:26.324 --> 00:25:33.894 - standards And so those standards do allow for some disturbance but list Those activities allowed as 00:25:33.894 --> 00:25:41.768 - only as crossings not activities that allow for parallel movement with the stream so the variances that 00:25:41.768 --> 00:25:44.190 - are being requested tonight are 00:25:44.290 --> 00:25:50.581 - Is conditional use approval to allow for these activities within the floodplain? And then a variance 00:25:50.581 --> 00:25:56.935 - from riparian buffer standards to allow for the the sidewalk to move through that area as well So you 00:25:56.935 --> 00:26:03.413 - can see a site plan just kind of showing the rough area as I mentioned it's expanding from roughly east 00:26:03.413 --> 00:26:08.894 - of Roger Street to just about 1,100 feet north of where Allen Street moves through here 00:26:09.090 --> 00:26:14.304 - So the petition, as I mentioned, involves a lot of resurfacing but also the installation of the new 00:26:14.304 --> 00:26:14.878 - sidewalks. 00:26:14.946 --> 00:26:20.886 - So certainly this is a unique situation Where we have existing facilities that are in place that were 00:26:20.886 --> 00:26:26.826 - constructed prior to current standards And the city is coming forward to install these new facilities 00:26:26.826 --> 00:26:32.708 - and obviously are held to our own rules and regulations So the petitioner is coming forward in order 00:26:32.708 --> 00:26:38.707 - to request the appropriate approvals to allow for these activities And so we are recommending approval 00:26:38.707 --> 00:26:44.414 - with just the one condition that is listed in staffs report and I'm happy to answer any questions 00:26:45.794 --> 00:26:52.570 - Wants to petitioner speaks obviously. Yes May I have the Presentation by the petitioner, please Yep, 00:26:52.570 --> 00:26:59.279 - Kendall Kenoki engineering department. Yes. Do you swear to our firm that the Testimony we're about 00:26:59.279 --> 00:27:06.056 - to give will be the truth the whole truth and not another truth. Yes. All right. Thank you Thank you 00:27:06.056 --> 00:27:10.014 - so much. Yes, this is part of a larger four million dollar 00:27:10.562 --> 00:27:16.240 - Maintenance project that's happening this summer on Patterson Grimes Rogers Kirkwood This is just one 00:27:16.240 --> 00:27:21.917 - little piece of it as Eric mentioned we kind of it seems to be a recurring theme we did a resurfacing 00:27:21.917 --> 00:27:27.706 - project last year that kind of got into some floodplain riparian buffer and You know a lot of our roads 00:27:27.706 --> 00:27:32.382 - do that. So this is just kind of a small portion of this larger project, but we are 00:27:32.546 --> 00:27:38.408 - Doing some work in the floodplain. We are getting the approval from the state We're going through that 00:27:38.408 --> 00:27:44.326 - process right now and there's also a local floodplain permit that's associated Once we get our approval 00:27:44.326 --> 00:27:50.074 - from the state we going we get our local floodplain permit and that includes a variance Request that 00:27:50.074 --> 00:27:55.879 - you all are considering tonight and then there's also kind of a separate the riparian buffer requests 00:27:55.879 --> 00:28:01.854 - that Eric mentioned which only results when our roadway is parallel to the streams not perpendicular and 00:28:02.018 --> 00:28:07.487 - If you're familiar with Patterson, there's streams on both sides, and then they kind of turn and cross 00:28:07.487 --> 00:28:12.849 - and weave underneath. So it makes it a little confusing to know exactly where these variances are or 00:28:12.849 --> 00:28:18.158 - aren't, but it's roughly in that area. And essentially what we're doing is resurfacing the roadway, 00:28:18.158 --> 00:28:23.468 - rebuilding curb ramps, which we're required to do under federal law. And then we're also doing some 00:28:23.468 --> 00:28:28.830 - safety improvements. So we're doing some truck aprons. We're doing some sidewalk gap, filling in the 00:28:28.830 --> 00:28:31.166 - gaps. We're doing some traffic signal work. 00:28:31.330 --> 00:28:38.423 - All of this is kind of what causes this to be a variance and a conditional use request tonight. So I'm 00:28:38.423 --> 00:28:45.448 - happy to answer more questions. It is a large project but hopefully tonight we're really just looking 00:28:45.448 --> 00:28:52.334 - at that that small area that Eric mentioned. So thank you very much. Thank you. You still have some 00:28:52.334 --> 00:29:00.254 - remaining time. Do you have any questions for seeing. All right. So we're going to move on then to public comment. 00:29:00.450 --> 00:29:09.345 - Anybody in the house or online that would like to speak about this petition there is anybody online. 00:29:09.345 --> 00:29:14.718 - Please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you. 00:29:29.666 --> 00:29:41.933 - I'm not seeing anybody online. All right. We're back to the board. Somebody. Hold on. I am chatting 00:29:41.933 --> 00:29:54.446 - with one member of the public who's having trouble raising their hand. You know what petition they're 00:29:54.446 --> 00:29:56.286 - interested in. 00:30:11.362 --> 00:30:21.409 - It's not this petition. So there doesn't appear to be any public comment online for this. All right. 00:30:21.409 --> 00:30:31.556 - We're back to the BZA for a final action then I will move. Excuse me. I will move that we approve the 00:30:31.556 --> 00:30:38.718 - conditional use and variance for ZR 20 26 0 4 0 1 1 6 and and adopt the 00:30:38.978 --> 00:30:53.099 - Just following the conditions articulated in the staff report. Second. Roll call please. Burrell. Yes. 00:30:53.099 --> 00:31:06.398 - Fernandez. Yes. Could sinko. Yes. Congratulations. Now we have concluded our expedite petitions. 00:31:09.250 --> 00:31:19.820 - the expedited agenda. We're going to move to a regular petitions but I'd like to keep the pace. So let's 00:31:19.820 --> 00:31:30.490 - let's go. So now we're going to entertain ZR 20 26 0 2 dash 0 0 4 request for 5 0 8 North Lincoln Street. 00:31:30.490 --> 00:31:34.718 - May I have a presentation from the staff. 00:31:35.266 --> 00:31:42.342 - Yes, so this is a request for a property at 508 North Lincoln Street for a variance from front building 00:31:42.342 --> 00:31:49.281 - setback requirements to allow for a deck for the use dwelling come a single-family residential so the 00:31:49.281 --> 00:31:56.356 - property has been developed with a Single-family residents on this property there was previously a deck 00:31:56.356 --> 00:31:59.486 - and patio along the front of the building and 00:31:59.682 --> 00:32:06.169 - However, it was removed at some point in the past and a new deck was installed The new deck does not 00:32:06.169 --> 00:32:12.655 - meet setback requirements. And so a notice of violation was given to the property owner for that the 00:32:12.655 --> 00:32:19.142 - Require the front building setback requirement allows for the house to be constructed or the deck to 00:32:19.142 --> 00:32:26.142 - be Doesn't allow for decks to encroach So it could not extend further than what the previous kind of stooped 00:32:26.338 --> 00:32:32.938 - That was there was allowed to be so the new deck does not meet in setback requirements as I mentioned 00:32:32.938 --> 00:32:39.666 - And would not be allowed in between the building and street at all because the house is at the building 00:32:39.666 --> 00:32:46.201 - setback line So other than the the stoop that is there the the deck as shown would not be allowed in 00:32:46.201 --> 00:32:52.542 - any capacity so the petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for the deck to remain as is and 00:32:52.642 --> 00:32:59.557 - You know, we we do not find that there were any peculiar conditions, you know, the the UDO does not 00:32:59.557 --> 00:33:06.196 - Allow for nor desire to have decks Along the front that encroach in the building setback areas, 00:33:06.196 --> 00:33:13.111 - you know, certainly the building is at the setback area and does is existing and they can certainly 00:33:13.111 --> 00:33:18.366 - do that but obviously new activities on a property have to be compliant and 00:33:18.530 --> 00:33:25.279 - You know, we certainly understand the desire to have an outdoor deck. However, you know that is not 00:33:25.279 --> 00:33:32.298 - a common Use a common common portion of a building that you know, the denial of the variance would deny 00:33:32.298 --> 00:33:39.182 - the reasonable use of the property You know the property the building did exist for many decades, you 00:33:39.182 --> 00:33:45.054 - know without the deck You know, they simply constructed the deck without the permit or 00:33:45.250 --> 00:33:53.785 - contacting us So we did not find that there were any peculiar conditions that as I said presented a 00:33:53.785 --> 00:34:02.321 - hardship in the use of the property And so we are recommending denial of the variance And with that 00:34:02.321 --> 00:34:11.453 - I'm happy to turn it over to the petitioner Thank you is the petitioner in the house, please And I believe 00:34:11.453 --> 00:34:13.758 - the petitioner is online I 00:34:15.938 --> 00:34:29.428 - Tina you should be able to speak. Hi Tina. Can you state your name please. Thank you. You swear or affirm 00:34:29.428 --> 00:34:42.282 - that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 00:34:42.282 --> 00:34:44.446 - Go ahead please. 00:34:49.314 --> 00:35:06.410 - Go ahead and keep your. We might. Will exercise that the right to ask that question to staff, but can 00:35:06.410 --> 00:35:18.142 - you just go ahead and continue with your statement, please? Okay, so. 00:35:18.498 --> 00:35:27.102 - What you're telling me is that you want. Wait a second. You need to present your request your petition 00:35:27.102 --> 00:35:35.538 - and then we can ask questions later. Do you see what I'm trying to say. OK. Sounds good. Do you have 00:35:35.538 --> 00:35:43.975 - anything else to add. OK. Thank you so much. And you still have some time if you would like to speak 00:35:43.975 --> 00:35:44.894 - again. OK. 00:35:47.010 --> 00:35:57.478 - Thank you so much. All right. Now go back to the board if you have questions to the petitioner or to 00:35:57.478 --> 00:36:07.946 - staff for staff. What was the original. What's the delta between the original and the new deck. Give 00:36:07.946 --> 00:36:16.030 - me just a second. I will put up a picture that kind of highlights. Thank you. 00:36:26.786 --> 00:36:34.710 - So this is this is pictures slide of this structure that was there before. So it did extend from the 00:36:34.710 --> 00:36:43.026 - building a short ways. So the UDO does allow for maintenance of nonconforming structures. So to a limited 00:36:43.026 --> 00:36:45.694 - degree the petitioner could read. 00:36:46.370 --> 00:36:52.602 - Redo the deck was there as long as typically what we've done is, you know as long as supporting posts 00:36:52.602 --> 00:36:59.200 - and structures are preserved You can reface a deck, you know, so you can you can do some normal maintenance 00:36:59.200 --> 00:37:05.309 - to it, but you do have to keep Main structural elements of it that being the support structures You 00:37:05.309 --> 00:37:11.785 - know, we can certainly work with them. It's obviously difficult at this point because the entire previous 00:37:11.785 --> 00:37:14.046 - structure was completely removed and 00:37:14.242 --> 00:37:21.581 - So we would need to work internally with staff to determine what could be rebuilt to accommodate what 00:37:21.581 --> 00:37:29.495 - was there while still falling true to the limited limitations of the UDO in terms of nonconforming structures 00:37:29.495 --> 00:37:36.905 - and maintenance to those. And then I just have a procedural question. If we deny the variance is there 00:37:36.905 --> 00:37:41.438 - still an opportunity for them to go back to the original deck. 00:37:42.306 --> 00:37:51.865 - Well, so what I could possibly suggest if the board wants to fully Ensure that the petitioners could 00:37:51.865 --> 00:38:01.330 - go back is rather than approving the the full variance to show the structure that was there now you 00:38:01.330 --> 00:38:09.470 - approve a variance to allow for a deck of I Don't know two and a half feet three feet 00:38:09.634 --> 00:38:18.341 - You know, whatever it's hard to discern what was there before because I'm just looking at a picture 00:38:18.341 --> 00:38:27.396 - So you could approve a variance to allow for a deck of three feet of depth Obviously you'd have to make 00:38:27.396 --> 00:38:36.190 - findings for the peculiar condition staff did not make findings for that Any questions from you John 00:38:40.802 --> 00:39:04.410 - Okay So So Eric, can you can you help me out here though? I mean if if the previous Because in our findings 00:39:04.410 --> 00:39:08.126 - were saying that 00:39:09.794 --> 00:39:19.034 - You know a front yard with only a four foot setback from the property line would not be consistent. 00:39:19.034 --> 00:39:28.458 - What would be consistent. Are you are you asking like what is the common established block face along 00:39:28.458 --> 00:39:38.622 - here for buildings. I mean we'd have to go back and look at the corridor as a whole to see if there are other 00:39:38.850 --> 00:39:45.868 - Decks or something that encroaches, you know, again, these would all be nonconformities You know if 00:39:45.868 --> 00:39:53.236 - there are other decks along this block face that that encroach well, I am just in the Criterion findings 00:39:53.236 --> 00:40:00.324 - number two It says that a variance the last sense of variance to allow a deck in the front yard with 00:40:00.324 --> 00:40:07.412 - only a four foot setback from the property line would not be consistent with the surrounding uses in 00:40:07.412 --> 00:40:08.254 - the area of 00:40:08.802 --> 00:40:15.926 - I'm just asking. Yes. So what that is looking at is the petitioners request to have the deck only four 00:40:15.926 --> 00:40:23.118 - feet from the sidewalk is not in character. You know there are not other structures or decks along here 00:40:23.118 --> 00:40:30.242 - that are only four feet. So this is that variance as requested is out of character. I understand that. 00:40:30.242 --> 00:40:37.227 - But if we're saying that this is not consistent what is consistent because I'm just trying to get to 00:40:37.227 --> 00:40:38.334 - the question of 00:40:39.202 --> 00:40:47.415 - If the original smaller version of this was OK, what were the dimensions that would keep it in line 00:40:47.415 --> 00:40:55.793 - and consistent with the other? Because I know this neighborhood fairly well and it's. The porches and 00:40:55.793 --> 00:41:04.253 - decks are like all over the map. I mean, some of them are as just as close as what they built and some 00:41:04.253 --> 00:41:08.606 - of them are set further back. I'm just not sure what 00:41:09.090 --> 00:41:19.156 - how we're defining consistency in a neighborhood that has such irregularities if that makes sense. Yeah. 00:41:19.156 --> 00:41:28.838 - Understood. Give me just a second. I'm trying to pull some things up here. I think the issue here is 00:41:28.838 --> 00:41:34.590 - there was a deck that was existing and it was already. Yes. 00:41:36.226 --> 00:41:44.310 - So whatever that setback was I'm asking would that be considered consistent. Yeah it was removed and 00:41:44.310 --> 00:41:52.554 - I think that deck I wouldn't call it a deck it would be more like a porch. Yeah a balcony in the front 00:41:52.554 --> 00:41:59.518 - of the house. So once it this new structure is a new structure and it's beyond of what 00:42:06.530 --> 00:42:18.391 - Yeah as you look at and I can I can try to show this on the screen here real quick. Looking at the existing 00:42:18.391 --> 00:42:30.142 - buildings along here you can certainly see that. Give me just a second I'll show what I'm looking at here. 00:42:34.914 --> 00:42:42.467 - I'm looking at the property that's on the At the corner and ninth ninth and Lincoln, I think it's the 00:42:42.467 --> 00:42:50.094 - south East corner. I mean it looks like that deck is like right on the street Yep, so what I'm showing 00:42:50.094 --> 00:42:57.499 - on the screen here is a GIS and so as you look along this block face along the east side of Lincoln 00:42:57.499 --> 00:43:04.830 - North of 9th Street, you can you can see that all the buildings are pretty much in a straight line 00:43:05.378 --> 00:43:12.033 - You know in terms of the the block faces, you know as you move north You've got buildings that are further 00:43:12.033 --> 00:43:18.502 - back, but you don't have any buildings that have decks that extend further You know off of the building 00:43:18.502 --> 00:43:24.908 - closer to the street. So the deck that was there was certainly atypical And so as we made findings and 00:43:24.908 --> 00:43:31.128 - said suggested that you know the extension of the deck to get further from compliance was just even 00:43:31.128 --> 00:43:34.238 - more Atypical and out of character with the block 00:43:38.050 --> 00:43:45.827 - Can you can you push that map up a little bit further so we pick up that yeah, so then you go down to 00:43:45.827 --> 00:43:53.527 - that corner Just to the south. I Mean it looks like that Yeah, typically, you know when when the UDO 00:43:53.527 --> 00:44:01.151 - uses the term block face, you know, it's to reference Between public streets along the same side of 00:44:01.151 --> 00:44:05.726 - the street. So, you know in this case here we would look at 00:44:05.986 --> 00:44:13.775 - From north up to 10th Street along the east side of Lincoln and that's generally how we characterize 00:44:13.775 --> 00:44:21.564 - an area or block phases the UDO treats it So, like I said if if the board wants to approve something 00:44:21.564 --> 00:44:30.046 - different obviously that is there your purview and your right, you know We were just need to make alternative 00:44:30.046 --> 00:44:33.054 - findings for some of those criteria. I 00:44:39.266 --> 00:44:48.660 - Just say I it's hard for me to look at this when the house literally Two houses down has a deck all 00:44:48.660 --> 00:44:58.148 - the way up to the sidewalk Yep, certainly, you know, like said you're going to find situations where 00:44:58.148 --> 00:45:01.342 - you have informing structures and 00:45:01.698 --> 00:45:07.165 - You know that were built prior to current code, you know, obviously the challenge for us is, you know 00:45:07.165 --> 00:45:12.579 - Do you perpetuate these situations that that don't meet code and whatever that is, you know You have 00:45:12.579 --> 00:45:17.993 - a building and as I mentioned in the findings, you know The building can continue to be used for the 00:45:17.993 --> 00:45:23.407 - manner in which it's zoned and has been used for decades without the granting of the variance so the 00:45:23.407 --> 00:45:28.874 - denial of the variance is not Depriving the the owner of the reasonable use of the property for which 00:45:28.874 --> 00:45:30.750 - it's been used for decades. Mm-hmm 00:45:39.810 --> 00:45:54.898 - questions I'm going to open to public comment and while you ponder and we'll go from there. So can you 00:45:54.898 --> 00:46:06.910 - state your name please. My name is James Ford. I live in High Point neighborhood. 00:46:07.074 --> 00:46:13.672 - before we begin. Can I swear you in? Sure. Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about 00:46:13.672 --> 00:46:20.335 - to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Before I begin, 00:46:20.335 --> 00:46:26.805 - Mayor Fernandez, I can hardly hear you, so your microphone isn't working or you're not speaking loud 00:46:26.805 --> 00:46:33.467 - enough. I live in High Point. I feel like there's two questions here, whether we should allow this deck 00:46:33.467 --> 00:46:36.734 - to continue or what should we allow to replace it. 00:46:36.866 --> 00:46:44.253 - And then there's a reference to a deck that's a half a block south The deck half a block south is also 00:46:44.253 --> 00:46:51.784 - owned by the same people and they added the deck and None of us in the neighborhood happened to complain 00:46:51.784 --> 00:46:59.314 - that particular time and so it went forward So comparing it to that that deck is I think not appropriate 00:46:59.314 --> 00:47:06.558 - This deck is Comical it is a caricature. It looks like a circus But you have a picture of it without 00:47:06.722 --> 00:47:14.195 - people partying and leaving their junk everywhere. And it's really a magnet for activity that is not 00:47:14.195 --> 00:47:21.964 - conducive to a residential environment. And we hope that you deny the variance to allow this to continue 00:47:21.964 --> 00:47:29.585 - existing. And even the previous deck was not really used much just to put garbage cans on. So it would 00:47:29.585 --> 00:47:36.318 - be nice if whatever they do replace it with, if it looks a little bit more architecturally 00:47:36.578 --> 00:47:44.501 - can do connected to the original building if that's possible. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your 00:47:44.501 --> 00:47:53.058 - comment. Anybody else. If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this request or this petition 00:47:53.058 --> 00:48:01.694 - at 508 North Lincoln please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat and we can recognize you. 00:48:09.826 --> 00:48:23.126 - I'm not seeing anybody online. All right. Well we're back to the board for discussion or final action. 00:48:23.126 --> 00:48:36.297 - What. I don't have any questions. Well my thoughts are we have setbacks for a reason and it's to keep 00:48:36.297 --> 00:48:38.750 - order and organize 00:48:40.642 --> 00:48:49.672 - and keep the homes organized in a fashion. This house sits at the setback already 20 feet from the center 00:48:49.672 --> 00:48:58.276 - of the road. So any structures that grow beyond that they are encroaching on a setback. So what they 00:48:58.276 --> 00:49:07.646 - had before even though it was encroaching on a setback it was not a nice sore and it didn't cause any issues. 00:49:08.354 --> 00:49:19.055 - With with the facades of that block face in the situation right now It's it's almost like they moved 00:49:19.055 --> 00:49:30.073 - the backyard to the front yard So so that creates issue in a neighborhood of course and in a block face 00:49:30.073 --> 00:49:37.278 - I guess my only thought would be I know there was a little bit of a 00:49:37.378 --> 00:49:46.407 - Discussion about can you amend the? Recommendation findings to you know accommodate some kind of commitment 00:49:46.407 --> 00:49:55.268 - to Going back to what was previously there I think from a just a matter of kind of administrative clarity 00:49:55.268 --> 00:50:03.294 - I I think we would be better off just acting on this specific proposal and then if they want to 00:50:03.458 --> 00:50:14.227 - Revisit that then there's a process that they can just engage with You know the staff to sort that out 00:50:14.227 --> 00:50:24.995 - and do it in a way that would be I think more Measured no pun intended then trying to do it on the fly 00:50:24.995 --> 00:50:33.150 - here Does that work with you Eric adding a condition that they can go back to 00:50:33.250 --> 00:50:44.339 - And well so the our recommendation is denial. So there are not conditions that are you can put on a 00:50:44.339 --> 00:50:55.538 - denial. Yeah yeah you can create a new something that can be approved. But then you have to have you 00:50:55.538 --> 00:51:02.302 - have to fulfill the three criteria you have to have you know 00:51:02.690 --> 00:51:12.406 - effects of findings of fact. So based on that and let's anybody has any other questions I'll make a 00:51:12.406 --> 00:51:22.218 - motion. I'm going to move that we recommend that the board is only pills adopt the proposed findings 00:51:22.218 --> 00:51:31.934 - and deny the petition for zero twenty twenty six zero two zero zero four. Second. Roll call please. 00:51:33.314 --> 00:51:56.269 - Yes, Fernandez. Yes, could Cinco. Yes The motion has been denied Moving forward to ZR 2026-03-0010 this 00:51:56.269 --> 00:52:01.566 - is 1017 West 9th Street 00:52:03.778 --> 00:52:10.686 - Thank you. So this is a request for a property at 1017 West 9th Street The petition is requesting a 00:52:10.686 --> 00:52:17.940 - variance from tree preservation standards for the use dwelling comma single-family detached The property 00:52:17.940 --> 00:52:24.848 - is on the south side of West 9th Street And came to the department to attention as a result of tree 00:52:24.848 --> 00:52:29.822 - clearing that occurred on the property so the property was covered with 00:52:30.114 --> 00:52:36.359 - Covered tree did have closed canopy coverage present on the property that was subject to the 00:52:36.359 --> 00:52:43.276 - tree preservation requirements of the UDO Required a certain amount of those to be saved Approximately 00:52:43.276 --> 00:52:49.992 - 80% was required to be saved the petitioner as I mentioned removed all of the trees on the property 00:52:49.992 --> 00:52:54.558 - and so you know as we have dealt with these in other situations and 00:52:54.754 --> 00:53:01.250 - There certainly there was a remediation plan that was put forward to them to restore that closed canopy 00:53:01.250 --> 00:53:07.497 - coverage Required the installation of nine trees on that the petitioner sought to seek is seeking a 00:53:07.497 --> 00:53:13.868 - variance From the tree preservation standards to not require those nine trees And they are requesting 00:53:13.868 --> 00:53:15.742 - a variance to not install any 00:53:15.810 --> 00:53:23.344 - new trees on the property and so that is the petition as before us the petitioner has shown a conceptual 00:53:23.344 --> 00:53:30.663 - site plan that they Intend to develop the property with with a single-family residence in a garage in 00:53:30.663 --> 00:53:37.910 - the back However, that is not necessarily part of this request You know, it's just extra information 00:53:37.910 --> 00:53:42.430 - that petitioner has given So we we did not find that this made 00:53:42.722 --> 00:53:48.319 - The variance criteria obviously the protection of tree canopy coverage within the city is very important 00:53:48.319 --> 00:53:50.878 - So not having that on the property is injurious 00:53:50.946 --> 00:53:58.170 - to the public health and morals Again, you know not remedying the loss of the tree canopy coverage does 00:53:58.170 --> 00:54:05.671 - have impacts on adjacent properties And for the third criteria, we did not find that there are any peculiar 00:54:05.671 --> 00:54:12.687 - conditions that did not allow for Trees to be placed on the property We're always happy to work with 00:54:12.687 --> 00:54:18.174 - individuals to work around development plans to you know accommodate those and 00:54:18.370 --> 00:54:26.774 - So, you know, again, as I mentioned, we did not find that there were any peculiar conditions that prevented 00:54:26.774 --> 00:54:34.712 - new trees from being installed. And so we are recommending that the board adopt the proposed findings 00:54:34.712 --> 00:54:42.727 - and deny the petition. Thank you. Is the petition petitioner in the house? Yes. Hi, Fiona Taggart. Are 00:54:42.727 --> 00:54:46.462 - you both going to speak? Hi, my name is Zandro. 00:54:46.754 --> 00:54:54.504 - Okay so I'm going to swear both both of you in at the same time. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the 00:54:54.504 --> 00:55:01.879 - testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. 00:55:01.879 --> 00:55:09.478 - I do. Thank you. One at a time please. So first an apology. We didn't know about the tree canopy and 00:55:09.478 --> 00:55:13.918 - we couldn't remove them. So apology for that. We wouldn't. 00:55:14.306 --> 00:55:19.827 - Definitely have asked before doing it had we known but I want to When we sent out our letters Habitat 00:55:19.827 --> 00:55:25.349 - for Humanity wrote us back in a letter of support and it was really kind of them because they gave me 00:55:25.349 --> 00:55:30.979 - some good talking points about how You know this the where this property is is by Butler Park and white 00:55:30.979 --> 00:55:36.392 - oak cemetery Which has a lot of trees as well as along the beeline. There's a lot of trees But some 00:55:36.392 --> 00:55:42.022 - of those points were that most of the houses in the neighborhood those lots have houses on them So this 00:55:42.022 --> 00:55:42.942 - is just a unique 00:55:43.426 --> 00:55:49.774 - You know just happens to be a lot that doesn't have a house and that you know that is the best use of 00:55:49.774 --> 00:55:56.123 - that lot is to have a house on it. So unfortunately to put the house you have to remove the trees and 00:55:56.123 --> 00:56:02.595 - you know having you know when you build a house that increases the property values of the houses around 00:56:02.595 --> 00:56:09.566 - it. So it is a good thing. So the homes adjacent would increase in value and the neighborhood in itself to have 00:56:09.666 --> 00:56:16.079 - All homes on the lot. So really the best use of this lot is with a home and unfortunately, there's just 00:56:16.079 --> 00:56:22.431 - not room for the home and those trees We do have plans to put in shrubs and plants and practical trees 00:56:22.431 --> 00:56:28.721 - when we build and we do plan on Building we've got to sell a house before we can build but we when we 00:56:28.721 --> 00:56:35.319 - build we will have a landscaping plan and Sandro is very good at that. We like we definitely like greenery 00:56:35.319 --> 00:56:37.662 - and it won't be just grass it will be 00:56:37.986 --> 00:56:50.827 - plants and trees and shrubs that I think that's all you need to do. That's all I need to say. Go ahead. 00:56:50.827 --> 00:57:03.421 - Yeah I don't have anything to add so I'm open to your questions. Thank you so much. Right. We're back 00:57:03.421 --> 00:57:06.878 - to the board for questions. 00:57:21.954 --> 00:57:37.067 - Any questions. Can you speak up. Yeah. Just a quick question for Seth remind me how many trees are on 00:57:37.067 --> 00:57:40.030 - the lot originally. 00:57:41.218 --> 00:57:49.853 - So it wasn't necessarily I can look and see if we have that information in terms of a number you know 00:57:49.853 --> 00:57:52.478 - the way that we approach these 00:57:52.706 --> 00:57:59.095 - Situation is you know what here is the canopy coverage, you know is a certain square footage And then 00:57:59.095 --> 00:58:05.484 - you know when we look at a remediation plan We generally approach it as a large canopy tree will have 00:58:05.484 --> 00:58:11.810 - a coverage requirement of X amount You know, it's around 250 square feet ish So when we look at what 00:58:11.810 --> 00:58:17.886 - was required to be saved, you know the 80% you know that was a certain square footage number and 00:58:18.018 --> 00:58:26.044 - And then you know the planting of those nine trees would accomplish that 80% number that square footage 00:58:26.044 --> 00:58:33.992 - number Yeah, I think that it's probably pretty close to that nine number so I Guess when I was looking 00:58:33.992 --> 00:58:41.709 - at I went by the property and when I look at this and it strikes me This comes up a lot in front of 00:58:41.709 --> 00:58:47.806 - us There's peculiar areas about this that we should talk about but what I find 00:58:47.938 --> 00:58:59.945 - a bit frustrating Is that we place zoning? On properties That allow they have permitted uses Yet the 00:58:59.945 --> 00:59:11.833 - conditions of those properties When you try and do what's a permitted use kicks in a whole bunch of 00:59:11.833 --> 00:59:15.518 - other issues because there are 00:59:15.906 --> 00:59:24.192 - Long-established kind of canopies which I totally get I'm not against canopy trees. Don't get me wrong 00:59:24.192 --> 00:59:32.961 - But it just seems like we create a condition for conflict that You know puts us in these kinds of situations 00:59:32.961 --> 00:59:41.086 - where You know, I mean we had this with a request a couple months ago on Cottage Grove permitted use 00:59:41.410 --> 00:59:48.316 - There's an old tree there. It has a zoning but then all of a sudden now, you know, you have to get variances 00:59:48.316 --> 00:59:54.969 - and go through a bunch of hoops because You know There are trees which are great. No one's against trees 00:59:54.969 --> 01:00:01.368 - but it's just you know, it just seems a bit frustrating that If we zone thing it's same thing on the 01:00:01.368 --> 01:00:03.966 - north side of town. I mean you got a big 01:00:04.450 --> 01:00:11.465 - The project off north done. I mean, it's a big piece of land. It's got trees on it But we zone it for 01:00:11.465 --> 01:00:18.481 - a particular use and then when the property owner Comes forward with a plan to make an investment and 01:00:18.481 --> 01:00:25.496 - do what is permitted all of a sudden we have conflict because of the natural condition of the land so 01:00:25.496 --> 01:00:32.030 - I'm that's more of a comment than a question, but I guess the question for the petitioner is I 01:00:33.954 --> 01:00:41.631 - Is there a opposition to, you know, doing a landscape plan that's consistent with the code? No, there's 01:00:41.631 --> 01:00:49.309 - no opposition. We just haven't gotten that far in our house planning process, but we would be more than 01:00:49.309 --> 01:00:56.764 - happy to accommodate the number of trees necessary to put them back. You know how they work with the 01:00:56.764 --> 01:00:59.422 - structures we plan to put in place. 01:01:06.850 --> 01:01:15.137 - I have a question for staff. Actually are you done John. Yeah. Sorry could I add something to that one. 01:01:15.137 --> 01:01:23.106 - If we ask a question you you may proceed. So my question is for staff. So the trees are gone. If we 01:01:23.106 --> 01:01:31.233 - deny this is there going to be any penalty to them. I mean they're going to build. So when they build 01:01:31.233 --> 01:01:36.094 - they're going to be required to put trees in there. Correct. 01:01:36.930 --> 01:01:44.317 - There is a current notice of violation now How that gets resolved is you know, there is a remedial so 01:01:44.317 --> 01:01:51.921 - if you deny this and they have to plant in the trees the nine trees that were are required to Accomplish 01:01:51.921 --> 01:01:59.597 - that canopy requirement. So if they don't do that, then it's just you know per the enforcement procedures 01:01:59.597 --> 01:02:05.246 - outlined in the UDO of fines that until they get to a state of compliance and 01:02:05.570 --> 01:02:13.729 - Okay. So if we approve it then can we put a condition that they have they have to have a site a landscape 01:02:13.729 --> 01:02:21.503 - plan approved by the city that fulfill. Yes. So obviously with an approval you can put conditions on 01:02:21.503 --> 01:02:29.354 - that and you can word those conditions accordingly. You know what I would suggest is rather than just 01:02:29.354 --> 01:02:35.358 - a broad landscape plan you be specific in some regard of you know a minimum X 01:02:35.490 --> 01:02:43.939 - Trees or shrubs or something, you know something to give a definitive plan to review something to And 01:02:43.939 --> 01:02:52.802 - again obviously with the findings that are in the staff report you'll need to propose alternative findings 01:02:52.802 --> 01:03:01.168 - for the three criteria Correct. Can I ask a clarifying question though? I mean we're not being asked 01:03:01.168 --> 01:03:05.310 - if I Mean what are we actually being asked to do? 01:03:06.818 --> 01:03:17.774 - So they are they're asking for a variance, which we don't really want to do. But we're responding to 01:03:17.774 --> 01:03:29.598 - a notice of violation. So they haven't submitted. Have they submitted a full blown plan for the development? 01:03:30.946 --> 01:03:38.405 - As I mentioned they submitted a conceptual plan for what they intend to do with it. So the petition 01:03:38.405 --> 01:03:46.014 - that is before the board is to install no trees. So the board either you know approves that variance. 01:03:46.178 --> 01:03:54.136 - With alternative findings or you deny that variance per the proposed findings and staffs report You 01:03:54.136 --> 01:04:02.252 - know as I mentioned if you choose to approve it you can condition it if you said should so choose but 01:04:02.252 --> 01:04:10.449 - then also need to propose alternative findings, but if we approve if we adopt the staff recommendation 01:04:10.449 --> 01:04:13.950 - then they just need to file a plan with the 01:04:14.626 --> 01:04:23.595 - Remediation correct. Yes, they would need to give us a plan showing those those nine trees or something 01:04:23.595 --> 01:04:32.564 - that accomplishes that square footage, okay Which I believe they said they were okay with am I correct, 01:04:32.564 --> 01:04:41.360 - okay Well, let's go thinking about how we wouldn't craft such An approval, but meanwhile, let's go to 01:04:41.360 --> 01:04:42.654 - public comment 01:04:45.570 --> 01:04:54.537 - Yes, I don't think we've done public comment. Yes, that's what I'd like to go to public comment Can 01:04:54.537 --> 01:05:03.684 - you state your name please Kari Bennett Hi, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to 01:05:03.684 --> 01:05:11.486 - give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes Go ahead, please 01:05:11.906 --> 01:05:18.697 - My name is Kari Bennett. I am with Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County. I submitted a comment letter 01:05:18.697 --> 01:05:25.357 - which is in the packet for everybody to be able to review. I'm not going to repeat that. I just want 01:05:25.357 --> 01:05:31.951 - to also share that when I first saw this petition for a variance I was interested because I do know 01:05:31.951 --> 01:05:34.654 - that this is one of the very few lots in 01:05:34.754 --> 01:05:42.593 - This neighborhood that does not have a single-family home Habitat happens to own one of the other very 01:05:42.593 --> 01:05:50.203 - few lots that does not have a single-family home and It probably is not surprising to hear that our 01:05:50.203 --> 01:05:58.194 - intention when we bought that lot is to build Single-family home for low-income residents of Bloomington 01:05:58.194 --> 01:06:01.086 - and Monroe County that being the case 01:06:02.530 --> 01:06:10.966 - Thinking very carefully about the role of zoning and the intention of giving by right status to build 01:06:10.966 --> 01:06:19.319 - single family homes and maintain single family homes on certain lots should have some clear meaning. 01:06:19.319 --> 01:06:27.838 - And I encourage you to take that into consideration with this request. Thank you. Thank you very much. 01:06:30.882 --> 01:06:43.851 - We do have one person online Joan you should be able to unmute. Can you state your name please. Joan 01:06:43.851 --> 01:06:50.014 - Mendorf you should be able to unmute and speak. 01:07:08.770 --> 01:07:19.438 - Yeah, I'm not sure we can we can come back if she's able to okay respond All right, we'll go back to 01:07:19.438 --> 01:07:30.000 - our discussion here Yeah, I I Understand what you're saying John because it is a conflict and I and 01:07:30.000 --> 01:07:38.238 - nobody's against trees nobody wants to remove unnecessary trees unnecessarily 01:07:38.338 --> 01:07:49.478 - The issue here I think the the issue was they in even though they apologized it was that they started 01:07:49.478 --> 01:08:00.618 - the process Previous to setting up a whole a whole plan which as an owner of a Lot it's their lot and 01:08:00.618 --> 01:08:04.222 - their right to do it So Go ahead 01:08:04.322 --> 01:08:13.087 - I'm so sorry. It looks like Joan is ready to speak. She's resolved her issues. Go ahead, Joan. Can you 01:08:13.087 --> 01:08:21.597 - state your name, John? John. Yes, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to 01:08:21.597 --> 01:08:28.830 - give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Go ahead, please. 01:09:09.570 --> 01:09:17.278 - Yes, we can hear you. We will discuss that. Do you have anything else to add? 01:09:41.634 --> 01:10:07.550 - Thank you. Do you have anything else. Well thank you for your statement. 01:10:13.922 --> 01:10:27.995 - All right, we're back to the board. And now entertain a motion if you want to make a motion to approve 01:10:27.995 --> 01:10:37.150 - with condition. And remember, we have the three proposed findings. 01:10:45.474 --> 01:10:57.528 - I guess it's a question for the staff when I look at the conceptual I'm trying to envision You know, 01:10:57.528 --> 01:11:11.134 - how would you do nine canopy trees I Mean it looks like you could do some you know trees along the front edge and 01:11:11.938 --> 01:11:22.842 - maybe one or two in the kind of lawn, but then there wouldn't be much line left. I mean, it goes back 01:11:22.842 --> 01:11:33.852 - to my frustration about this where you have a property that historically has a larger number of canopy 01:11:33.852 --> 01:11:39.518 - trees. But if you build anything that meets the code 01:11:40.290 --> 01:11:50.121 - as relates to setbacks, minimum sizes, all those other things, it'd be very difficult to figure out 01:11:50.121 --> 01:11:59.952 - how to do nine canopy trees. I mean, are we saying give up a garage, give up a front porch? I mean, 01:11:59.952 --> 01:12:10.078 - it just seems like if you're trying to do a one-to-one replacement, that just doesn't seem reasonable. 01:12:10.882 --> 01:12:21.983 - If we're trying to encourage people to invest in our city and build housing So, I guess I'll you know 01:12:21.983 --> 01:12:33.410 - like to hear from my my colleagues here, but I'd like to Think about how to properly word a motion here. 01:12:33.410 --> 01:12:40.158 - I agree 100% I'd like to figure out a way to to word a motion 01:12:40.418 --> 01:12:53.604 - We can help these owners for Getting to their plans and getting more housing built I realize it's coming 01:12:53.604 --> 01:13:07.166 - There's fines involved and and what-have-you but what what is the easiest path I Don't know if there is one 01:13:09.282 --> 01:13:20.860 - That's what I'm struggling with right now I Guess what are what are the I mean Because his zone is a 01:13:20.860 --> 01:13:32.437 - multi-use and not a lot zone single-family single-family excuse me single-family and not just like a 01:13:32.437 --> 01:13:38.398 - residential lot Are there differences in the trees? 01:13:39.074 --> 01:13:50.727 - No, the tree preservation requirements are the same in every zoning district. Okay So I would recommend 01:13:50.727 --> 01:14:02.043 - if if we are leaning towards approval that we craft We craft this That we recommend for approval But 01:14:02.043 --> 01:14:08.318 - then we need to have specific findings for one to three 01:14:10.498 --> 01:14:23.054 - Number one, not injurious to the public and health, safe and morals, general welfare because the owner 01:14:23.054 --> 01:14:35.245 - will replace the trees and or vegetation on the property when building with the construction of the 01:14:35.245 --> 01:14:39.390 - home with a site plan approved by 01:14:41.058 --> 01:14:49.446 - a landscape site approved by the city. Number two the owner will remediate the loss of tree canopy so 01:14:49.446 --> 01:14:57.669 - it will not result in adverse impacts in the use of the value of the surrounding properties. Number 01:14:57.669 --> 01:15:06.057 - three the strict application of the term the U.D.O. will not result in practical difficulties. That's 01:15:06.057 --> 01:15:08.606 - the one I need your help here. 01:15:15.234 --> 01:15:24.223 - did is already done. So how do we remedy this. I have a general question for you yourself. So if this 01:15:24.223 --> 01:15:33.124 - was let's say there wasn't a violation there wasn't nine trees knocked down and this was just people 01:15:33.124 --> 01:15:41.937 - coming to build a house on this lot. Would nine trees still be the percentage number or would it be 01:15:41.937 --> 01:15:45.022 - according to the house in the lot. 01:15:45.730 --> 01:15:52.591 - So the preservation requirement would be the same regardless of what somebody regardless of development 01:15:52.591 --> 01:15:59.386 - is the past and what have you Anybody that goes to build on this lot has to put nine canopy trees Yes, 01:15:59.386 --> 01:16:06.246 - yes or or save what was there? I mean we're in the conversation of nine trees because everything's been 01:16:06.246 --> 01:16:07.038 - removed and 01:16:07.298 --> 01:16:16.327 - If everything hadn't been removed and we had come in and had this conversation on the onset Then we 01:16:16.327 --> 01:16:25.718 - would have said oh here are the trees that are on the site now you save these and this gets you to your 01:16:25.718 --> 01:16:34.748 - 80% Maybe that was nine. Maybe it was some other number. It's hard to say And don't forget to craft 01:16:34.748 --> 01:16:36.734 - the condition as well 01:16:38.370 --> 01:16:52.604 - I'd like to ask a question to the petitioner. Oh are you if we work in approval here are you in agreement 01:16:52.604 --> 01:17:05.630 - that you will work with the city to create a landscape plan that will be acceptable at the city. 01:17:06.370 --> 01:17:13.175 - Of course, I'm happy to work with the city and I previously had been working with Phil with utilities 01:17:13.175 --> 01:17:20.046 - because there before when we bought the property there was Water pooling on that southeast corner that 01:17:20.046 --> 01:17:26.984 - was affecting our neighbors to the south. So I wanted to resolve that issue Because it had been ongoing 01:17:26.984 --> 01:17:33.655 - for a long time so he actually dug a trench on the alley there to help with kind of remediate this, 01:17:33.655 --> 01:17:35.390 - you know this pooling and 01:17:35.618 --> 01:17:43.294 - So I'm happy I've been I've been working with the city but Always been thinking about our neighbors, 01:17:43.294 --> 01:17:51.198 - you know that have been affected by this kind of flooding So yeah, my wife and I are happy to work with 01:17:51.198 --> 01:17:58.950 - the city Thank you And then I have one last question for staff the the site's aerial imagery and then 01:17:58.950 --> 01:18:01.534 - I can't say that word imagery and 01:18:02.530 --> 01:18:10.204 - That's just using software looking at the lot size and then saying okay the lots this size 80% and looking 01:18:10.204 --> 01:18:17.591 - at imagery from before for what we think the canopies were before Yes, so we we looked at old historic 01:18:17.591 --> 01:18:24.763 - air photos to judge what the canopy coverage was before it was everything was removed and so that's 01:18:24.763 --> 01:18:30.142 - what we use as our baseline to determine what was it was the old house and 01:18:30.338 --> 01:18:41.698 - With that or was it just a plain lot? Give me a second. Let me see how far back Because I would love 01:18:41.698 --> 01:18:53.058 - to see what the old with their yeah, so the old house The old house was was located on the far north 01:18:53.058 --> 01:18:55.870 - side of the property and 01:19:02.594 --> 01:19:25.140 - This one right here is second from the left So is basically in line with the house to the east of it 01:19:25.140 --> 01:19:31.390 - You have any more questions 01:19:32.066 --> 01:19:42.607 - I don't have any more questions. OK. Well thank you very much. We are now going to back to the BZA for 01:19:42.607 --> 01:19:53.147 - a final action. If you have I'll entertain a motion. OK. I'll make a motion. First I want to move that 01:19:53.147 --> 01:19:58.878 - we adopt three replacement findings and I'll read them. 01:19:59.682 --> 01:20:06.044 - I think I copy him and send it to staff. That'd be easier later. But here's my take on number one. The 01:20:06.044 --> 01:20:12.222 - granting of this variance is not expected to be injurious to the public health safety and morals of 01:20:12.222 --> 01:20:18.461 - general welfare of the community because the applicant applicant has committed to a tree replacement 01:20:18.461 --> 01:20:24.144 - plan that maintains canopy coverage on the property. This plan is consistent with the goals 01:20:24.144 --> 01:20:27.294 - of the comprehensive plan and climate action plan. 01:20:27.394 --> 01:20:34.429 - which identify the preservation and expansion of tree coverage as a community priority and demonstrates 01:20:34.429 --> 01:20:41.262 - applicants commitment to advancing those stated goals. Alternative finding two, the approval of this 01:20:41.262 --> 01:20:48.567 - variance will not result in adverse impacts on the use and value of surrounding properties. The applicant's 01:20:48.567 --> 01:20:53.438 - commitment to a tree replacement plan addresses the loss of tree canopy 01:20:53.698 --> 01:20:59.686 - And it's consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies regarding the preservation protection 01:20:59.686 --> 01:21:06.030 - tree canopy coverage Number three the strict application of the terms of the udo would result in practical 01:21:06.030 --> 01:21:12.196 - difficulties in the use of the property This site's constraints are such that accommodating the minimum 01:21:12.196 --> 01:21:18.363 - requirement of nine large canopy trees is not reasonably feasible given the proposed development layout 01:21:18.363 --> 01:21:22.750 - and the requested variance represents the minimum leaf necessary to allow 01:21:22.882 --> 01:21:33.625 - for practical and functional use of the property. So based on those proposed alternative findings, I 01:21:33.625 --> 01:21:44.474 - would recommend that we approve the variance and the proposed alternative findings with the condition 01:21:44.474 --> 01:21:50.430 - that the petitioner develop a specific remediation plan 01:21:50.626 --> 01:22:01.995 - For review and approval by the planning staff second Just from a staff perspective and this is just 01:22:01.995 --> 01:22:13.590 - a merely a suggestion as I mentioned, you know, we would encourage at least a few numbers of trees so 01:22:13.590 --> 01:22:17.342 - that we're not in a situation of 01:22:18.818 --> 01:22:30.212 - Trying to negotiate something it helps to just have a baseline if they want to do more than that, that's 01:22:30.212 --> 01:22:41.173 - that's great But again, it's just simply a suggestion What is the frontage of the lot in feet It was 01:22:41.173 --> 01:22:47.358 - about 7,000 square feet it was the size of it It's about 01:22:52.290 --> 01:23:09.017 - 60 feet wide 60 feet. So how many street trees would that require to the owner's discretion. Right John 01:23:09.017 --> 01:23:22.206 - do you want to add a minimum amount of trees to as a condition as well. I mean I. 01:23:22.850 --> 01:23:34.613 - You know, I understand appreciate what they're saying. I don't feel capable of picking a number So if 01:23:34.613 --> 01:23:46.492 - you want to recommend one I entertain a friendly amendment To sounds completely acceptable But I don't 01:23:46.492 --> 01:23:48.798 - want it to be under 01:24:02.754 --> 01:24:11.733 - What do you think a reasonable number is Flavia? Well, I'd say you have two streets trees you can have 01:24:11.733 --> 01:24:20.799 - one the back one the side maybe four trees Is there a specific width for that tree or height that needs 01:24:20.799 --> 01:24:29.342 - to be So it would usually in these situations we would look for a large interior tree species and 01:24:29.666 --> 01:24:36.352 - So the the UDO has landscaping broken down at least for trees into large medium small Based on their 01:24:36.352 --> 01:24:43.236 - species and what they're expected height will be wet maturity So usually like for remediation plan like 01:24:43.236 --> 01:24:49.856 - this when we were using the term nine trees, it would be a nine large canopy tree species So if the 01:24:49.856 --> 01:24:56.475 - board was looking for specific language, you know a number And then a species would be ideal and it 01:24:56.475 --> 01:24:59.454 - can be whatever is comfortable for the board 01:25:03.554 --> 01:25:19.712 - Minimum of two or three there. Yeah Okay, I would like to entertain a minimum of three Canopy trees 01:25:19.712 --> 01:25:26.014 - species Three large large canopy trees 01:25:33.986 --> 01:25:42.444 - Is that acceptable? Certainly acceptable by staff. I know if Mr. Fernandez wants to amend his do you 01:25:42.444 --> 01:25:50.818 - want to amend your conditions? All right, so we'll go with it. I'm not going to reread the proposal 01:25:50.818 --> 01:26:00.030 - alternative findings, but I will move that we approve the requested variance. Adopt the alternative findings. 01:26:01.282 --> 01:26:16.474 - Add a condition that the petitioner Work with the staff to develop a Remediation plan with a minimum 01:26:16.474 --> 01:26:28.958 - of three large canopy tree included in the plan May I have a second, please second 01:26:30.946 --> 01:26:47.564 - Roll call. Burrell? Yes. Fernandez? Yes. Kucinko? Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. You're welcome. Good 01:26:47.564 --> 01:26:58.590 - luck with the project. All right, now we move on to ZR 2026-03-0011. 01:27:00.514 --> 01:27:08.620 - South Pete Ellis drive Thank you. I'm so this is a request for a property at 250 South Pete Ellis drive 01:27:08.620 --> 01:27:16.414 - the petitioners are coming forward tonight for variance for maximum drive width and maximum parking 01:27:16.414 --> 01:27:24.286 - standards to allow for the site to be redeveloped for a new use for the use vehicle repair minor and 01:27:24.418 --> 01:27:31.968 - In the mixed-use corridor or zoning district. So the property was recently developed or had been developed 01:27:31.968 --> 01:27:39.236 - With a small one-story restaurant for only used as Pizza Hut With a surface parking lot that surrounds 01:27:39.236 --> 01:27:46.503 - it it fronts on Pdell's Drive in his own mixed-use corridor the petitioners are coming forward tonight 01:27:46.503 --> 01:27:53.630 - to request these two variance approvals to redevelop the site with a two-bay oil change facility and 01:27:53.826 --> 01:28:00.644 - So the new site plan would involve one interior drive cut off of the interior Access drive with an exit 01:28:00.644 --> 01:28:07.331 - lane on the Pete Ellis Drive. The building is located on the southeast portion of the site Would have 01:28:07.331 --> 01:28:13.822 - the entrance for the facility off of that interior drive and then the exit on the Pete Ellis Drive 01:28:14.274 --> 01:28:21.712 - So with this request there are two variances that they are seeking one is a variance from the maximum 01:28:21.712 --> 01:28:29.004 - number of parking spaces for an oil change facility the UDO of the for the size and the service bay 01:28:29.004 --> 01:28:33.598 - would allow for three parking spaces not including the ADA and 01:28:33.794 --> 01:28:41.452 - The petitioner based on the expected number of employees For this use is expecting upwards of nine employees 01:28:41.452 --> 01:28:48.549 - At any one given moment for the facility and so they are requesting a variance in order to allow for 01:28:48.549 --> 01:28:55.645 - those proposed nine Spaces the UDO would not count the ADA space So in reality, like I said, they're 01:28:55.645 --> 01:28:58.526 - they're really just asking for the eight 01:28:58.818 --> 01:29:05.333 - That are being shown on the site plan The second variance is from the maximum driveway width that is 01:29:05.333 --> 01:29:11.912 - allowed for a driveway between the building and the street The UDO says that if a driveway is one way 01:29:11.912 --> 01:29:18.427 - That it so the UDO allows for a 24 foot wide drive cut It says that if that driveway is one way that 01:29:18.427 --> 01:29:25.006 - the amount of that width that is allowed is half of that distance so the UDO would only allow for the 01:29:25.006 --> 01:29:27.070 - driveway to be 12 feet wide and 01:29:27.266 --> 01:29:35.463 - Between the building and the street so the petitioners driveway width is shown at 25 feet 8 inches And 01:29:35.463 --> 01:29:40.318 - then tapers down to 12 feet where it enters the street there 01:29:40.418 --> 01:29:46.567 - So with the variance criteria, obviously, as the board is familiar, there are three aspects that we 01:29:46.567 --> 01:29:52.716 - have to make findings for. Certainly the first two, that the variances will not be injurious to the 01:29:52.716 --> 01:29:58.865 - public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Two, that there won't be adverse impacts on the 01:29:58.865 --> 01:30:05.383 - adjacent use and value. And then three, that there is a peculiar condition about a property that presents 01:30:05.383 --> 01:30:07.966 - a practical hardship. So the petitioners, 01:30:08.130 --> 01:30:15.550 - as part of our ongoing conversations to try to evaluate the site and You know, is there a site plan 01:30:15.550 --> 01:30:23.193 - arrangement that would not require the variance? for the driveway with Did show has shown and is shown 01:30:23.193 --> 01:30:30.910 - on the screen in front of you an alternative conceptual site layout plan so this shows the building and 01:30:31.042 --> 01:30:38.879 - Exiting on to the internal access drive Which would not have a drive cut on on PD else drive and therefore 01:30:38.879 --> 01:30:46.204 - not require the variance for that driveway with to exceed the 25 feet between or exceed the 12 feet 01:30:46.204 --> 01:30:54.334 - between the building and street and so with this site plan showing that there is a use of the property for the 01:30:54.946 --> 01:31:01.429 - Drive-through drive-through facility as shown Accommodates all of the needs of the stacking and the 01:31:01.429 --> 01:31:08.495 - two bays You know, it does certainly make it challenging to make findings that there is a peculiar condition 01:31:08.495 --> 01:31:15.627 - or a practical difficulty Because they have shown a site plan that that is compliant certainly we acknowledge 01:31:15.627 --> 01:31:19.646 - that the parking maximums in the UDO do present hardships and 01:31:20.226 --> 01:31:27.308 - Certainly in situations where the number of employees greatly exceeds what the you do might allow However, 01:31:27.308 --> 01:31:34.125 - one of the challenges that we looked at when we evaluated their parking study was certainly evaluating 01:31:34.125 --> 01:31:40.744 - another Similar not even so but a very similar oil change facility owned by the same company. There 01:31:40.744 --> 01:31:47.428 - was actually a three-bay shop over on the west side of town and analyzing parking uses parking needs 01:31:47.428 --> 01:31:50.142 - on that site over aerial photographs for 01:31:50.274 --> 01:31:58.067 - Several years, you know that is a three bay facility And at one and no one time did we find that there 01:31:58.067 --> 01:32:05.633 - was ever more than four or five parking spaces or parking vehicles there So we did find it somewhat 01:32:05.633 --> 01:32:13.350 - challenging to recommend a full approval of the petitioners request To have the the full eight spaces 01:32:13.350 --> 01:32:15.166 - that are being shown so 01:32:15.362 --> 01:32:22.720 - Criteria one we did not find that the driveway would would be injurious The drive will not exceed the 01:32:22.720 --> 01:32:30.150 - maximum width at the street, which is where the injury comes in in terms of Concerns for driveway cuts 01:32:30.150 --> 01:32:37.507 - on public streets for the parking number Up to seven parking spaces, which is SAS recommendation Will 01:32:37.507 --> 01:32:43.134 - not be interest It will allow for spaces to be provided on site that meet the 01:32:43.426 --> 01:32:50.662 - The needs of the the use there is a large surface parking lot immediately to the adjacent Of this building 01:32:50.662 --> 01:32:57.627 - that does allow for any needs for one or two extra spaces to kind of ebb and flow So that availability 01:32:57.627 --> 01:33:04.659 - does kind of offset that but again You know the actual use here based on other locations in Bloomington 01:33:04.659 --> 01:33:12.030 - doesn't demonstrate that there is a full need For all of those spaces that shown So again the parking spaces 01:33:12.130 --> 01:33:18.259 - You know will not substantially affect the use and value and then criteria three in terms of practical 01:33:18.259 --> 01:33:24.268 - difficulty in the peculiar conditions that we are forced to evaluate it on for the driveway with You 01:33:24.268 --> 01:33:30.397 - know, we don't find that there is a peculiar condition that prevents them From meeting the requirement 01:33:30.397 --> 01:33:36.942 - that there is all inherent peculiar condition about this property that presents a hardship in the development 01:33:36.942 --> 01:33:38.846 - of it You know, there is a path 01:33:38.978 --> 01:33:44.286 - There is a site plan that they have shown that does show compliance you know it may not be. 01:33:44.450 --> 01:33:51.244 - Their desired site plan, but it does show compliance Which makes it very challenging to argue that there 01:33:51.244 --> 01:33:57.778 - is a peculiar condition that prevents the property from being used in that way So we are not able to 01:33:57.778 --> 01:34:04.443 - find criteria to support the driveway with We do find criteria to support the parking number certainly 01:34:04.443 --> 01:34:10.654 - based on the petitioners parking study the lack of on-street parking also limits the ability to 01:34:10.978 --> 01:34:17.522 - Have extra parking spaces, but as I mentioned the availability of a large Parking area just adjacent 01:34:17.522 --> 01:34:24.520 - to this does give some opportunity for ebb and flow for one or two spaces You know if there's an occasional 01:34:24.520 --> 01:34:31.193 - need for that So with that we are recommending that the the board adopt the proposed findings and deny 01:34:31.193 --> 01:34:36.830 - the variance request for the driveway with and approve the variance for the parking of 01:34:36.930 --> 01:34:44.681 - allowance with three conditions that this allows for up to Six on-site spaces seven if you include the 01:34:44.681 --> 01:34:52.432 - ADA space And that the the parking allowance variance is for this use and building design as submitted 01:34:52.432 --> 01:35:00.258 - And that the the UDO does require in situations where parking maximums are requested the parking spaces 01:35:00.258 --> 01:35:06.654 - over that maximum must be of a permeable material so that condition is reiterated on 01:35:07.170 --> 01:35:16.204 - condition number three. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions after the petitioner is gone. 01:35:16.204 --> 01:35:25.417 - Thank you Eric and the petitioner move forward please. Jonathan Walker do you swear or affirm that the 01:35:25.417 --> 01:35:35.166 - testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. 01:35:35.522 --> 01:35:41.536 - Thank you for your time. My name is Jonathan Woker. I'm a planner with McBride Dale clarion I do have 01:35:41.536 --> 01:35:47.550 - a slide presentation that I believe mr. Gullick's gonna pull up. So I'll kind of walk you through our 01:35:47.550 --> 01:35:53.446 - responses to this And I know I have limited time so I'm gonna try and read from my script so that I 01:35:53.446 --> 01:35:59.343 - can I can stay on target so Valvoline has an agreement to redevelop this property at 250 South Pete 01:35:59.343 --> 01:36:00.286 - Ellis Drive and 01:36:00.674 --> 01:36:07.475 - This is existing vacant restaurant. The property is rather small. It's a zero point five four acres 01:36:07.475 --> 01:36:14.345 - We are proposing a two-bay Valvoline instant oil change facility that building will be fourteen that 01:36:14.345 --> 01:36:21.214 - fourteen hundred sixty two square feet with two service bays and here's my slide presentation and so 01:36:21.602 --> 01:36:27.576 - It's in the MC district. This is a permitted use in the district. We are requesting two variances. One 01:36:27.576 --> 01:36:33.435 - relates to the number of parking spaces and one relates to our exit driveway that goes to Pete Ellis 01:36:33.435 --> 01:36:39.351 - Drive. So if you could go to the next slide. So this is an aerial of the site. I think it's useful to 01:36:39.351 --> 01:36:45.326 - see where this is in relation to the shopping center. There's a goodwill and all these directly to our 01:36:45.326 --> 01:36:50.430 - north and then just as south it's a little hard to see on this slide is the McDonald's. 01:36:50.562 --> 01:36:57.139 - I think it gives some context of the pavement and circulation. And I'd also point out directly north 01:36:57.139 --> 01:37:03.782 - of our site is where the Goodwill has their drop off donation area off of that shopping center drive. 01:37:03.782 --> 01:37:10.424 - If you go to the next slide please. So this is our site plan. We have an entrance that will be on the 01:37:10.424 --> 01:37:17.132 - north of the site and that will come off of the shopping center drive. The entrance drive is generally 01:37:17.132 --> 01:37:20.062 - in the same location as where the restaurant 01:37:20.194 --> 01:37:28.114 - driveway was located the exit drive will be on Pete Ellis Drive that is also in the same general location 01:37:28.114 --> 01:37:35.735 - where the Pizza Hut driveway would be However, we are reducing that driveway from about 35 feet today 01:37:35.735 --> 01:37:43.281 - down to 12 feet So the exit drive is on the east side But we will be reducing the pavement once as I 01:37:43.281 --> 01:37:46.718 - mentioned if I go to the next slide, please I 01:37:47.906 --> 01:37:54.565 - We've intentionally tried to, this is a closer zoom in of that. We've intentionally tried to locate 01:37:54.565 --> 01:38:01.491 - our driveway in the existing locations and as far from the shopping center intersection with Pete Ellis 01:38:01.491 --> 01:38:08.150 - as possible. Customers will enter the site from the shopping center drive and then the west side of 01:38:08.150 --> 01:38:15.275 - the store. Customers stay in their vehicle when they're being serviced. And so they would then be directed 01:38:15.275 --> 01:38:17.406 - into the bays by our employees, 01:38:17.698 --> 01:38:24.920 - And they would also be directed out of the bays after the service is completed. And then as shown on 01:38:24.920 --> 01:38:32.357 - this plan, the exit is on the east side of the site. We're showing eight parking spaces plus accessible 01:38:32.357 --> 01:38:38.078 - space. We have we meet the pervious pavement for those additional spaces. So we 01:38:38.210 --> 01:38:44.732 - Would agree to do that as recommended by staff. We've added bike racks and additional pedestrian access 01:38:44.732 --> 01:38:51.066 - to the site We're also adding a sidewalk on the north side currently that Former Pizza Hut is almost 01:38:51.066 --> 01:38:57.589 - right on our northern property line very close to that shopping center driveway So this plan that we've 01:38:57.589 --> 01:39:04.299 - prepared Exceeds the landscape coverage and has less than the maximum impervious surface area requirements 01:39:04.299 --> 01:39:08.062 - And we believe this is a good plan. We think that this plan 01:39:08.162 --> 01:39:13.847 - screens are stacking and our dumpster location by putting it behind the building and That it has good 01:39:13.847 --> 01:39:19.532 - circulation and we've also have our parking behind the building line as well We've worked pretty hard 01:39:19.532 --> 01:39:25.328 - to meet all those the city code requirements with the two exceptions. We're asking for If we could show 01:39:25.328 --> 01:39:30.957 - the next slide, please. So this is our building elevations I know that's not before you tonight, but 01:39:30.957 --> 01:39:35.806 - we've designed this proposed new store to meet your city requirements for architecture 01:39:36.994 --> 01:39:44.316 - Next slide please. So we are asking for two variances. I'd like to start with talking about the parking 01:39:44.316 --> 01:39:51.638 - variance. We're asking to allow five additional parking spaces. So a total of eight plus the accessible 01:39:51.638 --> 01:39:58.820 - nine spaces but the accessible is not counted. So we're asking for five additional parking spaces and 01:39:58.820 --> 01:40:05.438 - the UDO establishes that there's a maximum of three and that's based on sales floor area plus 01:40:05.794 --> 01:40:12.918 - One space per service bay, but in reality we have up to four employees per bay And so our customers 01:40:12.918 --> 01:40:20.683 - stay in the vehicle, but then there's multiple employees that are working on the vehicle including providing 01:40:20.683 --> 01:40:27.950 - work in the basement so Unfortunately in this situation, I think we found that the UDA standards just 01:40:27.950 --> 01:40:33.150 - are lower than that actual requirements for this site next slide, please 01:40:33.890 --> 01:40:42.223 - This is our parking study that we provided to the city staff. And what this shows is the number of employees 01:40:42.223 --> 01:40:49.944 - that will be on site by day and by hour. And so this data is based on regional information including 01:40:49.944 --> 01:40:57.818 - stores in Indiana. And what you'll see is that will there will be times where we will have up to eight 01:40:57.818 --> 01:40:59.806 - employees on site. And so 01:41:00.002 --> 01:41:06.232 - three to five hours of each day will have eight employees. So those are those numbers highlighted in 01:41:06.232 --> 01:41:12.647 - yellow and the company designs these sites so that we have enough parking for our employees. So we have 01:41:12.647 --> 01:41:18.877 - concerns about accepting a level of parking that would not meet the number of employees we expect to 01:41:18.877 --> 01:41:21.406 - have. I can go to the next slide please. 01:41:22.818 --> 01:41:29.170 - So we are proposing a parking spaces fewer spaces would not meet the projected employee parking needs 01:41:29.170 --> 01:41:35.460 - based on Valvoline's experience We don't want to build more parking than is needed and that's why we 01:41:35.460 --> 01:41:42.123 - don't have customer parking because our customers are in their vehicles Staff has described some scenarios 01:41:42.123 --> 01:41:48.911 - in the staff report about employees that could walk or bike or ride share to the our business our experience 01:41:48.911 --> 01:41:51.838 - is that our employees are their car people and 01:41:52.034 --> 01:41:58.513 - that they like to drive cars and they like to work on cars and That's why we're proposing enough parking 01:41:58.513 --> 01:42:04.683 - spaces for the demand for parking that we expect we believe that the parking data supports the need 01:42:04.683 --> 01:42:10.914 - for eight spaces and that providing fewer spaces would cause a problem we would end up with a couple 01:42:10.914 --> 01:42:17.516 - of employees that don't have a place to park and we don't have a shared parking agreement with the center, 01:42:17.516 --> 01:42:20.478 - you know where this is an individual parcel, so 01:42:20.930 --> 01:42:28.113 - Last next slide, please We believe that the variance will not be injurious to the public We have designed 01:42:28.113 --> 01:42:35.365 - the site to have landscaping and less hard surface area than the udo requires We believe that the proposed 01:42:35.365 --> 01:42:42.277 - number of parking spaces and amount of pavement Will not result in excess hard surface increased heat 01:42:42.277 --> 01:42:49.189 - or substantially impact our neighbors a property as was suggested by staff This site currently has 31 01:42:49.189 --> 01:42:50.206 - parking spaces 01:42:50.306 --> 01:42:57.176 - We are reducing the amount of impervious surface substantially. We propose to reduce pavement, increase 01:42:57.176 --> 01:43:03.915 - landscaping, and will improve stormwater management. So we believe that we believe that not approving 01:43:03.915 --> 01:43:10.521 - the variance for eight spaces would negatively impact our neighbors. We would then end up putting a 01:43:10.521 --> 01:43:15.806 - parking issue on them because we're not providing the number of spaces we need. 01:43:16.002 --> 01:43:23.330 - Regarding the South Liberty site that was discussed Valvoline started operating that facility in 2024 01:43:23.330 --> 01:43:30.730 - so information prior to that was not operated by Valvoline and my understanding is that Valvoline does 01:43:30.730 --> 01:43:37.986 - not have access to the gravel parking that was discussed in the staff report and they have indicated 01:43:37.986 --> 01:43:43.230 - that they do have parking shortages during peak times so we believe that 01:43:43.394 --> 01:43:51.194 - 60 spaces as recommended by staff for the proposed Pete Ellis location Will be insufficient and we are 01:43:51.194 --> 01:43:58.919 - requesting approval of the variance to allow eight parking spaces For this location so kind of covers 01:43:58.919 --> 01:44:06.568 - the parking issue if I can go to the next slide and talk about the driveway width I hope you can see 01:44:06.568 --> 01:44:12.702 - that graphic on on full screen there. This second variance is a request to alter 01:44:12.834 --> 01:44:19.768 - To allow an increase in the driveway pavement width for a one-way drive in the front yard This is a 01:44:19.768 --> 01:44:26.909 - unique variance to me. I've not come across the standard and other codes but your UDO limits a one-way 01:44:26.909 --> 01:44:33.843 - driveway in the front yard to 12 feet and Because we have two bays we need to be able to allow both 01:44:33.843 --> 01:44:40.846 - You know both bays to pull out and then we've tapered our driveway down to 12 feet as soon as we can 01:44:40.846 --> 01:44:42.718 - and so the result would be 01:44:42.882 --> 01:44:50.126 - Very small area as highlighted in red that would be wider than 12 feet and for a very short distance 01:44:50.126 --> 01:44:57.513 - We believe that we are requesting the minimum variance that is necessary If the driveway were two-way, 01:44:57.513 --> 01:45:04.828 - it could be 24 feet. But since it's one way it's limited to 12 feet and as I mentioned before Exiting 01:45:04.828 --> 01:45:12.574 - vehicles are guided out by the employees so they make sure that they're clearing the bay space and and they 01:45:12.738 --> 01:45:19.304 - Direct the vehicles out. So we are confident that there won't be any congestion there. We've designed 01:45:19.304 --> 01:45:25.742 - the site So that our drive is as narrow as possible. And again, we're reducing an existing driveway 01:45:25.742 --> 01:45:32.566 - location That's currently 35 feet down to 12 We believe that approval of the variance will not negatively 01:45:32.566 --> 01:45:39.390 - impact public or the use or value of our adjacent property neighbors if we could go to the next slide and 01:45:40.322 --> 01:45:47.785 - This is an overlay of that plan, and I think what you'll see on this slide is that we're surrounded 01:45:47.785 --> 01:45:55.621 - by commercial uses. Many of our neighbors have pavement in their front yard and that their drives exceed 01:45:55.621 --> 01:46:03.233 - 12 feet in the front yard, and we believe approval of the variance will not have a negative impact on 01:46:03.233 --> 01:46:08.382 - the care of the area. Next slide, please. So at the urging of staff, 01:46:08.866 --> 01:46:15.516 - an alternate plan that would try and demonstrate our practical difficulties and frankly we just have 01:46:15.516 --> 01:46:22.298 - a difference of opinion. We think that this plan does demonstrate practical difficulties and primarily 01:46:22.298 --> 01:46:28.949 - that is because our driveway would need to be located very close to the intersection with Pete Ellis 01:46:28.949 --> 01:46:36.126 - of this shopping center driveway. That driveway is rather congested and we think that's an unsafe situation. 01:46:36.258 --> 01:46:43.718 - As shown on this slide, this is one alternate so we have not redesigned our full site and as a matter 01:46:43.718 --> 01:46:51.470 - of fact We know that with this change we would be asking for another variance So this change would result 01:46:51.470 --> 01:46:59.002 - in an increase in impervious surface area. So we would basically be swapping driveway width of 12 feet 01:46:59.002 --> 01:47:04.926 - for an increase in our impervious surface which I think also gets coupled with a 01:47:05.538 --> 01:47:13.625 - Decrease in landscaping so this plan doesn't Come in with no issues. We think that again, there's Safety 01:47:13.625 --> 01:47:21.405 - concerns because vehicles stack past this proposed driveway location. It'd be very difficult to Exit 01:47:21.405 --> 01:47:29.184 - and go to the north from this location and we think placing the driveway and its current position on 01:47:29.184 --> 01:47:32.958 - Pete Ellis Drive is the correct thing to do also 01:47:33.090 --> 01:47:40.144 - This plan is inferior because it then emphasizes the stacking for the site. What you're doing is now 01:47:40.144 --> 01:47:47.267 - putting the stacking prominent and in front or you know visible from the street which in the proposed 01:47:47.267 --> 01:47:54.320 - plan is hidden. It also makes our dumpster location much more prominent. So we see many deficiencies 01:47:54.320 --> 01:48:01.374 - in this plan and we believe that there is practical difficulty that's demonstrated by this alternate 01:48:01.890 --> 01:48:09.234 - The shopping center existed before this property was developed. That's a condition we can't control 01:48:09.234 --> 01:48:16.724 - and the access to it and it's a congested area with that goodwill service area. So if I can go to the 01:48:16.724 --> 01:48:24.215 - next slide please and I can go back when I'm sorry I'll go as fast as I can. Also with this layout we 01:48:24.215 --> 01:48:29.502 - think we're going to cause pedestrian conflicts. We think that with the 01:48:29.794 --> 01:48:36.679 - amount of activity at the shopping center and our cars coming out with the new sidewalk we're putting 01:48:36.679 --> 01:48:43.766 - in. We just think it's a bad design and not appropriate for what we're proposing to do. Thank you. We'll 01:48:43.766 --> 01:48:50.515 - go to the next slide, please. So this is the proposed plan. Again, we think that it's a good design 01:48:50.515 --> 01:48:57.603 - and that the alternative is inferior for many reasons. We believe the proposed plan screens the stacking 01:48:57.603 --> 01:48:58.750 - and the dumpster 01:48:59.138 --> 01:49:06.904 - Keeps our building facing the street as opposed to being turned provides the landscaping and pavement 01:49:06.904 --> 01:49:14.746 - that is required and is better and safer in many ways I'll go to the next slide, please So this is our 01:49:14.746 --> 01:49:22.664 - over end plan if we need to reference that and then the next couple slides if you could do that so I've 01:49:22.664 --> 01:49:26.014 - provided our alternate findings of fact and 01:49:26.466 --> 01:49:33.066 - Knowing that staff had recommended denial these are in your packet I believe but we generally agree 01:49:33.066 --> 01:49:39.732 - with the findings of number one and number two and then we've provided written description of how we 01:49:39.732 --> 01:49:46.398 - feel we meet practical difficulty and that primarily has to do with the existing shopping center and 01:49:46.562 --> 01:49:52.403 - inferior alternatives that the Revised plan would provide so we would ask that you approve the variance 01:49:52.403 --> 01:49:58.524 - for eight parking so that we can meet the parking demands that we know we're going to have for our employees 01:49:58.524 --> 01:50:04.478 - and We ask that you approve the driveway width to allow it to be more than 12 feet For the short distance 01:50:04.478 --> 01:50:10.094 - and length that we're proposing Thank you for your time. I know you've got hard work to do and so I 01:50:10.094 --> 01:50:12.958 - will try and answer questions if you have them and 01:50:16.706 --> 01:50:24.958 - Yes, we have several questions Are you using the existing turnout on the Pete Ellis? I'm sorry say that 01:50:24.958 --> 01:50:32.972 - again. Are you using the existing turnout on a Pete Ellis? Yes, and we are making that So your whole 01:50:32.972 --> 01:50:36.542 - design is based off of that existing turnout 01:50:37.794 --> 01:50:44.554 - Both existing driveways the one on the shopping center and the one on Pete Ellis. Okay, we're making 01:50:44.554 --> 01:50:51.313 - that one 30 from 35 feet down to 12 feet So you're not moving it the building's not bigger. It's the 01:50:51.313 --> 01:50:58.140 - same exact width The driveway locations are the same The driveway locations are the same our building 01:50:58.140 --> 01:51:05.502 - is smaller than the existing building, okay But we will have more more landscaping and less pavement by a lot 01:51:08.578 --> 01:51:15.209 - I do have the property owner here if we still have some time but I'll let him speak as well if that's 01:51:15.209 --> 01:51:21.711 - appropriate. How are we doing on time there. Eric I think we had about six minutes left six minutes 01:51:21.711 --> 01:51:28.212 - left. You can use it now or you can defer to use it later. I can come back to you. No I think we'll 01:51:28.212 --> 01:51:32.958 - use it. We'll use it now. He's promised me to be brief. Okay. Thank you. 01:52:07.746 --> 01:52:14.662 - Your name, please Dave Kamen Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be 01:52:14.662 --> 01:52:21.578 - the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, okay. Proceed you have six minutes. Okay, 01:52:21.578 --> 01:52:28.770 - I Have you the sheet passed out but I want to read it to you the practical difficulties when the former 01:52:28.770 --> 01:52:34.718 - pizza was built more than 40 years ago the adjacent shopping center was not there and 01:52:35.458 --> 01:52:42.432 - The North Shopping Center driveway is now very busy and often congested, and the alternative exit way 01:52:42.432 --> 01:52:49.406 - to the northeast corner of the property will make it very difficult to make a left turn and difficult 01:52:49.406 --> 01:52:56.449 - to make a right turn when cars are stacked up trying to get onto P. Dallas Drive while pedestrians and 01:52:56.449 --> 01:53:03.492 - bicycles quickly appear at the corner sidewalk areas and in the driveway itself to get to the Goodwill 01:53:03.492 --> 01:53:05.406 - entrance and drop-off area. 01:53:06.178 --> 01:53:13.849 - If you have been there since the Aldi's and the more recent Goodwill store open, you'll know exactly 01:53:13.849 --> 01:53:21.519 - what I mean. The engineers and Vavilene staff stated that the alternative driveway exit to the north 01:53:21.519 --> 01:53:29.342 - shopping center drive is simply not safe enough for their customers. This has been a small retail site 01:53:29.342 --> 01:53:35.038 - from the beginning and it's difficult to make an alternative exit way work 01:53:35.234 --> 01:53:44.295 - because of its small footprint. It's worthy to note that the alternative driveway exit creates the need 01:53:44.295 --> 01:53:53.095 - for additional variances, including landscape and much more paving. Vavilene has worked very hard to 01:53:53.095 --> 01:54:02.069 - comply with the requirements of the UDO, and they indeed comply 98.5% of the way, lacking only a short 01:54:02.069 --> 01:54:03.550 - stretch of drive 01:54:03.810 --> 01:54:11.732 - Driveway exiting the building but then tapering to the permitted 12-foot Exit on to Pete Ellis Drive, 01:54:11.732 --> 01:54:19.499 - which is the reason I have this variance rated as 1 half percent because the driveway terminates in 01:54:19.499 --> 01:54:27.266 - compliance The other 1% of the way is in regards to parking Valvoline knows the number of employees 01:54:27.266 --> 01:54:33.790 - necessary to run their business There was no customer parking. So trying to compare 01:54:34.018 --> 01:54:41.531 - The parking needs of their facility on Liberty Drive is quite different than this busy retail corridor 01:54:41.531 --> 01:54:48.898 - while I agree with staff that in that an employee could occasionally use an alternative like walking 01:54:48.898 --> 01:54:56.266 - a bicycle or public transportation to arrive at work I would suggest that at times that won't be the 01:54:56.266 --> 01:55:02.174 - case and the parking will be insufficient the proposed parking plan eliminates a 01:55:02.370 --> 01:55:11.808 - over two-thirds of the existing parking. As you can see, Vavilene has shown great respect for the process 01:55:11.808 --> 01:55:20.712 - while meeting almost all the requirements of the UDO. Mayor Fernandez, Leslie Kudzinski, and Flavia 01:55:20.712 --> 01:55:29.972 - Burrell, I need your help. I need you to vote to transform this old abandoned pizza site into a vibrant 01:55:29.972 --> 01:55:31.486 - retail location. 01:55:32.354 --> 01:55:39.574 - Thank you for your time. And I want to go off script for just one second. Eric mentioned that we somehow 01:55:39.574 --> 01:55:46.519 - have the right to park on the neighbors adjoining lots, but we don't. There is no easement there. So 01:55:46.519 --> 01:55:53.533 - I wanted to get that out of the way. I think Jonathan mentioned that. And the other thing that I want 01:55:53.533 --> 01:56:00.478 - to go off script with, earlier today I spoke for the first time to David Hiddle, who's sitting here. 01:56:00.834 --> 01:56:08.022 - He asked me, why didn't I bring up about the practical difficulty of the Pizza Hut predating by many 01:56:08.022 --> 01:56:15.280 - years the shopping center? He said, why didn't I bring that up to Eric before the meeting? I said, he 01:56:15.280 --> 01:56:22.895 - never asked me. That's the reason I didn't bring it up, but now I am bringing it up, okay? So that created 01:56:22.895 --> 01:56:28.446 - the approvals to build the shopping center and the more recent Goodwill store 01:56:29.090 --> 01:56:38.464 - that got rid of a lot of parking for their donation drop-off, you got conflicts there, and you got incredible 01:56:38.464 --> 01:56:46.987 - amount of people crossing that driveway at that corner. So I also prepared, right here in the plan, 01:56:46.987 --> 01:56:55.594 - showing you the safety process, the district's traffic pass, take home right turn from the west side 01:56:55.594 --> 01:56:56.702 - of the shore 01:56:57.346 --> 01:57:04.553 - additional parking variances needed for paving, landscape, and it impacts parking and delivery. The 01:57:04.553 --> 01:57:12.264 - Practical Denver Depth Company just went over, but that the pizza was there many years before the Shopping 01:57:12.264 --> 01:57:19.615 - Center. The Shopping Center was approved and created what we have today. And the last thing I want to 01:57:19.615 --> 01:57:26.750 - point out about Practical Denver Depth Company is the small blood size compared to the neighboring 01:57:28.706 --> 01:57:42.971 - Thank you, and if you have any questions, I hope I didn't go over my time. Thank you. Do we still have 01:57:42.971 --> 01:57:57.374 - any time left, Eric? Thirty-five seconds. Thirty-five seconds, okay. Well, you can save that for later. 01:57:58.562 --> 01:58:09.750 - All right. OK, so now that we have the petitioner's presentation, let's go back to questions for staff 01:58:09.750 --> 01:58:20.721 - and the petitioner, if you have any. This is for the board. I have one question. I have one question 01:58:20.721 --> 01:58:28.542 - for the staff. So if I bought the building and it didn't change of use, 01:58:29.922 --> 01:58:37.421 - I wouldn't have to change much what I would Know it's been empty for more than a year. So anything that 01:58:37.421 --> 01:58:45.209 - goes in there is a change in use So we'd have to come into compliance with the limited compliance standards 01:58:45.209 --> 01:58:52.708 - since this is a new construction. It's a full compliance I'm not sure I maybe I didn't ask the question 01:58:52.708 --> 01:58:59.774 - properly So if I did anything other than a pizza hut, I'd have to bring the entire property up to 01:59:00.514 --> 01:59:06.907 - the current UDO Even a pizza either even another restaurant because it's sat empty for more than a year 01:59:06.907 --> 01:59:13.239 - The UDO that says anything that comes in there has to come into compliance with the limited compliance 01:59:13.239 --> 01:59:19.448 - standards So that means that certain things can remain But as I mentioned with this one, it's a full 01:59:19.448 --> 01:59:25.657 - compliance because they're tearing everything down and starting from scratch And so they've you know 01:59:25.657 --> 01:59:30.206 - removed any constraints that may have been there from previous structures 01:59:37.378 --> 02:00:03.038 - No questions. No questions. Well let's open up for public comment. Can you state your name. 02:00:03.842 --> 02:00:10.476 - Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and 02:00:10.476 --> 02:00:17.044 - nothing but the truth? Absolutely Well, I am sorry, I think the put it petitioners done a wonderful 02:00:17.044 --> 02:00:23.874 - job I think this is a very unusual site for the size of it and It's very small for them to get anything 02:00:23.874 --> 02:00:30.573 - in Bloomington on a lot that size I commend you guys with only a couple of variances So I am in favor 02:00:30.573 --> 02:00:33.726 - of the petition. I think they demonstrated that 02:00:34.018 --> 02:00:40.744 - You know, the neighboring property affects their property, which is kind of a little bit unfair. And 02:00:40.744 --> 02:00:47.402 - to your question a while ago, John, is what if they would have took and built onto that and made it 02:00:47.402 --> 02:00:54.261 - an oil change and then kept everything the same and had all the payment and had zero landscaping? This 02:00:54.261 --> 02:01:01.053 - is good for the community. One thing they didn't bring up, I want to look at this and show you, is if 02:01:01.053 --> 02:01:02.718 - you can place a few cars 02:01:04.386 --> 02:01:33.534 - So anyway, I think they've done well with a few amount of variances they've done. 02:01:34.114 --> 02:01:39.845 - I think you handled the last Petition very well. I really appreciate that and I have nothing in that 02:01:39.845 --> 02:01:45.860 - and I want to thank each and every one of you I've talked to you all personally before and after meetings 02:01:45.860 --> 02:01:52.158 - and You do a great job and good service to the community. So I want to thank you for that. Thank you Thank you 02:02:13.218 --> 02:02:20.141 - Can you state your name, please? Brian waltz Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about 02:02:20.141 --> 02:02:27.134 - to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do Go ahead, please My name is 02:02:27.134 --> 02:02:34.196 - Brian waltz and I am currently employed by Crider and Crider here in town and we do a lot of projects 02:02:34.196 --> 02:02:38.142 - with mr. Kamen so he was aware of the fact that prior to 02:02:38.498 --> 02:02:46.419 - Being employed at Carter and Crider. I was a partner in an engineering firm and I am a licensed professional 02:02:46.419 --> 02:02:53.832 - engineer and Have done site planning for 35 years. So he asked me to take a look at the site plan See 02:02:53.832 --> 02:03:01.390 - what I thought give my thoughts. So I would agree that the original plan In my opinion, my professional 02:03:01.390 --> 02:03:07.422 - opinion is is a reasonable efficient layout of the site And would believe that the 02:03:07.778 --> 02:03:16.810 - variances requested are reasonable and also that the alternative plan has serious problems particularly 02:03:16.810 --> 02:03:25.494 - from a safety and traffic flow of the exit coming from the two bays you're right exiting right into 02:03:25.494 --> 02:03:34.266 - the queuing of the traffic exiting onto Pete Ellis and don't believe that's a reasonable alternative 02:03:34.266 --> 02:03:35.742 - for the site but 02:03:36.322 --> 02:03:48.870 - Like I said the original plan seems to work well. I don't think it's there's any thing unreasonable 02:03:48.870 --> 02:04:01.543 - about it and would encourage you to approve the variance. Thank you. Can you state your name please. 02:04:01.543 --> 02:04:05.182 - Dave Harstad H.A.R. S.T.A.D. 02:04:06.562 --> 02:04:12.508 - Do you swear or affirm that the testimony we're about to give will be the truth and the whole truth 02:04:12.508 --> 02:04:18.572 - and nothing but the truth I do. Thank you. Go ahead. All right. I'll try to be brief. My name is Dave 02:04:18.572 --> 02:04:24.518 - Harstead I am a local real estate broker here in town commercial real estate broker It's done a lot 02:04:24.518 --> 02:04:30.702 - of work in this trade area in the west side where the other Newly Branded Valvoline is on Liberty Drive 02:04:30.702 --> 02:04:36.350 - I've also in a past life been a land developer and spent a lot of time working with site civil 02:04:36.482 --> 02:04:44.356 - and layout and design issues. And so I am very supportive of the site plan as drawn. I can only imagine 02:04:44.356 --> 02:04:52.155 - the amount of work that went into getting it down to two variances. Very, very difficult site. So what 02:04:52.155 --> 02:04:59.802 - is the hardship that you have to deal with? Number one, it's a teeny tiny site. Number two, you have 02:04:59.802 --> 02:05:06.238 - to deal with the existing access points, curb cuts, sidewalks, et cetera, conflicts. 02:05:06.690 --> 02:05:15.123 - Very difficult to do I can only imagine all the thought that went into that and as it's been said multiple 02:05:15.123 --> 02:05:23.005 - times clearly it is a injurious to the welfare of the community to have An exit point so close with 02:05:23.005 --> 02:05:31.123 - so many conflicts Near that intersection so that alternate site plan is not viable in my opinion other 02:05:31.123 --> 02:05:32.542 - hardships include 02:05:33.250 --> 02:05:39.911 - The fact that there this is a neighborhood that does not have on-street parking So it's not easy to 02:05:39.911 --> 02:05:46.573 - just sort of flex out into the neighborhood with your parking needs There is no reciprocal easement 02:05:46.573 --> 02:05:53.501 - agreement with the neighbors which allows flexing onto their site So and so bottom line is the hardship 02:05:53.501 --> 02:05:55.166 - as you know is really is 02:05:55.682 --> 02:06:02.811 - The fact that this is a redevelopment site. This isn't a Greenfield site out by a suburban interchange. 02:06:02.811 --> 02:06:09.803 - All redevelopment is exceptionally hard. It is almost by definition a Rubik's Cube that is so complex 02:06:09.803 --> 02:06:16.932 - that it just the nature of redevelopment is a hardship. And again, I commend them for doing such a good 02:06:16.932 --> 02:06:21.662 - job of getting to where they have. The last thing I will say is that 02:06:21.890 --> 02:06:28.854 - You know, I don't know the business plan. I don't know these guys I know Dave came in but It is not 02:06:28.854 --> 02:06:36.026 - apples to apples to compare this site from a You know from a business standpoint to the one on Liberty 02:06:36.026 --> 02:06:43.129 - Drive I'm certain without knowing their business that this will be a much much higher volume location 02:06:43.129 --> 02:06:50.372 - Otherwise frankly that wouldn't justify the new construction costs that go into just building something 02:06:50.372 --> 02:06:51.486 - like this. So I 02:06:51.586 --> 02:06:59.948 - At any rate I do thank you for your attention and the staff. I do thank you for defending things like 02:06:59.948 --> 02:07:08.391 - pedestrian you know safety and that sort of thing. But ultimately I do think that the petitioners have 02:07:08.391 --> 02:07:16.589 - it right and they have demonstrated hardship that I'm hopeful you approve their request. Thank you. 02:07:16.589 --> 02:07:20.606 - Thank you. Do you have any more public comments. 02:07:23.362 --> 02:07:33.174 - There's anybody online, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat we can recognize 02:07:33.174 --> 02:07:43.081 - you I'm not seeing anybody else online. I Have a question for staff Sorry, sorry. I apologies if you've 02:07:43.081 --> 02:07:52.702 - stated this already. How did you come up with the number of parking spaces? Yep, so let's go back to 02:07:54.690 --> 02:08:02.211 - They're part of the study and I can answer that for you. Okay. I see it now. I see it in the document. 02:08:02.211 --> 02:08:09.658 - You're fine. Oh okay. Well I guess what I was what I was going to try to just illustrate which is the 02:08:09.658 --> 02:08:17.252 - same kind of method that we've used in several situations where we have variances from parking maximums 02:08:17.252 --> 02:08:23.166 - that are being proposed. Obviously you have uses that come forward and they show 02:08:23.266 --> 02:08:29.603 - You know a one-time maximum, you know, here's here's the course of a week or a month or whatever You 02:08:29.603 --> 02:08:35.876 - know here are the maximum number of spaces that are shown in use but then you're gonna have more of 02:08:35.876 --> 02:08:42.150 - a what we'll call kind of an 80% of need for a particular use and so, you know, the petitioners are 02:08:42.150 --> 02:08:44.158 - coming forward requesting eight 02:08:44.290 --> 02:08:50.207 - You know when you look at this, you know, obviously you consistently see the need for at least five 02:08:50.207 --> 02:08:56.243 - to six You know, the eight is just the occasional and so the six provides that medium as we mentioned 02:08:56.243 --> 02:09:02.338 - There are certainly other options for ride share bicycling transit, you know all sorts of options that 02:09:02.338 --> 02:09:07.486 - can ebb and flow here Yep, so that's that's how we came to the number of six Thank you 02:09:17.506 --> 02:09:39.102 - So we're back to the board now for discussion and for a final action. I'll go. It's an observation I find. 02:09:39.874 --> 02:09:47.557 - I don't know whether to congratulate you, thank you, or question you, Mr. Kamen, but in the short period 02:09:47.557 --> 02:09:55.240 - of time I've been on the BZA, I think you hold the record for the number of petitions. And I think it's, 02:09:55.240 --> 02:10:02.850 - you know, the way to think about it is, you know, you're taking on hard sites. And so I appreciate your 02:10:02.850 --> 02:10:04.606 - willingness to do that. 02:10:05.826 --> 02:10:12.710 - I'm gonna recommend some changes to the findings and recommend approval the variance and let me just 02:10:12.710 --> 02:10:19.798 - tell you why I mean, I think These are redevelopment sites there they are difficult. I thought mr. Hart 02:10:19.798 --> 02:10:26.749 - says comments were fantastic and right on The site's only been vacant for a little over. How long has 02:10:26.749 --> 02:10:34.110 - it been vacant a little over a year two years? The question is how long are you willing to leave it vacant? 02:10:34.690 --> 02:10:42.723 - I think their improvements. I mean Unlike most petitions we had no discussion about landscaping or canopy 02:10:42.723 --> 02:10:50.301 - trees, which I think is Positive, I think somebody I don't know who it was. Maybe it was one of the 02:10:50.301 --> 02:10:58.259 - public speakers. I forget your name Tom. I think Tom I commented that as Tricky as this project is we're 02:10:58.259 --> 02:11:04.094 - only looking at requests for two variances So, I mean from where I'm sitting 02:11:04.802 --> 02:11:15.125 - idea of having a new investment with a lot more green space with the landscaping the improvement to 02:11:15.125 --> 02:11:25.654 - the site is really worth the trade-off for two variances that really don't Really dramatically change 02:11:25.654 --> 02:11:32.158 - the historic pattern that was on the site when it was run as a 02:11:32.610 --> 02:11:42.372 - Pizza Hut that had a lot more parking a lot more previous surface and employees I will say I You know, 02:11:42.372 --> 02:11:51.851 - I well when we talk about employees and parking and alternative transportation You know, I think my 02:11:51.851 --> 02:12:00.286 - record shows I've been a pretty good advocate for alternative transportation investments 02:12:00.514 --> 02:12:08.379 - But I think that you know at some times we have to look at some of the realities. And right now if you 02:12:08.379 --> 02:12:16.320 - look at the commuting patterns in Bloomington Indiana 73 percent of all the people that work in private 02:12:16.320 --> 02:12:24.108 - employment in our city commute into the city from outside of the city. So why I want to encourage you 02:12:24.108 --> 02:12:28.766 - know alternative transportation and you know things that are 02:12:30.786 --> 02:12:38.479 - There's just certain reality that The people that we need to work in the city and live the city they 02:12:38.479 --> 02:12:46.173 - they just don't have that ability to To take these alternative transportation methods to get to work 02:12:46.173 --> 02:12:53.942 - so I think sometimes you've got to just you know, look at the reality of the world we live in not the 02:12:53.942 --> 02:12:59.198 - one that we Aspire to have and we work towards those aspirations but 02:12:59.938 --> 02:13:12.620 - Can't let it get in the way of certain things. So with that all that said I Would like to Propose the 02:13:12.620 --> 02:13:25.053 - following amendments to the findings on number one On the second paragraph on the maximum parking I 02:13:25.053 --> 02:13:28.286 - simply want to change Six 02:13:29.090 --> 02:13:44.779 - in the first sentence to eight. In the finding number two on the second point related to maximum parking 02:13:44.779 --> 02:13:58.974 - number hereto in the first sentence, I would propose that we change six to eight. And then for 02:14:01.058 --> 02:14:18.970 - I need to do a little bit more work on the third one, sorry. Oh, in second sentence, fewer than, hang 02:14:18.970 --> 02:14:24.062 - on second, sorry. Thank you. 02:14:30.306 --> 02:14:39.676 - Let me reread that up to so it would read up to eight vehicle parking spaces plus one required van accessible 02:14:39.676 --> 02:14:48.280 - space will not substantially affect the will. I've got this turned around. Sorry. That's what I hate 02:14:48.280 --> 02:14:50.750 - about doing this on the fly. 02:15:00.898 --> 02:15:18.042 - I think about that one. Yeah, so the first sentence, as I proposed, changing six to eight is fine. And 02:15:18.042 --> 02:15:29.694 - then I would just delete the net sentence. And then for the findings, 02:15:30.178 --> 02:15:38.757 - I think we only have to look at the first paragraph or the first finding on the drive width. And, 02:15:38.757 --> 02:15:48.212 - you know, I think I would just say the strict application of the terms of the unified development ordinance 02:15:48.212 --> 02:15:54.078 - would result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. 02:15:54.850 --> 02:16:00.948 - While alternative layouts may exist, strict compliance with the drive width standard would 02:16:00.948 --> 02:16:07.783 - impose unreasonable constraints on the functional design of the site. It would not allow the property 02:16:07.783 --> 02:16:14.618 - to redevelop in a manner that is practical and efficient for its intended use. The requested variance 02:16:14.618 --> 02:16:21.654 - from the drive width standard represents the minimum relief necessary to achieve a workable site layout. 02:16:21.654 --> 02:16:23.262 - And with those changes, 02:16:27.714 --> 02:16:39.069 - I would recommend approval of the proposed amended findings for petition ZR 20 26 0 3 0 0 1 1 and approve 02:16:39.069 --> 02:16:49.781 - the variance for the drive with and approve the variance for the parking allowance period That's my 02:16:49.781 --> 02:16:56.958 - motion Did you want to amend any of the conditions of approval the 02:16:57.090 --> 02:17:10.403 - One would probably still be relative the second one. You obviously do want to modify to reflect that 02:17:10.403 --> 02:17:24.638 - the number Be the site layout instead of the site layout can change is that the site layout is approved and 02:17:26.850 --> 02:17:35.853 - Basically with number one is saying that this approval is that for a two bay building design? Yeah, 02:17:35.853 --> 02:17:45.126 - that's number one condition number two You just have to specify there the site may provide up to Eight 02:17:45.126 --> 02:17:54.219 - But isn't that what was proposed Is that redundant I'm sorry. Yeah, I mean, I just didn't go through 02:17:54.219 --> 02:17:56.830 - those because I thought that 02:17:58.658 --> 02:18:05.739 - Yes, we just need to change the language on condition number two to reflect that you want to approve 02:18:05.739 --> 02:18:13.029 - all eight plus the ADA accessible one. Okay. So in the end will be nine. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. I'm fine 02:18:13.029 --> 02:18:20.180 - with those amendments to my yeah. And then in condition three, you would just want to strike where it 02:18:20.180 --> 02:18:25.438 - says the three other spaces and just say, you know, the five other spaces. 02:18:25.538 --> 02:18:39.038 - That would modify those conditions to be consistent with what your amendment was. OK. Second. I can't 02:18:39.038 --> 02:18:52.670 - type fast enough. Sorry. Roll call please. Borel. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Katsenko. Yes. Congratulations. 02:18:56.482 --> 02:19:05.254 - Yes, we're gonna take a five-minute break Go back Should we suspend the rules right now or do we have 02:19:05.254 --> 02:19:14.284 - to wait I mean it's up to you to wait until after this petition. It really makes no difference, correct? 02:19:14.284 --> 02:19:22.110 - Yeah, we're certainly not gonna get through the next four in the next 30 minutes. No, so I 02:19:22.754 --> 02:19:34.052 - entertain a motion to suspend the rules to stop at 9 p.m. So I don't it might be helpful if you want 02:19:34.052 --> 02:19:45.909 - to if you want to set a deadline of when to stop hearing new cases or tackle that maybe as we get closer. 02:19:45.909 --> 02:19:51.166 - Yeah let's tackle that when we get closer. OK. 02:19:52.066 --> 02:20:03.107 - We're going to go till we finish. Yeah. Okay. We'll move as fast as possible. Okay. Yes. All right. 02:20:03.107 --> 02:20:14.479 - Do we have to vote. All in favor. Aye aye aye. All right. Now we are ready to hear Z are twenty twenty 02:20:14.479 --> 02:20:21.214 - six dash zero three dash zero zero one two a request for one 02:20:21.762 --> 02:20:30.186 - For five one six South Woodlawn Avenue Thank you. Um, so this is a request for an administrative appeal 02:20:30.186 --> 02:20:38.447 - staff determination regarding the legitimacy of a lot that Yeah regarding the legitimacy of a land of 02:20:38.447 --> 02:20:46.547 - a plot of land whether that is a lot of record So more specifically, you know, I'll just say from a 02:20:46.547 --> 02:20:51.326 - staff perspective that this situation is it's not uncommon 02:20:51.714 --> 02:21:02.384 - Within Bloomington. This is something that we deal with somewhat frequently where You have a situation 02:21:02.384 --> 02:21:12.847 - where a subdivision was originally platted at some point in the past Oftentimes we encounter this on 02:21:12.847 --> 02:21:15.230 - common area lots Sorry 02:21:16.450 --> 02:21:22.586 - Yep. So this is a situation where we encounter, you know, lots were initially planted in a specific 02:21:22.586 --> 02:21:29.029 - orientation east west along the street. And then you'll have a situation on a corner where at some point 02:21:29.029 --> 02:21:35.288 - in the past, you know, property owners decided, you know, they bought those properties and they said, 02:21:35.288 --> 02:21:41.854 - you know, we don't want our lots to be oriented east west. We want to orient them north south. And so they 02:21:42.018 --> 02:21:49.073 - Adjusted their deeds. They recorded new deeds to reflect that and those deeds would oftentimes now be 02:21:49.073 --> 02:21:56.059 - reflected to say the north half of this loud and the south half of this lot is one deed and you know 02:21:56.059 --> 02:22:02.976 - the north half of this lawn and south half of this lot are on a new deed and so you Encounter these 02:22:02.976 --> 02:22:10.654 - situations that we have in front of us tonight Where these lots that you see currently? were initially platted 02:22:11.362 --> 02:22:18.191 - in a north-south orientation. And then, as I mentioned, petitioners or the property owners at some point 02:22:18.191 --> 02:22:24.695 - in the past wanted to have the lots facing on Woodlawn. And so they recorded new deeds. It said the 02:22:24.695 --> 02:22:31.264 - south half of this lot and the south half of this lot are one and the north half of this lot and the 02:22:31.264 --> 02:22:37.118 - north half of the other lot are on a deed. And so the auditor's maps still show those old 02:22:37.506 --> 02:22:45.255 - These these remnant lots what I'll just call that resulted from that and they never reoriented them 02:22:45.255 --> 02:22:53.314 - to match the actual deeds so in these situations that when staff encounters that We routinely use three 02:22:53.314 --> 02:23:01.140 - criteria in essence to determine if something is a lot of record one Show us that you know it in any 02:23:01.140 --> 02:23:07.262 - situation if there's a question of whether something is a lot of record we say 02:23:07.362 --> 02:23:14.366 - You know show us that lot existing on a approved recorded subdivision plan So, you know, that's obviously 02:23:14.366 --> 02:23:20.973 - one definitive way to show that something is a lot of record in this specific situation where we're 02:23:20.973 --> 02:23:27.910 - talking about Lots have been reoriented You know, we've said look at and this has been based on guidance 02:23:27.910 --> 02:23:34.716 - from the legal department of show us that this this lot this this square of a lot this corner of a lot 02:23:34.716 --> 02:23:36.830 - existed on a deed by itself and 02:23:37.058 --> 02:23:43.108 - Not owned by somebody adjacent to it. So something where it was shown definitively by itself Not you 02:23:43.108 --> 02:23:49.158 - know in combination with an adjacent lot because we see this oftentimes with lot line adjustments or 02:23:49.158 --> 02:23:55.328 - adjustments of Orientation of lot lines, you know, you'll have a weird anomaly of a lot that was moved 02:23:55.328 --> 02:24:01.498 - But it was never intended for that to be a lot by itself You know, so certainly in this situation here 02:24:01.498 --> 02:24:06.110 - where you have these small square of a lot, you know They were never platted 02:24:06.210 --> 02:24:14.173 - To simply have a lot of record existing by itself. That is a 50 by 50 square It was always intended 02:24:14.173 --> 02:24:22.534 - that this be a much longer lot So that's the situation that we have now. So in this particular situation 02:24:22.534 --> 02:24:31.134 - the petitioner came forward to Create or to build on this back lot this western portion of lot 30 by itself 02:24:31.330 --> 02:24:38.364 - And so we went through the same exercise, you know We said show us where this law was a lot by itself 02:24:38.364 --> 02:24:45.261 - on a separate deed described by itself Not an association or owned by an adjacent property owner So 02:24:45.261 --> 02:24:52.364 - the petitioner was was unable to produce that deed There was not a subdivision plaque that showed this 02:24:52.364 --> 02:24:53.950 - lot existing by itself 02:24:54.114 --> 02:25:00.308 - This lot would not be allowed to be created by subdivision standards because it doesn't front on a public 02:25:00.308 --> 02:25:06.152 - street Doesn't meet the minimum lot area minimum lot width requirements. So that's why it was never 02:25:06.152 --> 02:25:12.054 - able to be Created by itself because it doesn't meet our subdivision standards So, you know in those 02:25:12.054 --> 02:25:18.074 - situations as I said, you know Show us a lot that show it that this existed prior to the establishment 02:25:18.074 --> 02:25:22.398 - of the first subdivision code in 73 in order for us to recognize that and 02:25:22.562 --> 02:25:29.204 - As I mentioned the petition was not able to demonstrate that in the evidence that they have brought 02:25:29.204 --> 02:25:35.979 - forward So staff made the determination that it is not a lot of record The UDO does have a definition 02:25:35.979 --> 02:25:42.887 - of a lot of record which reflects, you know what I was talking about That it is described on a separate 02:25:42.887 --> 02:25:48.798 - deed or that it was established as part of an approved subdivision So this does not meet 02:25:49.026 --> 02:25:57.051 - the UDO definition of lot of record. Therefore it is not a lot of record and not allowed to be separate 02:25:57.051 --> 02:26:04.921 - buildable. So those are the facts that the planning department operated under and passed along to the 02:26:04.921 --> 02:26:12.637 - petitioner. And so they are here tonight to appeal that determination. And I am happy to answer any 02:26:12.637 --> 02:26:16.958 - questions. I just have a quick question. Can you point. 02:26:18.146 --> 02:26:29.116 - Me in the right direction in the UDO on The definition of a lot of record so it's in chapter 7, which 02:26:29.116 --> 02:26:39.870 - is the definitions So you would go to a lot of record, okay. Thanks Thank you is the petitioner now 02:26:51.298 --> 02:26:58.080 - My name is Chris Bomba. I'm one of the owners of Charles Lane LLC. Right. Do you swear affirm that the 02:26:58.080 --> 02:27:04.928 - testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. 02:27:04.928 --> 02:27:11.644 - You have 20 minutes. OK. Hopefully I won't take that but I do have support here to handle some of the 02:27:11.644 --> 02:27:18.426 - legal parts. I'm here because on December 9th I submitted a building permit to build on the planet lot 02:27:18.426 --> 02:27:20.862 - 30 in the college place subdivision. 02:27:21.442 --> 02:27:28.125 - Submitted with all things meeting the current UDO current building structure current everything with 02:27:28.125 --> 02:27:35.072 - that Before I kind of get into that one give you a little history. This is not the first time I've built 02:27:35.072 --> 02:27:41.755 - on lots that have been Established before the planning department. I've done it multiple times. This 02:27:41.755 --> 02:27:47.710 - is not unique. Also want to talk about the college place Platted subdivision has multiple 02:27:48.322 --> 02:27:55.385 - Lots like this some where people have chosen to build over Where subject lots have been subdivided as 02:27:55.385 --> 02:28:02.518 - well as places where people built specifically on the different lots So when I purchased this property 02:28:02.518 --> 02:28:09.650 - a couple years ago two things I know I had to do is the duplex that is built on lot 29 So I've got the 02:28:09.650 --> 02:28:17.406 - south half lot 29, which has a duplex Specifically centered on that lot and then lot 30 is a lot behind it. I I 02:28:18.018 --> 02:28:25.479 - Use title plus I use more Erickson because I always ask him do I have two legal platted lots here? Yes, 02:28:25.479 --> 02:28:32.868 - I do I've seen no place in legal law where you can't have more than You can have two or more where you 02:28:32.868 --> 02:28:40.185 - can't have two or more platted lots on any deed It says and so I have this lot and I have that lot So 02:28:40.185 --> 02:28:47.646 - I verified that with title company that's been here quite a bit as I renovated the house the duplex and 02:28:48.130 --> 02:28:56.755 - Got blood so rigor Creek to survey the lot. I know lots multiple lots within the city sometimes you 02:28:56.755 --> 02:29:05.552 - get during so I want to know exactly what the lot lines are as They did that they did locate And come 02:29:05.552 --> 02:29:15.040 - to me that the guess these are two separate platted lots that were done So a little bit on on the subdivision 02:29:15.040 --> 02:29:17.886 - or the college place subdivision 02:29:18.082 --> 02:29:25.783 - If you pulled up on GIS, you'd see multiple locations, very similar to this. You'll see some where people 02:29:25.783 --> 02:29:33.194 - built, they use the term reoriented, I disagree with that term completely, but some people built over 02:29:33.194 --> 02:29:40.532 - the subdivided lines, and other people built specifically on the lots. The four in my area are, they 02:29:40.532 --> 02:29:47.870 - were built on the specific lots. If you go south of there, there are other houses built on the lots. 02:29:48.706 --> 02:29:55.565 - Some people chose to do it one way others chose to do the others on the intent and reorientation a lot 02:29:55.565 --> 02:30:02.423 - these lots were subdivided in 1911 I Just kind of went through the process of subdividing a lot within 02:30:02.423 --> 02:30:09.082 - the city because I know our mayor wants us to do more infill and I noticed up on their board an old 02:30:09.082 --> 02:30:15.741 - city of Bloomington at the turn of the century I think it's dated about 1900 ten years before these 02:30:15.741 --> 02:30:17.406 - lots were subdivided but 02:30:17.698 --> 02:30:24.971 - 10 years after the subdivision was planted, platted, excuse me. On that map, it does show there is a 02:30:24.971 --> 02:30:32.316 - road or an easement to the west of these four lots, and I can verify that. I think in the packet, you 02:30:32.316 --> 02:30:39.589 - did see a, from Bledsoe, kind of the lot, the survey of the lot, you can see there is an easement on 02:30:39.589 --> 02:30:45.854 - the west side. So what I would argue as far as the intent, I don't think they intended 02:30:46.082 --> 02:30:54.400 - completely rearrange the lots Because there were roads and access points on both sides. I believe the 02:30:54.400 --> 02:31:02.962 - person at the time subdivided the lots So he there was either to make more money or have the opportunity 02:31:02.962 --> 02:31:11.687 - to develop the other lots In that area So like I said, I've done this multiple times before I keep getting 02:31:11.687 --> 02:31:13.726 - different variations and 02:31:14.306 --> 02:31:20.923 - One of the things I'm asking for today is just Prove that this is a buildable lot What's being built 02:31:20.923 --> 02:31:27.605 - on there has been built on another location in Bloomington before on a very? Kind of similar lot that 02:31:27.605 --> 02:31:34.353 - was Had not been built on since it was was it was platted. It's going to meet all the requirements for 02:31:34.353 --> 02:31:40.970 - that yes, it will most likely be a rental property but to the east it's a duplex to the south that's 02:31:40.970 --> 02:31:41.822 - a duplex and 02:31:42.594 --> 02:31:51.782 - The West it's a duplex the only person is the person owns the other half of lot 30 Platted lot 30 is 02:31:51.782 --> 02:32:01.060 - the only homeowner that would be kind of adjacent to the property So kind of what I'm asking today is 02:32:01.060 --> 02:32:10.703 - that you approve lot 30 which is the platted lot Staff is asking, you know, basically saying we're asking 02:32:10.703 --> 02:32:12.158 - you to create a 02:32:12.258 --> 02:32:20.866 - to approve It's trying to say that part of lot 29 platted lot 29 and platted lot 30 Is one lot so they're 02:32:20.866 --> 02:32:28.988 - attempting to create a lot where one legally does not exist So a couple the other points I mean the 02:32:28.988 --> 02:32:37.190 - intent I don't think you can drive intent of what people and how things were done this was plot this 02:32:37.190 --> 02:32:39.870 - this subdivision was platted and 02:32:40.994 --> 02:32:48.709 - Over a hundred years ago these lots were these lot these this specific lot was lot 30 the ones I'm talking 02:32:48.709 --> 02:32:56.281 - about was subdivided in 1911 And it it has been a lot of record has its own tax ID number I pay separate 02:32:56.281 --> 02:33:03.636 - taxes on it I had a deed that not only a title company, but also an engineering firm told me I had to 02:33:03.636 --> 02:33:10.558 - Legally planted lots or parts of two legally planted lots which are large enough to to build on 02:33:16.130 --> 02:33:26.417 - That is all I have. I know there's been other instances in the past where there's been court cases that 02:33:26.417 --> 02:33:36.408 - justify that these are two legally plotted lots. So I'll stop there and see if there's any questions 02:33:36.408 --> 02:33:43.134 - for me. Thank you. How much time does he have remaining 13 minutes. 02:33:44.514 --> 02:33:51.722 - Could I request. Yes absolutely. You have 13 still 13 minutes so. State your name Bill Beggs. Do you 02:33:51.722 --> 02:33:59.002 - swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing 02:33:59.002 --> 02:34:06.210 - but the truth. I do. Thank you. Bill Beggs Munger and Robertson law firm here in Bloomington. I just 02:34:06.210 --> 02:34:12.990 - want to make sure that what's what's before you is the visual of it is clear to you. We gave a 02:34:13.442 --> 02:34:20.988 - picture in your packet. This is a garage with living space up above that would be in essentially the 02:34:20.988 --> 02:34:23.902 - backyard of this house. What I want to 02:34:24.290 --> 02:34:32.389 - What I want to emphasize is this request, this appeal of an administrative determination is not asking 02:34:32.389 --> 02:34:40.487 - the BZA to go out on any limbs to change the world, to make any huge changes to anything. We're simply 02:34:40.487 --> 02:34:48.429 - focused on this property only. And with respect to this property only, the record of the subdivision 02:34:48.429 --> 02:34:53.854 - of the land, when you think about it, all land is subdivided, right? 02:34:54.018 --> 02:35:02.305 - every land, every piece of land everywhere in Indiana has been subdivided. This land has been subdivided 02:35:02.305 --> 02:35:10.197 - as well as far back as 1911. The effect of the staff's policy that they've described to you tonight 02:35:10.197 --> 02:35:18.247 - would be to create a new lot where none exists. So the logic we believe and respectfully, the logical 02:35:18.247 --> 02:35:20.062 - inconsistency in their 02:35:20.162 --> 02:35:27.186 - Lot of in their policy is that in the one hand they want to follow the lot of college place yet on the 02:35:27.186 --> 02:35:34.074 - other hand they want to try to deem or determine or ascertain intent of property owners and create a 02:35:34.074 --> 02:35:41.098 - new lot meaning the south half of 29 and the south half of 30 we think that's arbitrary we don't think 02:35:41.098 --> 02:35:42.462 - they get to do that 02:35:43.042 --> 02:35:49.862 - The lawyers here, so I'm gonna talk about three things that the staff has covered in their staff report. 02:35:49.862 --> 02:35:56.422 - One is BZA versus Elkins was a case that came, it's a Bloomington case. It's a very similar case. We 02:35:56.422 --> 02:36:02.918 - thought it was similar and then fortunately we got the staff report and you have this and the staff 02:36:02.918 --> 02:36:09.803 - report acknowledges that it's essentially the same case, but they say they distinguish it on three things 02:36:09.803 --> 02:36:11.102 - that really are not 02:36:11.394 --> 02:36:18.017 - Anywhere to be found in that Elkins opinion and so from our perspective we appreciate the acknowledgement 02:36:18.017 --> 02:36:24.389 - that they are This is essentially the same case that the Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals has been 02:36:24.389 --> 02:36:30.700 - down before the road it has been down before and We disagree, of course with the manner in which the 02:36:30.700 --> 02:36:35.198 - staff attempts to distinguish it Secondly is the lot of record question 02:36:35.458 --> 02:36:43.769 - I appreciate, I don't entirely agree, but I appreciate the staff report's acknowledgement that this 02:36:43.769 --> 02:36:52.330 - lot does indeed satisfy the lot of record definition, but for the statement about the, it calls it the 02:36:52.330 --> 02:36:57.150 - second condition, however it says separate deed required. 02:36:57.282 --> 02:37:04.649 - We all know that multiple properties can be conveyed via the via separate deeds or via single deeds 02:37:04.649 --> 02:37:12.090 - And so we have a single deed right now now could Charles Lane have gone to the recorder's office and 02:37:12.090 --> 02:37:19.973 - recorded a quit claim deed and Gotten over the argument that we're now hearing from the staff is a problem 02:37:19.973 --> 02:37:22.846 - I'd suggest to the BZA that's exalting 02:37:23.170 --> 02:37:31.695 - Form over substance and I would suggest that that's not advancing either the Policy of the lot of record 02:37:31.695 --> 02:37:39.896 - definition nor of our community attempts to increase housing it also suggests that the the intent of 02:37:39.896 --> 02:37:48.015 - the ordinance could not have been a gotcha where you didn't go down and record a deed from yourself 02:37:48.015 --> 02:37:52.318 - to yourself and their father therefore satisfy their 02:37:52.450 --> 02:37:58.617 - They're a technical policy requirement. We don't think that makes sense the other thing I just want 02:37:58.617 --> 02:38:04.907 - to I just want to maybe I just want to maybe emphasize as we think that the policy while I Appreciate 02:38:04.907 --> 02:38:11.198 - the hard work the staff does and the fact they've got to deal with these calls when their phone rings 02:38:11.198 --> 02:38:13.726 - and they've got these calls that come in 02:38:13.826 --> 02:38:20.854 - We suggest humbly and respectfully that it's gotta be arbitrary, it's gotta be capricious to have this 02:38:20.854 --> 02:38:27.677 - policy that is not grounded in the ordinance or in any case law that's been furnished to any of us. 02:38:27.677 --> 02:38:34.704 - So for those reasons, and again, I wanna emphasize, we are only asking for this garage in the backyard 02:38:34.704 --> 02:38:41.118 - of this home on the south half of Lot 30. We are not asking to change the world in this case. 02:38:41.218 --> 02:38:52.387 - but we believe that the Staff's position we disagree with the staff's position and so we would ask that 02:38:52.387 --> 02:39:03.127 - the BZA would come back with a decision that the December 9 2025 permit Can indeed be issued. Thank 02:39:03.127 --> 02:39:10.430 - you Thank you All right, we're back to the board with questions and 02:39:10.658 --> 02:39:31.294 - You have questions. Either for the staff or the petitioner. Yeah. I'm just trying to understand the. 02:39:42.114 --> 02:39:50.519 - What are we trying to achieve I guess at the end of the day I've kind of lost the I'd lost the thread 02:39:50.519 --> 02:39:59.582 - I mean why why is it an issue to whether it's one Lot or two lots so I can answer that from staff perspective 02:39:59.582 --> 02:40:06.174 - and this is actually a very important matter and this is very legally based and 02:40:06.274 --> 02:40:13.049 - So as I tried to mention during our presentation We have a definition of a lot of record something that 02:40:13.049 --> 02:40:20.085 - was legally shown on a subdivision plat this back Quarter of the lot is absolutely not shown on an improved 02:40:20.085 --> 02:40:26.014 - subdivision plat It is not shown on a deed by itself get that but I mean in terms of what? 02:40:27.266 --> 02:40:35.993 - Owner wants to do with this land. How is the one lot verse two lot relevant? So he wants to develop 02:40:35.993 --> 02:40:44.720 - certainly they can speak to that as well They want to develop this separately from the adjacent lot 02:40:44.720 --> 02:40:53.534 - Yeah, I would like to build a property I've built before on the south half a platted lot 30 Staff is 02:40:53.534 --> 02:40:54.494 - telling me 02:40:55.202 --> 02:41:03.183 - Lot 30 and lot 29 the south halves are one lot which they are not but what's unique about the property 02:41:03.183 --> 02:41:11.009 - that Can't be done as one lot versus two lot because it's a separate single home No, no the back lot 02:41:11.009 --> 02:41:19.068 - but it looks like it I thought it was a garage with a unit above it I'd suggest to you. There's nothing 02:41:19.068 --> 02:41:21.470 - these are two lots they have a 02:41:21.666 --> 02:41:30.288 - Two legal descriptions and have had since 1911. They have two Property ID tax ID numbers there. I think 02:41:30.288 --> 02:41:38.744 - the answer to your question is nothing but we've encountered a determination of the staff that 20 the 02:41:38.744 --> 02:41:47.283 - south half of 29 and the south half of 30 are a single lot despite the fact that we hold ownership and 02:41:47.283 --> 02:41:49.438 - pay taxes on two lots and 02:41:51.202 --> 02:41:59.728 - I understand that but if it was a single lot Is there anything that would permit you from being able 02:41:59.728 --> 02:42:08.170 - to build this? Oh Yeah, I mean that's what I'm trying to get I got you yes Yes, there's a duplex on 02:42:08.170 --> 02:42:17.118 - the south half of lot 29 that's been there since 1925 And It prevent for building a house on the property 02:42:20.258 --> 02:42:29.637 - So in a single family lot you can only have one dwelling unit. You could have an ADU which I saw some 02:42:29.637 --> 02:42:39.107 - of the conversation I read some of the conversation you know that went through an ADU would be allowed 02:42:39.107 --> 02:42:41.406 - on our one lot. Correct. 02:42:42.914 --> 02:42:49.642 - If it's in combination with a lot that the owner lives on But this is this is not that so then so they 02:42:49.642 --> 02:42:56.304 - can't be an ADU because he doesn't live there So he's trying to develop it separately from the lot up 02:42:56.304 --> 02:43:02.902 - front so then and I'm asking these because I honestly do not know I'm not trying to be rhetorical or 02:43:02.902 --> 02:43:09.629 - anything, but I'm just trying to wrap my hand around all this way So if you go to GIS, it's a separate 02:43:09.629 --> 02:43:12.830 - parcel Right. So how do you how does a property? 02:43:13.634 --> 02:43:21.213 - End up on GIS as a separate piece of land and a debt separate lot or parcel if it's not a separate lot 02:43:21.213 --> 02:43:29.013 - Sure. Yep. So the information on GIS is it's just a rough representation of various pieces of information 02:43:29.013 --> 02:43:36.518 - that the auditor's office has You know the assigning of a separate tax ID number doesn't mean that it 02:43:36.518 --> 02:43:42.110 - is a lot of record from planning and zoning purposes But practically I mean 02:43:42.818 --> 02:43:49.422 - Well, I mean, you know, every entity obviously looks at lots and assesses them and for different reasons 02:43:49.422 --> 02:43:55.712 - and different criteria, you know, certainly we could go through the community and find all of these 02:43:55.712 --> 02:44:01.310 - half lots that exist all throughout there and have the auditor's office remove them. But 02:44:01.474 --> 02:44:08.108 - You know obviously the burden of proof is on a petitioner in any situation to prove that something is 02:44:08.108 --> 02:44:14.677 - legal. So the UDO has requirements has language it talks about what is a legal lot of record. And so 02:44:14.677 --> 02:44:21.246 - that is the procedure that we have directed the petitioner to which is the same procedure that we've 02:44:21.246 --> 02:44:27.815 - used in multiple situations. It feels to me like this is a legal matter. Yes. I mean more of a legal 02:44:27.815 --> 02:44:31.262 - matter than anything. So my question the petitioner. 02:44:31.586 --> 02:44:41.917 - If I may, John. Yeah, please. So you purchased both lots. Correct. I own the south half of lot platted 02:44:41.917 --> 02:44:52.047 - lot 30. Yes. And the south half of platted lot 29. Yes. And I'm going to call by their name here. So 02:44:52.047 --> 02:44:59.870 - it'll be easier just second. So Joseph Christine LLC. Yes. You own that. Yes. 02:45:00.290 --> 02:45:09.736 - And then you you own Charles Lane LLC. Correct. And when you bought those two parcels. Yes. They were 02:45:09.736 --> 02:45:19.645 - conveyed in the same deed. Correct. And but the title company specifically told you they are two different 02:45:19.645 --> 02:45:30.110 - lots. I asked to make sure that I because I'm not an expert on deeds and so forth but you can have multiple lots 02:45:30.210 --> 02:45:40.679 - one deed How is the How was the title conveyed I mean The the D you should have the deed in the packet 02:45:40.679 --> 02:45:50.944 - It was conveyed both lots south half of 29 and south half of 30 were conveyed Via corporate warranty 02:45:50.944 --> 02:45:58.974 - deed, I think to keep very via warranty deed corporate warranty deed I'm gonna 02:45:59.490 --> 02:46:18.107 - see if I can find the deed here. Just exhibit six to our submission. I apologize. We have a billion 02:46:18.107 --> 02:46:25.182 - different files to open. You have the 02:46:28.034 --> 02:46:37.304 - Would note those were It's been since 1911 that those were separate that they were separated those were 02:46:37.304 --> 02:46:46.218 - subdivided This isn't it's not a it's not a new event So why they're looking at that so Eric it was 02:46:46.218 --> 02:46:55.399 - said at one point by the petitioner representative that You know, they could do a quick claim and have 02:46:55.399 --> 02:46:57.182 - a separate deed and 02:46:59.522 --> 02:47:07.947 - And then this issue is mute. No, so that would be illegally creating a lot that was not created through 02:47:07.947 --> 02:47:16.209 - the legal subdivision process We just we just wholeheartedly disagree You you have in your packet and 02:47:16.209 --> 02:47:25.039 - they've the staff's report tells you these lots were were subdivided in 1911. Yeah Yes, they were subdivided 02:47:25.039 --> 02:47:27.550 - to create two lots lots 29 and 02:47:27.650 --> 02:47:37.224 - 30 that is the approved subdivision They were platted for 29 and 30 as I think we we agree and then 02:47:37.224 --> 02:47:47.084 - they were Subdivide 29 was subdivided into two and 30 was subdivided into two in 1911. Well, we've got 02:47:47.084 --> 02:47:52.254 - the deeds in the packet Let me we can check the deeds 02:47:52.962 --> 02:48:01.163 - There's nothing in the record that makes that re orients or replats these four lots into to anywhere 02:48:01.163 --> 02:48:09.444 - that I've searched but I've had a title company search and the engineering firm. So there are two two 02:48:09.444 --> 02:48:17.726 - platted lots that were subdivided. I wouldn't have expected disagreement on this. The staff's report. 02:48:17.858 --> 02:48:33.438 - own report says they were subdivided in 1911. This is not something to disagree about I don't think. 02:48:46.594 --> 02:48:55.240 - Do they have different addresses US postal and I know that that's irrelevant because they have different 02:48:55.240 --> 02:49:03.473 - addresses those two parcels different personal numbers they don't have different addresses. Yeah no 02:49:03.473 --> 02:49:11.872 - I understand. But if they were bladed lots they would have specific not address. I don't think that's 02:49:11.872 --> 02:49:15.742 - correct because just north of there there were 02:49:16.354 --> 02:49:23.458 - two platted lots that were subdivided into four and there's three houses on Three of the lots and a 02:49:23.458 --> 02:49:30.704 - parking lot on the fourth and I don't think the fourth has an address But not not still it's approved 02:49:30.704 --> 02:49:37.879 - and built. Okay, I An address wouldn't determine but the other times I've gone through this I've you 02:49:37.879 --> 02:49:45.694 - know, I've gotten different push backs and different things but it's it's that I didn't provide evidence that 02:49:46.594 --> 02:49:54.523 - These lots were subdivided, they were platted. They weren't replatted in 1911, they were subdivided 02:49:54.523 --> 02:50:02.611 - in 1911. So to say the intent was to reorient when there was a road in 1911 along the backside of lot 02:50:02.611 --> 02:50:10.857 - 30, which you can't justify something by someone's intent to do things or what could have been. There's 02:50:10.857 --> 02:50:15.614 - four lots, two platted lots that were subdivided into four. 02:50:16.994 --> 02:50:28.446 - It's been that way for over a century. Thank you for your explanation. Let's go back to discussing here 02:50:28.446 --> 02:50:39.678 - and then I want to hear if we have any public comments out there too. Do you have any more questions. 02:50:44.482 --> 02:50:52.250 - All right well let's go to public comment for now and then if you have if some questions pop up let 02:50:52.250 --> 02:51:00.096 - me know. Anybody in chambers that would like to speak. If there is anybody online that would like to 02:51:00.096 --> 02:51:04.446 - speak says petition please use the raise hand function. 02:51:13.282 --> 02:51:22.036 - Not seeing anybody online Okay, we're back to the board then You know, I just want to point out obviously 02:51:22.036 --> 02:51:30.624 - for the board We do have an Adina from the city legal department here in council chambers So if there's 02:51:30.624 --> 02:51:39.130 - any questions for her that you felt like maybe I wasn't able to address clearly She was here to answer 02:51:39.130 --> 02:51:40.286 - any questions 02:51:42.754 --> 02:51:54.733 - Any questions for the city lawyer. Miss ending. I'd certainly be open to hearing city legal's point 02:51:54.733 --> 02:52:06.712 - of view. Thank you. And Edina Kassemian from the city of Bloomington assistant city attorney city's 02:52:06.712 --> 02:52:12.702 - position is that these properties were originally 02:52:12.834 --> 02:52:20.588 - platted as part of the college place plot that established these lots as lots twenty nine thirty. They 02:52:20.588 --> 02:52:28.117 - were platted in north and south orientation but at some point they were reoriented to east and west 02:52:28.117 --> 02:52:35.795 - direction. The new legal description for each property described them as the north half of lot twenty 02:52:35.795 --> 02:52:40.990 - one twenty nine and then north half of lot thirty in the south half. 02:52:41.218 --> 02:52:49.155 - of lot 30 in the south have a lot 30 I mean north half of 29 and south half is 30 but city of Bloomington 02:52:49.155 --> 02:52:56.793 - doesn't see any record of an actual subdivision approval that allowed the creation of new developable 02:52:56.793 --> 02:53:04.581 - lots. The creation of the back half lots would not have met today's subdivision code requirements since 02:53:04.581 --> 02:53:09.598 - they did not have frontage on a public street and they didn't meet 02:53:09.858 --> 02:53:17.762 - minimum lot requirements. The back half lots were always owned by the adjacent property owners and they 02:53:17.762 --> 02:53:25.514 - were never recognized as individual lots. So the city of Bloomington does not believe this is one lot 02:53:25.514 --> 02:53:33.190 - not two separate developable lots. Since there was no subdivision approval that allowed the creation 02:53:33.190 --> 02:53:38.814 - of those back half lots there is no deed that showed these existing lots. 02:53:39.074 --> 02:53:47.356 - by themselves. The lots are shown on one deed. So today these lots would not meet current legal established 02:53:47.356 --> 02:53:55.025 - established standards of the subdivision requirements of the U.D.O. So not city of Bloomington does 02:53:55.025 --> 02:54:03.230 - not recognize these as lots of record per the legal definition and the U.D.O. the definition in the U.D.O. 02:54:18.210 --> 02:54:32.953 - Yes, just a second. I do feel like this is like over our heads to discuss something like this. But as 02:54:32.953 --> 02:54:47.262 - a realtor, I have a hard time when land is conveyed and passed down to a buyer and the title chain 02:54:47.458 --> 02:54:55.783 - Is free and clear of any issues and it's bladed with two different parcels to be Combining as one and 02:54:55.783 --> 02:55:03.944 - I understand all the you know that there's different parcels I understand all that and I understand 02:55:03.944 --> 02:55:12.188 - also the the requirements to have frontage and all that stuff This is unusual because it was built I 02:55:12.188 --> 02:55:16.350 - mean it was decided a way long ago before we had a 02:55:16.610 --> 02:55:25.901 - What our current you deal So Which makes it even more complicated But when somebody is purchasing something 02:55:25.901 --> 02:55:34.933 - and they are purchasing as two lots and then they realize later that no by the way No, it's not in every 02:55:34.933 --> 02:55:43.880 - in all everything indicated to them that it was That's what gets complicated But anyway, I'm interested 02:55:43.880 --> 02:55:45.342 - to hear what the 02:55:45.986 --> 02:55:53.752 - Petitioner has to say in rebuttal to what you've just said. Thank you I Just was gonna say I think maybe 02:55:53.752 --> 02:56:01.370 - you touched on somewhat We agree there is no record of a subdivision case or a case number It was 1911 02:56:01.370 --> 02:56:08.767 - for goodness sake. There was no subdivision Ordinance there was no zoning ordinance. That's not how 02:56:08.767 --> 02:56:14.462 - it worked. And you know, you mr. Gurley referred to the 1973 cutoff that the 02:56:14.562 --> 02:56:25.319 - when we in Bloomington started that process, but the fact remains the staff is asking the BZA to accept 02:56:25.319 --> 02:56:35.869 - that four lots are really two and There's no evidence that would suggest that the only evidence there 02:56:35.869 --> 02:56:43.006 - is tells us that four lots is four lots now if the if the site isn't 02:56:43.298 --> 02:56:54.094 - doesn't meet other requirements. That's one thing. But to be told by a staff policy that two lots are 02:56:54.094 --> 02:57:05.101 - really one we suggest is is improper and won't work. Thank you. I have a question for staff. So if this 02:57:05.101 --> 02:57:11.134 - is the south of 29 in the north of 30 is that correct or 02:57:11.490 --> 02:57:19.195 - Part of 29 part of 30. Let's just say that part of 29 part of 30 Who are the owners of the other part 02:57:19.195 --> 02:57:26.899 - of 29 in the other part of 30? Are they two separate? Oh I think those are on the same deed and known 02:57:26.899 --> 02:57:34.453 - by the same individual as well. Okay, the person who lives at 514 Owns the north half of lot 29 and 02:57:34.453 --> 02:57:40.798 - north half of locker and those are on one deed and then this is on one deed as well 02:57:42.018 --> 02:58:01.300 - Okay. Okay. Super confusing. Can can we show it on the map. Yep. So what is what is on the map here 02:58:01.300 --> 02:58:11.134 - is the original subdivision that was done in 1911. 02:58:11.362 --> 02:58:21.481 - You know again, which shows the lots being created by that plat running north-south lot 29 on the east 02:58:21.481 --> 02:58:31.305 - lot 30 on the west But the The two top quadrants belong to another no owner Correct. So the current 02:58:31.305 --> 02:58:40.638 - deed for the the lot on the north 514 reflects the north half a lot 29 north half a lot 30 and 02:58:40.962 --> 02:58:48.442 - For the lot property on the south is the south half a lot 29 south half a lot 30 Correct. So are you 02:58:48.442 --> 02:58:56.440 - saying that? The back half of lot 30 and the back half of lot 29 is one lot No, because that was reoriented 02:58:56.440 --> 02:59:04.142 - when they recorded new deeds at some point in the past We can go through the chain of title to see when 02:59:04.142 --> 02:59:09.918 - that was actually done. So they Reoriented that line so that the person's own 02:59:10.050 --> 02:59:17.165 - The north half lot 29 and north half lot 30 and then the south half lot 29 and lot 30. So again, that's 02:59:17.165 --> 02:59:24.007 - something that could be allowed now because you had two lots and at the end you still had two lots. 02:59:24.007 --> 02:59:30.848 - You did not create a subdivision of land to create a new lot, you still had two lots. So that would 02:59:30.848 --> 02:59:38.237 - have been legal. Yeah, it's also very confusing that it's divided in quadrants. Yes, certainly the presence 02:59:38.237 --> 02:59:39.742 - of those lines on GIS 02:59:39.938 --> 02:59:46.535 - GIS does indicate confusion there and cause confusion You know that is that is not a legal Representation 02:59:46.535 --> 02:59:53.069 - of lots, you know, we see errors in GIS all the time So just because there is a lot that is shown there, 02:59:53.069 --> 02:59:59.293 - you know at the end of the day They show us show us the legal proof that there is a lot here and so 02:59:59.293 --> 03:00:05.516 - the methods to do that are one of recorded subdivision plat or a deed showing this lot prior to the 03:00:05.516 --> 03:00:07.134 - subdivision ordinance and 03:00:07.490 --> 03:00:15.739 - That would that would say you couldn't create this law. You know anything that happens. This is kind 03:00:15.739 --> 03:00:24.070 - of a catch 22 because things were so messed up in 1911. So they changed orientation. So you know what 03:00:24.070 --> 03:00:32.809 - I mean. It doesn't fit the criteria very specific. I mean it there was no subdivision then the orientation 03:00:32.809 --> 03:00:36.158 - was changed and the quadrants are there. 03:00:37.442 --> 03:00:44.064 - Well, but the recording of the new deeds to reorient the lot line location didn't create those lots 03:00:44.064 --> 03:00:50.950 - by themselves. So that's where we say in those situations, okay, go, go do the chain of title research. 03:00:50.950 --> 03:00:57.837 - And if you can show one of those lots that was sold separately, that showed that legal transfer of land 03:00:57.837 --> 03:01:04.724 - prior to the subdivision code that said you couldn't have created that even lot, then that's different. 03:01:04.724 --> 03:01:05.982 - And so that's the, 03:01:06.242 --> 03:01:12.063 - Procedure yeah, but what prevents them from doing that now You couldn't create that lot because it doesn't 03:01:12.063 --> 03:01:17.666 - need our subdivision requirements But couldn't they sell that piece of landed they could sell a parcel 03:01:17.666 --> 03:01:23.214 - They I mean they could separate from the other part So they could they could sell a portion of parcel 03:01:23.214 --> 03:01:27.838 - to an adjacent property because then you're just combining that with an adjacent lot 03:01:28.258 --> 03:01:34.165 - And we see that oftentimes. You've got a driveway that encroaches on somebody's land and so they move 03:01:34.165 --> 03:01:40.129 - the property line to the east and sometimes it'll say lot 29 of whatever plus 10 feet of the west half 03:01:40.129 --> 03:01:46.152 - of the adjacent thing. That is never intended to say that that little sliver of land is now a lot. It's 03:01:46.152 --> 03:01:52.232 - just being combined with the adjacent lot. It's being reoriented, whatever. And so this is very similar. 03:01:52.232 --> 03:01:55.070 - They have adjusted the location of the lot lines 03:01:55.426 --> 03:02:02.075 - You had two lots to begin with. You have two lots at the end. It's not a subdivision. That's legal. 03:02:02.075 --> 03:02:09.190 - Whether it happened in, you know, 1920 or 30 or 50 or yesterday, you know, assuming that it's not creating 03:02:09.190 --> 03:02:16.372 - a new lot, then that would be legal. I have to respond to that. Well, if you could hold on to that thought, 03:02:16.372 --> 03:02:22.622 - grab that thought and don't let it go. Thank you. OK, because you still have time to respond. 03:02:25.282 --> 03:02:35.545 - Any questions from you guys for being new on on the zoning board. I'd like to know the implications 03:02:35.545 --> 03:02:46.320 - of approval or denial in regard since this is in appeals. Yep. So an approval would be affirming staff's 03:02:46.320 --> 03:02:52.478 - position. A denial would be denying staff's interpretation. 03:03:02.370 --> 03:03:11.016 - If you don't have any questions, I'll allow the petitioner to use their allotted time. How much time 03:03:11.016 --> 03:03:19.920 - do we have left? Eight minutes, I think. Eight minutes. You don't have to use it all. I have to correct 03:03:19.920 --> 03:03:27.710 - the record. The petitioner did not change any lines. The lines have been there since 1911. 03:03:28.610 --> 03:03:35.957 - Lots have been separated since 1911. These are four lots since 1911 period end of story The staff report 03:03:35.957 --> 03:03:43.094 - says it our indication our material says it we gave you the deed that says it It is flat incorrect to 03:03:43.094 --> 03:03:50.581 - say that we have changed any lines anywhere They have there are separate tax ID numbers. They are separate 03:03:50.581 --> 03:03:53.310 - lots. They are separately conveyed and 03:03:53.666 --> 03:04:01.749 - Although in one deed, but that's a separate conveyance under the law anyway And so to suggest that the 03:04:01.749 --> 03:04:09.675 - petitioner has changed lines is I'm sorry. It's just incorrect To suggest that it's okay to create a 03:04:09.675 --> 03:04:17.600 - new lot East and west because that's the staff's policy now It's their policy now, but we're talking 03:04:17.600 --> 03:04:23.486 - about a subdivision that occurred in 1911 and created four lots out of two 03:04:23.842 --> 03:04:26.878 - And we didn't do that, we just own it now. 03:04:53.890 --> 03:05:07.781 - Just so Eric you're if I understand the distinction here The land has always been Viewed in the context 03:05:07.781 --> 03:05:16.062 - of four parcels Not not from our perspective absolutely not I 03:05:18.914 --> 03:05:26.957 - So I guess your response then is that there was never a formal subdivision to create correct or a recording 03:05:26.957 --> 03:05:34.478 - of a deed prior to the establishment of a subdivision code that would have legally established those 03:05:34.478 --> 03:05:42.074 - lots on a deed by themselves not owned by an adjacent owner. And the petitioner's argument is they've 03:05:42.074 --> 03:05:48.702 - always been considered for different pieces of land even though they may have been owned 03:05:49.250 --> 03:05:55.541 - By the same party. I don't want to speak for the petitioner But yes, I that is their assertion that 03:05:55.541 --> 03:06:01.832 - they are four separate individual and that's what's in the deeds I'm sorry what and that's how it's 03:06:01.832 --> 03:06:08.249 - articulated in the deeps Well, so the the deeds for each say the north half of this lot and the north 03:06:08.249 --> 03:06:14.603 - half of that lot on one deed You know, it's not I bought a deed that says the north half of this lot 03:06:14.603 --> 03:06:19.070 - and a completely separate deed This has a north half of this other lot 03:06:19.234 --> 03:06:30.450 - It's one deed that says north half of this and the north half of that likewise for the other one And 03:06:30.450 --> 03:06:41.999 - again, I mean this is a situation we run into fairly frequently Just wonder why would you say it's even 03:06:41.999 --> 03:06:43.998 - a half of a lot I 03:06:57.506 --> 03:07:04.840 - Just make sure I'm not sure if I said it correctly earlier so a denial of the petitioners appeal would 03:07:04.840 --> 03:07:10.750 - be affirming staff's position and Approving would be affirming the petitioners are 03:07:28.770 --> 03:07:38.204 - Is there. So I heard is maybe this question is for you Eric or if a home is built in that quadrant where 03:07:38.204 --> 03:07:47.369 - it will have no garage it will have no access. You will have to have an easement. So you know just to 03:07:47.369 --> 03:07:57.342 - answer the question in generalities in general it is was one big lot. Can they construct a garage. Absolutely. 03:07:59.522 --> 03:08:06.507 - But they cannot put a dwelling on they can't put a dwelling unit in there because that would be something 03:08:06.507 --> 03:08:13.492 - different. Yeah. Yeah they can build its own single family. So you know there's an existing nonconforming 03:08:13.492 --> 03:08:20.213 - use. You can do it. You need a legit. I mean most likely they would need to legitimize the duplex use 03:08:20.213 --> 03:08:26.078 - in order to do the garage. But there is a path for that. They could do a garage but not. 03:08:26.530 --> 03:08:39.486 - A dwelling not a dwelling you'd above it now. Now this is a tough one. 03:09:00.066 --> 03:09:09.807 - In this case we we don't have to do the three criteria. This is just a recommend. Yeah yeah this is 03:09:09.807 --> 03:09:19.840 - just a vote yay or nay. And it's an admin administrative appeal. So when an administrative appeal they 03:09:19.840 --> 03:09:28.510 - cannot make a formal recommendation. Of course they have a very strong opinion about it. 03:09:29.378 --> 03:09:57.694 - But so it's up to us. I just you know I think there's good arguments on both sides of the case. I mean 03:10:01.122 --> 03:10:10.515 - You know, a reasonable property owner would look at GIS and go, those are two different parcels. And 03:10:10.515 --> 03:10:20.467 - when I think of a parcel, I think in my head that there are lots, but there's never been a natural process 03:10:20.467 --> 03:10:30.046 - to subdivide the land, which I think is, you know, the staff's perspective is that for the purposes of 03:10:30.242 --> 03:10:40.410 - development, you know, subdividing is the pathway to create separate development opportunities for distinct 03:10:40.410 --> 03:10:50.296 - property owners. I'm trying to get this right. So it's not like you own and live in one and you're doing 03:10:50.296 --> 03:10:58.110 - a dwelling like an ADU or something. This is totally two different separate units. 03:11:00.002 --> 03:11:09.521 - So I mean, I think that, you know, it's a lot to ask for us basically to adjudicate a difficult question. 03:11:09.521 --> 03:11:18.591 - I mean, it's one thing to, you know, whether it's, yeah, I don't know. Flava, you're the real estate 03:11:18.591 --> 03:11:26.942 - person up here. I'm just a country lawyer. I think you are. That's not currently practicing. 03:11:27.170 --> 03:11:35.874 - Much better suited than I am in here I Have questions about you know, where is the easement because 03:11:35.874 --> 03:11:45.012 - this is a landlocked Piece so when you have a landlocked parcel, you have to have an easement for access 03:11:45.012 --> 03:11:53.803 - So Would they even be able to have an easement in here So the presence of an easement doesn't change 03:11:53.803 --> 03:11:56.414 - anything from our perspective 03:11:56.834 --> 03:12:06.327 - Okay. You know it's not a question of how do you get to it. That's that's not a component. Okay. There 03:12:06.327 --> 03:12:15.544 - is an easement on lot 29 to lot 30. There is an easement. There's a there's a easement on lot 29 to 03:12:15.544 --> 03:12:23.102 - lot 30 on record with with I guess the deed for the half of lot 29 planet lot 29. 03:12:34.946 --> 03:12:39.902 - Number 3. Thank you. 03:13:24.066 --> 03:13:37.457 - I guess what I'm confused by is I know that there's pretty strong wording in the staff report about 03:13:37.457 --> 03:13:51.383 - you know looking at GIS but are we saying that when our GIS system has property cards that have a legal 03:13:51.383 --> 03:13:52.990 - description 03:13:54.850 --> 03:14:08.118 - refers to The parcel number and calls it lot 29 and then the other Parcel has a legal description that 03:14:08.118 --> 03:14:21.129 - calls it lot 30 that it's not a lot Yeah, like I said there are certainly errors in the auditors and 03:14:21.129 --> 03:14:24.478 - assessors information and 03:14:24.706 --> 03:14:35.329 - You know and how they choose to assess something you know doesn't have an implication for whether or 03:14:35.329 --> 03:14:46.058 - not something needs a planning and zoning requirement Yeah, but one one sales record is dated 813 and 03:14:46.058 --> 03:14:51.422 - that's for a lot 29 813 2024 and it was by LW deed 03:14:55.106 --> 03:15:12.082 - And then the other parcel that refers to lot 30 was a quick claim in twenty two thousand seven eight 03:15:12.082 --> 03:15:21.662 - twenty two thousand seven and I don't it just seems like 03:15:24.034 --> 03:15:32.681 - We're arguing that the County Auditor's Office made a massive mistake here. It just seems I don't It's 03:15:32.681 --> 03:15:41.496 - you know, and I'm not trying to give the staff our time because I totally understand what you're arguing 03:15:41.496 --> 03:15:49.976 - Eric I'm sorry. I have to correct it. The auditor didn't make a mistake. I Appreciate the hard work, 03:15:49.976 --> 03:15:52.830 - but they didn't make a mistake. I 03:16:06.370 --> 03:16:18.658 - Those were like, you know, 17 years difference referred to as separate. Yes, separate parcel sold in 03:16:18.658 --> 03:16:31.067 - different times. I think that's an argument, a strong argument there. And I, you know, again, I mean, 03:16:31.067 --> 03:16:35.934 - we can I'm just saying I'm not a judge. 03:16:36.770 --> 03:16:50.713 - But if you came to me and said that you know the property record refers to it as a platted lot I Might 03:16:50.713 --> 03:17:03.166 - be persuaded. It's a lot of record even though our definition in the UDO has a you know the 03:17:05.090 --> 03:17:21.418 - Single ownership language and and some of that I just think it's a tough case to to win Yeah, so I mean 03:17:21.418 --> 03:17:32.094 - I think you know as you're looking at the property record card here 03:17:32.578 --> 03:17:52.105 - And if you look very closely, you know when it looks at the legal description it says part of lot 29 03:17:52.105 --> 03:17:59.838 - Likewise for the lots to the north Okay 03:18:02.722 --> 03:18:12.480 - I don't know if this information is reflecting you know there was a deed that was recorded in twenty 03:18:12.480 --> 03:18:22.334 - twenty four that I think tried to establish this as a lot by itself which was the impetus for some of 03:18:22.334 --> 03:18:32.478 - the problems here today. I'm sorry but what is the twenty twenty four a lot. The deed the deed was 1911. 03:18:32.866 --> 03:18:39.697 - Just don't understand. Yeah, we're not talking about the deed in 1911 No, I know you're not but I think 03:18:39.697 --> 03:18:46.396 - the BZA is because they want to know when the lot was established and the lot was established in 1911 03:18:46.396 --> 03:18:53.292 - No, we're talking over 110 year 15 years. Yeah after the thing was established Thank you and well before 03:18:53.292 --> 03:18:57.758 - there was a zoning ordinance, of course, and we all agree on that I 03:19:25.186 --> 03:19:54.590 - I mean they. I mean they referred to as platted lots. On the property records. I'm looking at. 03:19:54.690 --> 03:20:03.597 - You know, notice of tax bill from June at 2026. Looking at the property record card. So I think it's 03:20:03.597 --> 03:20:12.768 - also important to be careful looking at some pieces of information. You know, oftentimes the recorder's 03:20:12.768 --> 03:20:21.586 - office and our office, they have to take in for a long time. They would take anything that would be 03:20:21.586 --> 03:20:23.262 - presented to them. 03:20:23.746 --> 03:20:29.820 - And so there have been situations where we have uncovered Scenarios where lots were illegally created 03:20:29.820 --> 03:20:35.893 - these were illegally recorded So that's why it's very important when we encounter these situations to 03:20:35.893 --> 03:20:41.967 - put the document of proof You know show us go back and give us the information going back where these 03:20:41.967 --> 03:20:48.040 - lots were created to make sure that everything was done accordingly And so again, that's that's where 03:20:48.040 --> 03:20:52.030 - we're in this situation of show us a deed that was legally created 03:20:52.290 --> 03:21:02.379 - Created that legally allowed this lot to be created that met our standards at the time that it was created 03:21:02.379 --> 03:21:12.375 - But so are you I don't want to be argumentative everybody. Are you saying that? The recorder the assessor 03:21:12.375 --> 03:21:17.278 - are not looking at Evidence of transfer of property 03:21:18.658 --> 03:21:31.700 - Whether or not it met planning and zoning requirements. They mean they may not have affirmed that Yeah, 03:21:31.700 --> 03:21:45.118 - this is complicated because You have land recorded one way but not following so it's They're not following 03:21:46.274 --> 03:21:54.876 - We're not working together here. The recorder's office with the UDO. So we do letters authorizing letters 03:21:54.876 --> 03:22:03.154 - of lot line adjustments. I'm just saying you know whether or not the person working that day may have 03:22:03.154 --> 03:22:10.782 - paid attention or notice what was happening with new deeds being recorded. Impossible to say. 03:22:10.914 --> 03:22:18.970 - But you know the burden of proof is always to show that you met all laws and regulations Obviously the 03:22:18.970 --> 03:22:26.947 - zoning code has been in place and the subdivision code has been in place since 73 So as we go through 03:22:26.947 --> 03:22:34.847 - this exercise, which we've done many times, you know the Method of showing that something is legally 03:22:34.847 --> 03:22:40.478 - created is always the same has always been the same Yes, I'll allow you 03:22:40.738 --> 03:22:47.084 - I'm just gonna go back and repeat because they'll set it multiple times These four lots were created 03:22:47.084 --> 03:22:53.618 - in 1911 before the planning before the zoning the last time I went through this I was told specifically 03:22:53.618 --> 03:23:00.027 - if anything was Established before the zoning department. They didn't have say because I've been told 03:23:00.027 --> 03:23:06.498 - they many times they don't Recognize these lots and I've heard that said tonight by the legal council. 03:23:06.498 --> 03:23:10.142 - They don't recognize them, but they were two platted lots 03:23:10.530 --> 03:23:19.801 - We're subdivided. I am part two platted lots Staffs recommendation is you're taking two separate platted 03:23:19.801 --> 03:23:28.719 - lots half of them and making one lot and I don't know how that's legal Because the deed has been the 03:23:28.719 --> 03:23:33.310 - same since the lots have been subdivided since 1911 03:23:48.290 --> 03:24:00.134 - getting close to a motion here. You know I mean I'm just looking at the record and we can argue whether 03:24:00.134 --> 03:24:11.864 - or not a county office did something different. But I mean if you just look at the sales history after 03:24:11.864 --> 03:24:18.014 - 1900 it looks like you had the same owner up to 1984. 03:24:20.034 --> 03:24:33.397 - And then, well, I don't know, I may be wrong here. I'm just trying to follow the money trail. So One 03:24:33.397 --> 03:24:46.892 - Lot sells the 516 South Woodlawn, sells in 23 and 24 from, well, in 1984, it goes from Del Hales, who 03:24:46.892 --> 03:24:49.406 - owns both parcels, 03:24:49.730 --> 03:25:03.286 - In 1984, that property owner sells one lot to H3 rentals. And I wonder if that's the same entity because 03:25:03.286 --> 03:25:16.584 - it's a quick claim. But then that lot is sold in 2023 to Joseph Christine LLC. But the other lot isn't 03:25:16.584 --> 03:25:19.166 - sold by Dale Hills. 03:25:19.842 --> 03:25:39.034 - until 2007 to Charles Lane, so I mean They're not transferring at the same time to me that's like they're 03:25:39.034 --> 03:25:43.198 - separate Well the both 03:25:43.394 --> 03:25:49.964 - Both hats and halves have always been on the same deed and transferred at the same time So that would 03:25:49.964 --> 03:25:56.082 - have been if there was a situation where the north half of one and the north half of the other 03:25:56.082 --> 03:26:02.588 - Had transferred to separate owners, then that would be different But that's that's not the case here 03:26:02.588 --> 03:26:09.222 - so, you know some of the the Errors or some errors the information in the auditor's office is a result 03:26:09.222 --> 03:26:13.086 - of the uncombination request that was done in 2024 and that 03:26:13.218 --> 03:26:21.826 - Is where it ran a foul of the zoning code and shouldn't have been done. So we did not sign on that sign 03:26:21.826 --> 03:26:30.848 - off on that And were you saying there was a request To uncombine. Is that what it is? Yes, so the petitioner 03:26:30.848 --> 03:26:39.870 - in 2024 filed a request to uncombine those parcels And that is where it shouldn't have been allowed to be in 03:26:40.610 --> 03:26:47.668 - But I but I'm separated. Yeah, I hear you but I'm going yeah, I'm just looking at the sales records 03:26:47.668 --> 03:26:54.796 - here though and They were sold at different times To different yes in North Hampton South haves were 03:26:54.796 --> 03:27:01.854 - absolutely sold at different times But they were always sold together because they were on one deed 03:27:09.922 --> 03:27:16.736 - I don't know how you do that. Yeah That timeline is not matching Eric. That's that's the issue here. 03:27:16.736 --> 03:27:23.617 - Yeah, I'm not disputing what you're saying Eric. I'm just saying I don't know how you do that. I mean 03:27:23.617 --> 03:27:30.431 - If it's on the same deed and I'm trying to close on the property I've got I like Do the title search 03:27:30.431 --> 03:27:36.638 - and make it happen, right? Well, it wouldn't be released to show that you actually have the 03:27:37.922 --> 03:27:46.210 - That you're selling what you're selling and I'm buying what I'm buying And if one was sold in 2027 Or 03:27:46.210 --> 03:27:54.742 - 2023 and the other was sold in 2007. I don't know how to square that Yep, so I think you know, certainly 03:27:54.742 --> 03:28:03.030 - the exhibit in their title the chain of title I don't know if that's what you're looking at, you know 03:28:03.030 --> 03:28:06.686 - shows how things have moved through time and 03:28:06.946 --> 03:28:17.800 - Certainly as you look in the description of those you see how they were always bundled together. Yeah 03:28:17.800 --> 03:28:28.548 - the discrepancy is that one was sold separate. The front one the one on the right. Which one are you 03:28:28.548 --> 03:28:35.358 - looking at. Lot lot 30 was sold in 2023 and the half the other. 03:28:35.490 --> 03:28:42.579 - Lot was sold in 2024. Right. So again that that's where that shouldn't have been created that way. So 03:28:42.579 --> 03:28:49.529 - the zoning code says you could not have sold these. These were not individual lots of record. So so 03:28:49.529 --> 03:28:56.688 - that was an illegal sale right there. Now now we're getting into very difficult territory right there. 03:28:56.688 --> 03:29:03.985 - It shouldn't it shouldn't have been separated into two separate loss of record. I don't think the zoning 03:29:03.985 --> 03:29:04.958 - code dictates 03:29:05.858 --> 03:29:13.998 - Ability one to sell a lot No, but putting them sub the subdivision code does of taking those two separate 03:29:13.998 --> 03:29:21.677 - lots and putting them on their own deed You've taken one lot and now created two With the intention 03:29:21.677 --> 03:29:29.355 - of selling them separately. That's that is a subdivision taking one lot and making it to These lots 03:29:29.355 --> 03:29:34.270 - were subdivided in 1911 having two lots on one deed it is is is 03:29:35.298 --> 03:29:44.344 - something you can have happen. There was no subdivision legal subdivision. It was done. This was done 03:29:44.344 --> 03:29:53.390 - prior to. Well yeah I mean we're now we're just repeating ourselves. But thank you so much. I'm going 03:29:53.390 --> 03:30:02.524 - to. So what I'm going to do here I'm going to give the petitioner how many minutes that they have left 03:30:02.524 --> 03:30:04.830 - their hair eight minutes. 03:30:04.962 --> 03:30:13.075 - Okay. Can you do that less than eight minutes and and this will be your final time and then let's figure 03:30:13.075 --> 03:30:20.956 - out what we're going to do. I don't think things are going to change drastically. I think we've heard 03:30:20.956 --> 03:30:28.836 - both sides. So I do my best not to repeat myself. We've been at this a long time. You are yet to have 03:30:28.836 --> 03:30:33.086 - been told by the staff a legal basis for their policy. 03:30:34.562 --> 03:30:43.532 - There's no ordinance, there's no case, there's no statute. They've yet to, in an hour almost, they've 03:30:43.532 --> 03:30:52.326 - yet to give you a legal basis to disregard two lots that have been existent since 1911 and tell you 03:30:52.326 --> 03:31:01.119 - they're one. And I don't know how the BZA is gonna get around that. It's the same road it went down 03:31:01.119 --> 03:31:03.230 - in the Elkins case that 03:31:03.330 --> 03:31:11.305 - The staff report itself identifies as the same case. So I I'm sorry, but we don't have any authority 03:31:11.305 --> 03:31:19.281 - for this policy We've asked for it. We're months into this thing and they've yet to provide it Thank 03:31:19.281 --> 03:31:27.177 - you I'm sorry staff has given an absolute legal basis and Edina Yeah, so I do believe we've given a 03:31:27.177 --> 03:31:30.494 - legal basis that being that this does not 03:31:30.786 --> 03:31:42.580 - Meet the U.D.O.'s definition of being subdivided. It's not a I think what we need to also focus on is 03:31:42.580 --> 03:31:54.258 - whether it's a developable you know developable separate law. So we we can talk about the U.D.O. the 03:31:54.258 --> 03:31:59.230 - legal definition of subdividing and I know 03:31:59.618 --> 03:32:05.614 - petitioners mentioned the Elkins case and one of the things that distinguishes these facts from that 03:32:05.614 --> 03:32:11.610 - case is that in that case there was a building permit that was issued. I know petitioner mentioned a 03:32:11.610 --> 03:32:17.606 - building permit in the beginning of his speech but didn't continue with it. In that case there was a 03:32:17.606 --> 03:32:24.017 - building permit that was issued and they had already started building. So our facts are completely distinct 03:32:24.017 --> 03:32:24.670 - from that. 03:32:24.898 --> 03:32:32.940 - No building permit has been issued to my recognition to my knowledge. Nothing has been built it has 03:32:32.940 --> 03:32:41.062 - been built and we're focusing not so much on just the fact whether they're separate but whether they 03:32:41.062 --> 03:32:49.667 - were legally subdivided under the standards that the UDO has set forth and whether Whether it's a separate 03:32:49.667 --> 03:32:54.814 - developable lot and so City of Bloomington our position is that 03:32:55.298 --> 03:33:07.589 - There's no record, which would be the legal basis of an actual subdivision approval that allowed the 03:33:07.589 --> 03:33:20.366 - creation of new lots that are separate and developable lots. Thank you. Question, do you have a building 03:33:20.366 --> 03:33:24.990 - permit? No, this is why we're here is 03:33:25.730 --> 03:33:34.514 - Staff is saying the south half of lot 29 and the south half of lot 30 now lot 29 has two properties 03:33:34.514 --> 03:33:43.386 - on it So they were legally subdivided in 1911 lot 29 was legally subdivided the same time lot 30 was 03:33:43.386 --> 03:33:52.433 - legally subdivided So I'm coming in saying I have a legal lot South half of lot 30 platted lot They're 03:33:52.433 --> 03:33:54.014 - saying I'm saying 03:33:54.146 --> 03:34:01.278 - I'd like my permit. I'm trying to get my permit issued. That's what this is about. This is what's holding 03:34:01.278 --> 03:34:08.275 - it up is I've got a plan. Everything fits. Everything fits with the current UDO. For the last question, 03:34:08.275 --> 03:34:15.339 - the legal basis, they're quoting the current UDO in 1911. There was no planning department in the 1970s. 03:34:15.339 --> 03:34:22.942 - These lots were legally separated on its on a deed. A deed can have more than one lot. I have two lots. I'm just 03:34:23.202 --> 03:34:30.655 - Talking about lot 30. I'm trying to be able to get my permit issued to build a house now whether they 03:34:30.655 --> 03:34:37.962 - say it doesn't fit requirements I've had an engineer look at it. I've had engineer look at the code 03:34:37.962 --> 03:34:45.342 - I've had it platted it fits if it's all the requirements to be able to build on it So it is a if the 03:34:45.342 --> 03:34:49.726 - house we have will fit on that lot Thank you Let's focus on 03:34:49.826 --> 03:35:04.293 - what we're going to do here because I don't think we're we still have several people we want to hear. 03:35:04.293 --> 03:35:18.334 - I want to move on. We need to. I'll entertain a motion. Just get things moving home make a motion. 03:35:19.650 --> 03:35:45.886 - get the wording right. So we have to make a motion either to 03:35:47.682 --> 03:35:59.525 - deny the appeal or approve deny the appeal or approve the denial is the denial the approval is siding 03:35:59.525 --> 03:36:11.251 - with the city the approval of The appeal is siding with the petitioner Well, I'll make a motion that 03:36:11.251 --> 03:36:14.270 - we approve the appeal and 03:36:16.898 --> 03:36:27.334 - And then we can debate it if we get a second. Do we have a second fully there. So that motion fails 03:36:27.334 --> 03:36:38.813 - for lack of a second. So I'll move that we approve the or deny that bill and approve the staff recommendation 03:36:38.813 --> 03:36:46.014 - or not recommendation but interpretation. We have a second for that. 03:36:53.026 --> 03:37:04.694 - We got to do one or the other. I guess we can continue it. Can I second. Anybody can second. Okay. I 03:37:04.694 --> 03:37:16.363 - was excluding myself here. Okay. I mean our alternative is that you continue it right. And then. But 03:37:16.363 --> 03:37:18.558 - I don't even know. 03:37:19.650 --> 03:37:28.542 - But I don't know where we're going to get here. I mean unless there's like some there was one precedent. 03:37:28.542 --> 03:37:37.179 - But remember everything we do here there and we don't base it on precedents. It's specifically to the 03:37:37.179 --> 03:37:46.494 - law. You know what we're doing. So I mean just for you know for my perspective I think it's debatable. It is. 03:37:46.914 --> 03:37:56.937 - You know so I guess it gets down to what do we want to accomplish. You know if we deny the appeal they 03:37:56.937 --> 03:38:07.154 - have the right to you know see judicial relief. They can. If we approve it they still have to go through 03:38:07.154 --> 03:38:15.230 - other kinds of hoops and hurdles. Yeah they're just going to be still going to go. 03:38:16.546 --> 03:38:31.226 - It's not like they can just, by right, go build something tomorrow. If I was being a judge, I'd take 03:38:31.226 --> 03:38:45.470 - an under advisement and do my own research. I'm not going to do that. All right. Let's try again. 03:38:46.850 --> 03:38:58.006 - I think that the the staff makes a good argument that there's there wasn't any kind of formal approval 03:38:58.006 --> 03:39:09.704 - process related to a subdivision in the contemporary context of what that means. But the property transfers 03:39:09.704 --> 03:39:16.094 - and all the documents you refer to these as separate lots. 03:39:16.770 --> 03:39:26.358 - And again, I haven't done the research other than just trying to read some of the cases here, which 03:39:26.358 --> 03:39:35.946 - is inadequate. I think you can make a pretty good argument that these are going to be determined as 03:39:35.946 --> 03:39:45.534 - lots. What you can do with them subsequently is a whole different question. But denying it and just 03:39:46.402 --> 03:39:55.295 - Going to court seems like a waste of time. Yeah, okay Right. How about you make a motion? So again, 03:39:55.295 --> 03:40:04.633 - I'll make a motion that we approve the bill second Roll call, please So I just want to make sure because 03:40:04.633 --> 03:40:13.882 - there was a motion to approve it By mr. Fernandez and then it was seconded by kusinko. Is that correct? 03:40:13.882 --> 03:40:15.838 - That is correct. Okay 03:40:15.938 --> 03:40:35.613 - bro Yes Fernandez. Yes, could sink. Oh, yes Thank you. All right, let's move on Let's move to ZR hot 03:40:35.613 --> 03:40:44.574 - 2026 dash zero three dash zero zero one three 03:40:45.250 --> 03:40:54.060 - 24 oh wait shuttle Grove Court We already did that correct Yeah, so I don't know, you know just to remind 03:40:54.060 --> 03:41:02.538 - the board any cases that you do not get through Have to be rescheduled within one week of the hearing 03:41:02.538 --> 03:41:11.016 - date. So you did not set a time to tonight So it's open-ended unless you want to establish one. Yeah, 03:41:11.016 --> 03:41:15.006 - we still have So as of right now, we have three 03:41:15.138 --> 03:41:29.037 - cases to be heard. It's nine twenty one nine twenty one. Let's be judicious about our time and let's 03:41:29.037 --> 03:41:42.110 - get it done. So let's go. Staff report. Good evening. Joe Patterson's on a long range planner. 03:41:43.458 --> 03:41:51.543 - So for 2408 South Shadow Grove Court, we're looking at three variances, one from environmental regulations 03:41:51.543 --> 03:41:59.629 - regarding steep slope standards, one regarding riparian buffered standards, and then landscaping standards 03:41:59.629 --> 03:42:07.638 - for ground cover. This location is zone medium lot residential, is approximately 1.28 acres to the north, 03:42:07.638 --> 03:42:11.870 - which is the rear of the property, abuts Jackson Creek, 03:42:12.226 --> 03:42:20.060 - and that is where the riparian buffer zone is. The majority of the property from the rear of the home 03:42:20.060 --> 03:42:28.279 - to Jackson Creek is within the steep slope area. So these three variances tie back to originally a zoning, 03:42:28.279 --> 03:42:36.266 - excuse me, a notice of violation letter that was issued in March of 2024. And these are the outstanding 03:42:36.266 --> 03:42:40.030 - items that remain from that notice of violation. 03:42:40.994 --> 03:42:49.774 - As you can see here, the work that has been done within the repairing buffer area was strictly relating 03:42:49.774 --> 03:42:58.300 - to storm damage, felled trees, debris, and cleaning that area up. You can see within the steep slope 03:42:58.300 --> 03:43:06.911 - area, there's one large retaining wall as well as a smaller retaining wall, some riprap channels. And 03:43:06.911 --> 03:43:09.022 - what we're looking at is 03:43:11.266 --> 03:43:18.573 - Basically these variances are for work that has been done in these areas. It is not for any new work. 03:43:18.573 --> 03:43:25.952 - The work that was done was there was drainage issues with storm water and other issues where water was 03:43:25.952 --> 03:43:33.689 - entering the home. And so the petitioners took it upon themselves to do some work installing some retaining 03:43:33.689 --> 03:43:39.134 - walls and doing other work without getting the necessary permissions first. 03:43:41.154 --> 03:43:48.710 - And so this retaining wall system was installed. There should have been an infill with ground, standard 03:43:48.710 --> 03:43:56.122 - ground cover. However, they went with a lava rock infiltration system as well as the riprap channels. 03:43:56.122 --> 03:44:03.751 - And that was all to redirect the drainage down the slope. Within the staff report, you'll see that there 03:44:03.751 --> 03:44:09.854 - was mention of an professional engineers report as well as what the contractor did. 03:44:10.306 --> 03:44:21.931 - The professional engineer agreed with primarily with what the contractor did. He said he would have 03:44:21.931 --> 03:44:33.673 - done a similar design. And so by approving these variances, we are looking at not being injurious as 03:44:33.673 --> 03:44:39.486 - we believe that by causing the work to be redone, 03:44:39.714 --> 03:44:48.473 - that would be more injurious than what has already been established. The engineer report stated that 03:44:48.473 --> 03:44:57.839 - the work was appropriate. They found that the work would actually help re-establish and protect neighboring 03:44:57.839 --> 03:45:02.782 - properties, and so they would not be affected adversely. 03:45:08.642 --> 03:45:17.497 - And when we get to the peculiar difficulties, the practical difficulties, again, we're looking at that 03:45:17.497 --> 03:45:26.265 - steep slope and how that system was designed to redirect that drainage appropriately. And one mention 03:45:26.265 --> 03:45:35.550 - for the ground cover. There were other areas identified on site. We determined that those were appropriate. 03:45:36.066 --> 03:45:42.019 - appropriate to find landscape beds. However, there was one location out in the front of the property 03:45:42.019 --> 03:45:47.972 - between the street and the sidewalk where a rock was placed, and we determined that does not meet as 03:45:47.972 --> 03:45:54.397 - it is within the right of way, so that will need to be removed and replaced. And so ultimately, we recommend 03:45:54.397 --> 03:46:00.409 - that the Board of Zoning Appeals adopt our proposed findings and approve all requested variances with 03:46:00.409 --> 03:46:03.710 - the following conditions. That the work is approved for 03:46:04.834 --> 03:46:10.566 - that the variances are approved for work in the completed areas as designated. Any future work that 03:46:10.566 --> 03:46:16.642 - is deemed necessary is to be approved remediation plans, memorandum of understanding or other agreements. 03:46:16.642 --> 03:46:22.604 - The currently installed systems and features are to be maintained. A floodplain development permit will 03:46:22.604 --> 03:46:28.508 - be required. And then again, the gravel and stone installed within the right of ways to be removed and 03:46:28.508 --> 03:46:33.438 - revegetated. And I will be here for any additional questions you have regarding this. 03:46:35.842 --> 03:46:43.187 - Thank you. May I have the petitioner, please? Jason McCauley for the Slavens. Do you swear or affirm 03:46:43.187 --> 03:46:50.678 - that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 03:46:50.678 --> 03:46:58.096 - I do. So first off, I want to thank the planning staff very much on behalf of the Slavens for helping 03:46:58.096 --> 03:47:05.150 - them work through what's been a very stressful time for the Slavens life and trying to deal with 03:47:05.474 --> 03:47:11.912 - Some of the pictures you'll see in the petitioners packet were some storm damage that precipitated the 03:47:11.912 --> 03:47:18.350 - work that was done without Appropriate permitting so this is an after all three of these are after the 03:47:18.350 --> 03:47:24.663 - fact variances before you so as they've worked with city staff to trying to find a course and a path 03:47:24.663 --> 03:47:31.038 - back to to saving the foundation of the house dealing with some drainage issues that come at from the 03:47:31.038 --> 03:47:33.726 - end of this cul-de-sac and the water flows 03:47:33.826 --> 03:47:40.063 - straight at the house. And so some things that the Slavens have been dealing with to get to this point. 03:47:40.063 --> 03:47:46.419 - These three variances are required to approve what they've already done. So we're not we're not proposing 03:47:46.419 --> 03:47:52.836 - new soil disturbance or anything of that nature. They installed a retaining wall that you can see pictures 03:47:52.836 --> 03:47:59.072 - of that is just it's fantastic and probably saved their house. They had tree damage that came down that 03:47:59.072 --> 03:48:02.910 - has required them to have the roof on the house replaced twice. 03:48:03.554 --> 03:48:10.054 - Part of the work that they did was in the riparian buffer area And so that's one of the third one of 03:48:10.054 --> 03:48:16.618 - the third variances that's requested that We agree with the conditions. We acknowledge the conditions 03:48:16.618 --> 03:48:23.053 - the one that Joe mr. Patterson mentioned that's out in front in the right-of-way we actually have a 03:48:23.053 --> 03:48:29.489 - planning staff meeting at the at the residence scheduled for June 8th, so we'll have an opportunity 03:48:29.489 --> 03:48:31.870 - to discuss what can be put there and 03:48:32.066 --> 03:48:39.828 - in lieu of the River Rock that's there now currently so we just want to thank the planning staff and 03:48:39.828 --> 03:48:47.513 - Ask the BZA to adopt the findings that the staff has incorporated into the packet and then the last 03:48:47.513 --> 03:48:54.046 - thing is just want to thank you for your time and considering these requests because 03:48:54.210 --> 03:49:01.594 - It's been a long path for the Slavens to get to this spot and now we're just asking for and we've been 03:49:01.594 --> 03:49:08.763 - working with staff To come out to look at these improvements that have been made. So we're just now 03:49:08.763 --> 03:49:15.932 - asking for Them to remain where they're at. So thank you very much Thank you Have any questions for 03:49:15.932 --> 03:49:19.230 - staff or petition? Let's go to public comment 03:49:21.506 --> 03:49:31.943 - We do have one person online any given given Givens you should be able to speak Can you state your name 03:49:31.943 --> 03:49:42.079 - Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth but 03:49:42.079 --> 03:49:50.910 - nothing but the truth Thank you So I would call attention to the fact that my husband I 03:49:51.362 --> 03:49:53.310 - All right, let's get started. 03:55:52.130 --> 03:56:04.556 - Get thank you miss Banny. We are you're out of time Thank you Thank you, we're gonna mute you now Okay 03:56:04.556 --> 03:56:16.861 - anybody else is there anybody else online that would like to comment If there is anybody else online, 03:56:16.861 --> 03:56:21.566 - please use the raise hand function and 03:56:22.050 --> 03:56:35.801 - and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody. All right. Just as a statement for the public comment, 03:56:35.801 --> 03:56:47.326 - we did receive the letter and we did read the letter from from you dated on April 28th. 03:56:52.994 --> 03:57:07.694 - We're back to to the board for any questions or comments after hearing the public comment or what they 03:57:07.694 --> 03:57:20.254 - have said. I can make a motion. I make a motion for CR 2 0 2 6 dash 0 4 dash 0 0 1 3 4. 03:57:20.546 --> 03:57:31.685 - Three requested variances to be approved with the conditions out light with the five conditions outlined 03:57:31.685 --> 03:57:43.036 - in the staff report Whether I didn't know if there was any comment or discussion. Yes, I do have a comment 03:57:43.036 --> 03:57:50.462 - This has been a long process for for the petitioners and for the city 03:57:51.074 --> 03:58:00.769 - A lot of time spent on this and a lot of I also want to acknowledge all the neighbors as they had to 03:58:00.769 --> 03:58:10.655 - endure the process maybe not knowing fully of what what's going on and also fears of what that so this 03:58:10.655 --> 03:58:21.022 - has caused a lot of concerns for the neighbors as well and I want to acknowledge that but I want to commend 03:58:21.154 --> 03:58:32.332 - The city for working with them and getting As much as we can done with work that was already done Without 03:58:32.332 --> 03:58:42.983 - permission so and figure it out a way to make To make this as compliant as possible. So I appreciate 03:58:42.983 --> 03:58:49.310 - you guys And appreciate the petitioner as well so with that 03:58:50.402 --> 03:58:59.407 - I hope for people that are listening to this if you are doing a project in your house, even though your 03:58:59.407 --> 03:59:08.066 - contractor says it's okay. Check with planning commission first before you do it. Anyway, let's go. 03:59:08.066 --> 03:59:13.694 - Roll call, please, bro. Yes. Fernandez. Yes, because Cinco. Yes. 03:59:18.530 --> 03:59:27.980 - All right, we're moving forward to Z are 2026 dash zero five dash zero zero two one for one Highland 03:59:27.980 --> 03:59:37.617 - Avenue Yes, so this is a very simple request in essence so this is an administrative appeal of a staff 03:59:37.617 --> 03:59:46.974 - determination regarding a gravel and driveway parking area for a property of 410 South Highland and 03:59:47.138 --> 03:59:54.699 - So this came to staff as a result of notice of violation Regarding a gravel parking area that had been 03:59:54.699 --> 04:00:02.186 - established on a property You know in this particular situation As I mentioned a gravel area had been 04:00:02.186 --> 04:00:07.838 - established on the northeast corner of a property we looked back at previous 04:00:07.970 --> 04:00:14.349 - Aerial images as well as Google Street View as we often do in times of trying to determine, you know 04:00:14.349 --> 04:00:20.664 - the violation has occurred or whether or not a particular Site feature it has existed on a property 04:00:20.664 --> 04:00:26.979 - how long it's been there So, you know with this we go back through all the things that are disposal 04:00:26.979 --> 04:00:32.158 - Google Street View offers historical perspectives images on properties as well as 04:00:32.418 --> 04:00:39.272 - Aerial photographs so we did go back several years in Google Street View. You can see that the area 04:00:39.272 --> 04:00:46.742 - You know had been the area that had been used as parking had been abandoned Had been reclaimed as vegetation 04:00:46.742 --> 04:00:53.596 - the gravel of the parking area had been removed And then it had been reestablished and put back and 04:00:53.596 --> 04:00:58.942 - so the the issue is in relation to how wide of a driveway is allowed off of a 04:00:59.202 --> 04:01:06.689 - Alley, so you're allowed to have a 20 foot by 20 foot pad this particular parking area Greatly exceeded 04:01:06.689 --> 04:01:14.032 - that width and so that is the aspect of this that is non-compliant So staff made a determination that 04:01:14.032 --> 04:01:21.303 - the parking area that had been established there exceeded what was allowed And so we had issued them 04:01:21.303 --> 04:01:27.422 - an NOV for that and the petitioners are appealing that NOV and so that concludes our 04:01:28.738 --> 04:01:38.689 - Quick question Eric on this 23 image the gravel area there. Is that the alley? Yes Yeah, there is a 04:01:38.689 --> 04:01:49.037 - 12 foot platted alley that runs along the north side of this property So that concludes my presentation 04:01:49.037 --> 04:01:58.590 - we can Answer any questions after the petitioners, right? I'm ready to hear from the petitioner 04:02:14.178 --> 04:02:20.906 - I'm Michael Cookman known the owner Steve Patterson for about 23 years. Let's so are both of you going 04:02:20.906 --> 04:02:27.176 - to talk. He had a stroke in November. I'm here to help him. OK so you're here to on his behalf. 04:02:27.176 --> 04:02:33.969 - All right. I'm going to swear both you in even though he's not going to talk because he's going to feel 04:02:33.969 --> 04:02:40.500 - very good. Yeah I understand. We're going to move this as fast as we can. OK. Appreciate your time. 04:02:40.500 --> 04:02:44.158 - Appreciate you being here. Sorry for the delay. Anyway. 04:02:44.642 --> 04:02:53.497 - Can you state your name Michael D. Cookman. All right. I do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're 04:02:53.497 --> 04:03:02.101 - about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. All right. You affirm. Yes. 04:03:02.101 --> 04:03:10.622 - Okay let's go. Okay. So I actually went to this property 23 years ago when I met him to fix the roof. 04:03:10.818 --> 04:03:17.898 - So I know this property well and I've been working on it for over a year now and it has had a parking 04:03:17.898 --> 04:03:24.840 - since I've known him. There's gravel there and they find him over the years for having grass in the 04:03:24.840 --> 04:03:31.851 - gravel or gravel in the grass. They can't decide what they want to do. I don't know why they haven't 04:03:31.851 --> 04:03:39.070 - used the zoom. I went back to school for computer aided drafting and graduated in 16 and I worked for a 04:03:39.170 --> 04:03:47.364 - 40 million dollar engineering company just a couple years ago and it really nerves me that Staff seems 04:03:47.364 --> 04:03:55.479 - to I guess is how we relate here Suggesting that that's vegetation area when you can I have pictures. 04:03:55.479 --> 04:04:03.514 - I don't have them here tonight because I'm soon we were told we may have to file for a variance, but 04:04:03.514 --> 04:04:08.606 - I really don't think it's necessary because if you use the zoom 04:04:08.706 --> 04:04:15.742 - on any GIS or use any I've used I've got topography anything that's on the Internet. You can easily 04:04:15.742 --> 04:04:23.200 - see that that has always been gravel and it's grown up because the place has been. He hasn't lived there. 04:04:23.200 --> 04:04:30.306 - He went to college there. He just told me tonight he's owned it since the 50s. It's always been that 04:04:30.306 --> 04:04:37.694 - way. It was a place of business in the 80s. So I'll leave you guys up to you if we have to do a variance 04:04:38.466 --> 04:04:47.377 - I understand but there's some other problems I don't want to get into tonight with storm router issue 04:04:47.377 --> 04:04:56.201 - there on that alleyway. So thank you. And you still have some time to come back and talk if you need 04:04:56.201 --> 04:04:59.870 - to. OK. Any questions from you guys from. 04:05:29.794 --> 04:05:50.558 - Are you still thinking of your question? OK. Do you have any questions? Are we supposed to say something yet? 04:05:50.818 --> 04:06:03.594 - No, we're just looking at the paperwork that we have in front of us. And if you want to sit down, you 04:06:03.594 --> 04:06:16.370 - can sit down. You can come back up when we ask a question, if you feel better. So just so I have this 04:06:16.370 --> 04:06:18.750 - clear, we're going 04:06:20.130 --> 04:06:31.550 - I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. Oh, so just to be clear. We're the variance is for a new gravel 04:06:31.550 --> 04:06:42.637 - So they they are appealing our determination that there is a Grandfather parking area and okay, you 04:06:42.637 --> 04:06:45.630 - know our assertion is that 04:06:45.954 --> 04:06:53.450 - There was a one point but it was it was removed, you know, it was no longer uses that You know the vegetation 04:06:53.450 --> 04:07:00.470 - overcame that area the gravels removed whatever and so they are Appealing our determination that there 04:07:00.470 --> 04:07:07.284 - is a non-compliant driveway there Okay, if there wasn't the vegetation would there be an issue with 04:07:07.284 --> 04:07:14.440 - the video So if there still had been a parking area that had been established a grandfathered area there 04:07:14.440 --> 04:07:15.326 - would not be 04:07:15.970 --> 04:07:24.179 - Because there would be it would have not been removed in essence So, you know the non-conforming driveway, 04:07:24.179 --> 04:07:32.004 - you know was installed prior to current regulations And you know ours like said our assertion is that 04:07:32.004 --> 04:07:39.752 - it was removed and then reestablished later several years later and so for the owner of the property 04:07:39.752 --> 04:07:42.974 - the so let's say driveway is approved and 04:07:45.186 --> 04:07:54.154 - then they have the They can go about and install the driveway. Well, are we are we pushing a driveway? 04:07:54.154 --> 04:08:03.471 - Yeah, so if if you Deny their request deny their appeal Then we would work with them to put in a compliant 04:08:03.471 --> 04:08:12.352 - driveway If you approve their appeal that the driveway was never removed then what's there in essence 04:08:12.352 --> 04:08:13.310 - can remain 04:08:15.170 --> 04:08:26.422 - Does that answer your question. Yeah it just seems like a well we're not ready for comments sorry. Any 04:08:26.422 --> 04:08:37.347 - more questions questions for the petitioner. I have a question if you could come back to the podium 04:08:37.347 --> 04:08:43.902 - and the question is so this gravel driveway has been there. 04:08:44.866 --> 04:08:51.945 - Forever that there's just grass growing up in the gravel. I mean they obviously didn't even go out and 04:08:51.945 --> 04:08:58.817 - look at the site physically because I didn't remove any dirt. OK, I put extra gravel in because and 04:08:58.817 --> 04:09:05.758 - I can show proof that just a month ago that whole road flooded and he's lucky it's been flooding his 04:09:05.758 --> 04:09:11.806 - basement for over 20 years and they've they've tried to fix it. They took the curb out. 04:09:11.970 --> 04:09:19.759 - I'll just say what needs to be said because they took the curb out. I have pictures of it and they tapered 04:09:19.759 --> 04:09:27.256 - it took the curb out at that alleyway and tapered it. Okay, so I'm not real sure why to make it easier 04:09:27.256 --> 04:09:34.680 - for pedestrians. All the other alleyways still have curbs and painted yellow distinguished curbs. Um, 04:09:34.680 --> 04:09:41.086 - but the violation, the violation said that basically that we disturbed vegetation area. 04:09:41.442 --> 04:09:49.073 - And I did not remove any dirt from that area. I took the grassy top off of it. I scraped it off and 04:09:49.073 --> 04:09:56.704 - I added gravel and I have two videos in the past year that either IU or the city pretty sure it's a 04:09:56.704 --> 04:10:04.564 - city truck has come in. Well, they've been doing it. I can prove they've added gravel to that alleyway 04:10:04.564 --> 04:10:10.974 - over a foot over a foot of gravel. So he couldn't have the driveway the way it was. 04:10:11.106 --> 04:10:19.938 - They've altered They've altered the you know beyond but the point is all we're here tonight for is It's 04:10:19.938 --> 04:10:28.600 - been gravel this whole time. He had grass grow up through the gravel I Didn't know he's gonna have to 04:10:28.600 --> 04:10:37.092 - actually Talk or really even show up until last week. So I don't sorry I didn't provide pictures or 04:10:37.092 --> 04:10:38.366 - More, you know 04:10:39.586 --> 04:10:48.539 - Not factual evidence here but you can clearly go back and look in the top topography any GIS system 04:10:48.539 --> 04:10:57.850 - and zoom in and see he's had cars there parked there over the years. They find him for it. Look at some 04:10:57.850 --> 04:11:06.176 - of the look at some of the fines in the city. Yeah. Yeah. Well thank you so much. All right. 04:11:06.176 --> 04:11:08.414 - Anybody else. Questions. 04:11:08.834 --> 04:11:19.542 - We're done with questions. Let's go. Did we do public comment. I think we did. Public comment. Yes. 04:11:19.542 --> 04:11:30.463 - There's anybody online that would like to speak to this petition. Please raise hand function. I'm not 04:11:30.463 --> 04:11:32.926 - seeing anybody online. 04:11:34.050 --> 04:11:40.820 - So just to clarify, you know one important component to this and I guess you know one of the the challenges 04:11:40.820 --> 04:11:47.339 - that various city departments had encountered was that You know there had been some tickets for parking 04:11:47.339 --> 04:11:53.670 - on an unapproved surface because there was no indication there was any gravel So it just looked like 04:11:53.670 --> 04:12:00.064 - somebody was parking in the grass and so then I sounds like gravel got dumped there and Reestablished 04:12:00.064 --> 04:12:03.198 - a parking area that exceeded what was allowed now 04:12:03.554 --> 04:12:09.095 - So that was I think the position that the city found itself in so as we look back at this historic photos 04:12:09.095 --> 04:12:14.374 - And the Google Street goes I as I mentioned there, you know It appeared that it had all been removed 04:12:14.374 --> 04:12:19.653 - and then reestablished at a later time I don't know if that helps kind of fill in some of the blanks 04:12:19.653 --> 04:12:24.881 - and what the petition was mentioning in terms of the fines or the tickets that had been issued that 04:12:24.881 --> 04:12:30.265 - was for parking on an unimproved surface because parking enforcement went by and it appeared that they 04:12:30.265 --> 04:12:32.094 - were just parking in the grass and 04:12:35.330 --> 04:12:44.136 - Thank you. Sure I'll allow it. Can you go to the microphone. You need to go to the microphone. Sorry. 04:12:44.136 --> 04:12:53.114 - That area. I just asked him while we were here. Has it changed since he bought it. And it's always been 04:12:53.114 --> 04:13:01.920 - that way. He did put the railroad ties in for a barrier there. But the elevation and the parking that 04:13:01.920 --> 04:13:04.510 - area has been that way since. 04:13:04.738 --> 04:13:34.270 - Over 30 years, 50 years. Thank you. 04:13:37.026 --> 04:13:58.318 - All right. We're back to back to the board for a final action. So on this one losing my you either approve 04:13:58.318 --> 04:14:06.078 - the appeal or you deny the appeal. OK. 04:14:08.418 --> 04:14:20.319 - I guess that part of the staff report that I just kind of question a little bit is you know allowing 04:14:20.319 --> 04:14:32.338 - vegetation to grow through gravel is not the same thing as removing a use and then reestablishing it. 04:14:32.338 --> 04:14:35.166 - I just don't I mean it. 04:14:38.018 --> 04:14:49.538 - To say that it ceased to exist and was reestablished implies that there was some kind of affirmative 04:14:49.538 --> 04:15:01.057 - action taken other than parking there and adding more gravel. I just can't get too excited about it, 04:15:01.057 --> 04:15:02.654 - to be honest. 04:15:10.498 --> 04:15:28.733 - All right. Well I entertain a motion. So just again you know a denial is obviously to affirm the petitioner 04:15:28.733 --> 04:15:38.526 - and then an approval would be to affirm staff's position. 04:15:39.842 --> 04:15:50.159 - A motion for denial. Wait a second. Now we got it's too late. Eric help us out. Yes. No I'm so I'm so 04:15:50.159 --> 04:16:00.273 - sorry. No that is the opposite. That's what I was like. Yeah I'm sorry. It's late. I'm so sorry. If 04:16:00.273 --> 04:16:07.454 - you approve it you are with the petitioner and if you deny the appeal. 04:16:08.706 --> 04:16:37.694 - Yes. Sorry. Yeah. Second. Second. If I had spread herbicide in there, it would be right in your silver bullet. 04:16:39.650 --> 04:17:01.361 - Well, we're going to vote on it now. Okay. So now did you understand what we're voting for? We're voting 04:17:01.361 --> 04:17:07.358 - for approval of your appeal. 04:17:12.034 --> 04:17:23.069 - We're voting on your favor. Okay. Roll call, please. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. Yes. And I'm so sorry. Who 04:17:23.069 --> 04:17:34.540 - was the second on that one? John, thank you very much. Appeal is approved. Okay. The appeal is approved. 04:17:34.540 --> 04:17:35.742 - Thank you. 04:17:37.794 --> 04:17:48.877 - Moving on to our last petition of the evening, ZR 2026-04-0017. This is a request for 2660 Second Street. 04:17:48.877 --> 04:17:59.333 - Thank you. So this is a request for a variance from sign standards to allow for an off-premise sign 04:17:59.333 --> 04:18:05.502 - for a building that is located at 2660 East Second Street. 04:18:05.762 --> 04:18:13.793 - The property has been developed with a multi tenant building that faces 2nd Street has an interior parking 04:18:13.793 --> 04:18:21.373 - area So the petitioner is occupying the south portion of the building the first floor of that with a 04:18:21.373 --> 04:18:28.953 - new use and would like has placed some signage on their portion of the building as well as a sign in 04:18:28.953 --> 04:18:33.982 - the or a panel in a freestanding sign that's out on 2nd Street and 04:18:34.178 --> 04:18:42.583 - They would like to install an approximately 10 square foot sign on the north side of the building There 04:18:42.583 --> 04:18:47.998 - are several signs on that north side of the building now currently 04:18:48.450 --> 04:18:55.825 - One of those received a permit from our department Erroneously the others we were not able to find sign 04:18:55.825 --> 04:19:02.988 - permits for so they just kind of have appeared And we never had a complaint or anything To notify us 04:19:02.988 --> 04:19:10.221 - that there were illegal signs that were there. So the petitioner would like to place the sign here as 04:19:10.221 --> 04:19:16.958 - well Next to the other signs as I indicated there be about 12 inches by 120 inches. So 2 by 10 04:19:20.098 --> 04:19:29.071 - So the request Obviously is evaluated per the criteria in the UTO we Generally as we deal with these 04:19:29.071 --> 04:19:38.044 - conversations on off-premise signs You know the the intent amongst many reasons for why you regulate 04:19:38.044 --> 04:19:47.106 - them is to reduce visual clutter on buildings you know if folks were to place all of the signs and in 04:19:47.106 --> 04:19:48.350 - on a building 04:19:49.346 --> 04:19:55.220 - You know not on their space. It would just clutter up an entire portion of the building as well as you 04:19:55.220 --> 04:20:01.322 - know uses that aren't even located on the property would just put signs there so that's why it's important 04:20:01.322 --> 04:20:07.081 - to have signage for Tenants on their portion of the building so that you reduce that that clutter in 04:20:07.081 --> 04:20:08.222 - one particular area 04:20:08.322 --> 04:20:15.634 - Obviously with this situation here, you know, the small size of this sign is not going to substantially 04:20:15.634 --> 04:20:22.875 - increase Visual clutter here. So we did not find that it would be Generally injurious did not find any 04:20:22.875 --> 04:20:30.468 - adverse impacts to the adjacent use and value However, again as we always struggle with all of the criteria 04:20:30.468 --> 04:20:34.686 - the third one certainly is challenging of you know, what is 04:20:35.010 --> 04:20:40.176 - What is the hardship of this property that doesn't allow them to place signage on their building? 04:20:40.176 --> 04:20:45.606 - You know, there are multi tenant buildings throughout Bloomington That that don't all of their tenants 04:20:45.606 --> 04:20:50.984 - bases don't have frontage on a street, you know, it's not uncommon by any means They can they do have 04:20:50.984 --> 04:20:55.834 - wall space on their portion of the building to place signage. They have placed that they've 04:20:55.834 --> 04:20:57.310 - got a freestanding sign and 04:20:57.474 --> 04:21:08.102 - panel. So we did not find unfortunately any peculiar conditions that would allow us to recommend approval 04:21:08.102 --> 04:21:18.127 - of this. So we are recommending denial with those three criteria and happy to answer any questions. 04:21:18.127 --> 04:21:23.742 - Petitioner is available online. Yes let's get petition. 04:21:31.234 --> 04:21:41.468 - Layla you should be able to speak Yes, can you state your name please Do you swear or affirm that the 04:21:41.468 --> 04:21:52.606 - testimony about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Thank you, you may proceed 04:22:04.386 --> 04:22:17.920 - So the challenge here for them is that if we're to increase the visibility and actually have the potential 04:22:17.920 --> 04:22:26.142 - to have success in our location, they want to include their name 04:22:53.314 --> 04:23:04.675 - Thank you. Do you have anything else to add or you still have some time later if you need anything? 04:23:04.675 --> 04:23:16.149 - Thank you. You guys have any questions? I've got a couple. Go ahead. When was this building built? I 04:23:16.149 --> 04:23:22.398 - have no idea. I would just be guessing eighties maybe. 04:23:26.402 --> 04:23:36.957 - First say it was built way before we adopted the current UDO Yes The prohibition on off-premise signs 04:23:36.957 --> 04:23:47.305 - though has been in the zoning code since at least 73 But we're talking about wall signs Yeah, but I 04:23:47.305 --> 04:23:51.134 - mean the same same difference. Oh, I 04:23:51.906 --> 04:24:01.714 - The language in the UDO has been refined to say, you know, signs have to be on tenant spaces, but off-premise 04:24:01.714 --> 04:24:10.631 - signs have been in there and regulated since at least 73. 74 1974. Yeah, I'll say look like 70s. So 04:24:10.631 --> 04:24:20.350 - is this an existing sign? Eric, the larger sign where she's talking about they want to add their name to it. 04:24:20.898 --> 04:24:32.171 - So the the sign that wants to go up is the jump ago sign And so that is the sign I can put this back 04:24:32.171 --> 04:24:43.555 - up. I'm not sure it would be located on the bottom of But it's you know, I guess the the question for 04:24:43.555 --> 04:24:49.694 - me is like just some personal experience The wall sign 04:24:50.050 --> 04:25:01.519 - regulations Make some big assumptions about uniform building design and I you know, there's not a floor 04:25:01.519 --> 04:25:12.988 - plan here. So it's not clear to me how the Tenant suites are Divided up within the building. Yeah, it's 04:25:12.988 --> 04:25:17.950 - kind of I'm sorry to interrupt you so I mean 04:25:18.082 --> 04:25:27.410 - You know, there's the assumption in the code that you have some kind of uniform, you know, suite development 04:25:27.410 --> 04:25:36.395 - that makes it possible that your wall sign per tenant can be adjacent to the tenant space, which doesn't 04:25:36.395 --> 04:25:45.123 - always really work. You know, so I think some flexibility is in order when it comes to these kinds of 04:25:45.123 --> 04:25:47.006 - things and especially 04:25:47.458 --> 04:25:57.126 - when you look at the Just the practicality of where you would want signage on a property that sits the 04:25:57.126 --> 04:26:06.607 - way this one does it on off 2nd Street And then when we have findings To me, you know These findings 04:26:06.607 --> 04:26:15.806 - are always tricky, but the most important ones would be is it injurious and the finding is no and 04:26:16.514 --> 04:26:24.783 - Will it have a negative impact on, uh, you know, other properties? Uh, the findings? No. But 04:26:24.783 --> 04:26:34.118 - we're interpreting, um, the third one is saying that somehow there's no way that there's anything unique 04:26:34.118 --> 04:26:43.454 - about this property that would warrant, uh, approving the variance. Um, and I just, I think that's where 04:26:43.454 --> 04:26:45.054 - we have to impose 04:26:45.794 --> 04:26:59.278 - Just some, I mean, for lack of a better term, flexibility. And so, I mean, that's just my point of view. 04:26:59.278 --> 04:27:12.377 - I mean, I would be inclined to modify that final finding and recommend that we do approve the request 04:27:12.377 --> 04:27:14.046 - of variance. 04:27:14.978 --> 04:27:24.516 - as depicted in the For the specific sign that's been You know depicted in the staff report. I guess 04:27:24.516 --> 04:27:34.339 - it's 120 by 12 Yeah, a foot by six feet I mean that's just a comment so I defer to my other colleagues 04:27:34.339 --> 04:27:44.926 - here on whether They have a similar point of view. I Guess I do have a question for the petitioner if you know 04:27:45.954 --> 04:27:57.674 - where in the building this business is located. Is it imperative that they there have their name there 04:27:57.674 --> 04:28:09.167 - too because they want to be seen. Yeah. So their location is actually on the lower level on the back 04:28:09.167 --> 04:28:14.174 - side. Yeah. It does not have any direction. 04:28:20.962 --> 04:28:33.210 - Yeah, so I would say that is a practical difficulty. Then you're trying to mark your place of business, 04:28:33.210 --> 04:28:43.102 - and people can't find you. All right. Let's go now that we have any more questions. 04:28:49.794 --> 04:29:03.118 - All right, let's go to public comment. If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this, 04:29:03.118 --> 04:29:17.242 - please use the raise hand function. We can recognize you. I don't think there's anybody left. Everybody's 04:29:17.242 --> 04:29:18.974 - asleep? Yes. 04:29:20.226 --> 04:29:27.693 - Well, all right, then I'm going to go ahead back to the board then I like to propose an amendment to 04:29:27.693 --> 04:29:35.086 - the third finding and it would read that a strict application of the terms of the udio would result 04:29:35.086 --> 04:29:42.627 - in practical difficulties in the use of the property the unique configuration of the building and the 04:29:42.627 --> 04:29:46.398 - tenants lease base creates challenges in achieving 04:29:46.498 --> 04:29:55.148 - Adequate sign visibility that is practical and functional for the intended business uses the existing 04:29:55.148 --> 04:30:03.798 - permitted signage including the 32 Square foot sign. I think that's the right dimensions foot sign on 04:30:03.798 --> 04:30:12.702 - the south side of the building and the new panel of the freestanding sign on fronting East Second Street 04:30:15.490 --> 04:30:28.243 - does not provide sufficient visibility for the tenants businesses given the property specific design 04:30:28.243 --> 04:30:41.375 - and conditions. And then with that amended finding, I would make a motion that we approve the requested 04:30:41.375 --> 04:30:43.774 - wall sign variants 04:30:45.762 --> 04:31:02.186 - And that the condition would be that it is any sign would be consistent with the size placement and 04:31:02.186 --> 04:31:15.326 - design depicted in the staff report. Roll call please bro. Yes. Fernandez. Yes. 04:31:15.778 --> 04:31:22.366 - Yes. Thank you. Congratulations. We are adjourned.